3 ms·

> We had the option to do the right thing (burn it, put it on display), but we validated it. I'm not sure complete amnesty was the best thing to do, but I don'

> We had the option to do the right thing (burn it, put it on display), but we validated it. I'm not sure complete amnesty was the best thing to do, but I don't think destroying the data would be the best either. If we had burned the data that was already gathered, it would have been a complete waste of human life. Those people experimented on were murdered, and burning the data would have made those murders pointless. By using that data, we could prevent human death in the future.

crankylinuxuser 9y ago
If I remember correctly, there was also a similar set of unethical decisions in Nazi Germany that generated a body of knowledge of how humans survive under "situations", like lack of oxygen, rapid-(de)pressurization, decompression, % body burned and live. Just a whole lot of horrible things. The problem was, this was done scientifically. Controls, and all that. The problem was they were intentionally treating their subjects (Jewish) like lab rats. But when WWII ended, we realized some of their data could be used for the space race. And the US used it. The ethical issues here are all encompassing. Do you get rid of it and let them die in vain? Do you use it, and benefit on people executed over genocide conditions? There's no good way to answer this, as the converse has a valid argument as well. I look back and say, well, I was born in the early 80's. It's about 60 years before my time (would have to be born in the 20's to serve in the 40's).
sitkack 9y ago
Those same perverse incentives also power the perpetrators. We absolutely need to destroy all ill gotten gains without question. All deaths are pointless, even our own when lived out naturally. But deaths that power a vile knowledge, that knowledge cannot, must not live. Because when you allow it, even for an instant, you make it ok. And it will happen again, and the perpetrator will feel like they are doing good. And the receiver will feel like they are respecting the life given, but in fact it is a perfectly crafted crime. The gains must destroyed, every time, without question.

crankylinuxuser 9y ago

If I remember correctly, there was also a similar set of unethical decisions in Nazi Germany that generated a body of knowledge of how humans survive under "situations", like lack of oxygen, rapid-(de)pressurization, decompression, % body burned and live. Just a whole lot of horrible things. The problem was, this was done scientifically. Controls, and all that. The problem was they were intentionally treating their subjects (Jewish) like lab rats. But when WWII ended, we realized some of their data could be used for the space race. And the US used it. The ethical issues here are all encompassing. Do you get rid of it and let them die in vain? Do you use it, and benefit on people executed over genocide conditions? There's no good way to answer this, as the converse has a valid argument as well. I look back and say, well, I was born in the early 80's. It's about 60 years before my time (would have to be born in the 20's to serve in the 40's).

sitkack 9y ago

Those same perverse incentives also power the perpetrators. We absolutely need to destroy all ill gotten gains without question. All deaths are pointless, even our own when lived out naturally. But deaths that power a vile knowledge, that knowledge cannot, must not live. Because when you allow it, even for an instant, you make it ok. And it will happen again, and the perpetrator will feel like they are doing good. And the receiver will feel like they are respecting the life given, but in fact it is a perfectly crafted crime. The gains must destroyed, every time, without question.