2 ms·

Not sure this is a valid argument; An unknown number of deaths[a] caused by possibly not developing a treatment, vs an unknown number of deaths[b] caused by pos

by cortic 8y ago

Not sure this is a valid argument; An unknown number of deaths[a] caused by possibly not developing a treatment, vs an unknown number of deaths[b] caused by possibly developing a treatment. Where as deaths[b] could be, in theory, a controlled and limited number of willing participants, deaths[a] could, in theory, be millions of disease victims. a is not fewer than b.

JetSpiegel 8y ago
Utilitarianism doesn't change the fact that it would be immoral to randomly kill a bunch of people for questionable gain, in a pharmaceutical setting. How many of those "willing participants" should be referred to a psychiatrist for suicidal tendencies, or are desperate people being exploited by the pharmaceutical industry.
- cortic 8y ago
  >Utilitarianism doesn't change the fact that it would be immoral to randomly kill a bunch of people for questionable gain, in a pharmaceutical setting. Actually loeg made the Utilitarianism argument 'well known downside[let sick people die]. The upside is we kill fewer humans' my disagreement was limited to the use of the word fewer. >How many of those "willing participants" [are willing] Good point. The best reasoning would be [for the test subjects] that in their current financial situation it makes sense to take this chance.. If this is immoral then we should be questioning every dangerous job out there. i don't know, maybe we should be. I feel like a lot of animal testing is worthless; And i get the impression its done to prove to the wrong people(CEOs Shareholders media) that we value human life. The point here is that it might very well cost human life, and not a small amount at that.
  - JetSpiegel 8y ago
    > If this is immoral then we should be questioning every dangerous job out there. Precisely, and for the same reasons. > I feel like a lot of animal testing is worthless; And i get the impression its done to prove to the wrong people(CEOs Shareholders media) that we value human life. I don't know enough about pharmaceutical testing, but I do feel the animal testing phases are a bureacratic requirement. As I'm not mistaken, when creating the Ebola vaccine is the last few years, many steps were skipped and large scale human testing happened very fast.

by cortic 8y ago

JetSpiegel 8y ago

Utilitarianism doesn't change the fact that it would be immoral to randomly kill a bunch of people for questionable gain, in a pharmaceutical setting. How many of those "willing participants" should be referred to a psychiatrist for suicidal tendencies, or are desperate people being exploited by the pharmaceutical industry.

cortic 8y ago
>Utilitarianism doesn't change the fact that it would be immoral to randomly kill a bunch of people for questionable gain, in a pharmaceutical setting. Actually loeg made the Utilitarianism argument 'well known downside[let sick people die]. The upside is we kill fewer humans' my disagreement was limited to the use of the word fewer. >How many of those "willing participants" [are willing] Good point. The best reasoning would be [for the test subjects] that in their current financial situation it makes sense to take this chance.. If this is immoral then we should be questioning every dangerous job out there. i don't know, maybe we should be. I feel like a lot of animal testing is worthless; And i get the impression its done to prove to the wrong people(CEOs Shareholders media) that we value human life. The point here is that it might very well cost human life, and not a small amount at that.
- JetSpiegel 8y ago
  > If this is immoral then we should be questioning every dangerous job out there. Precisely, and for the same reasons. > I feel like a lot of animal testing is worthless; And i get the impression its done to prove to the wrong people(CEOs Shareholders media) that we value human life. I don't know enough about pharmaceutical testing, but I do feel the animal testing phases are a bureacratic requirement. As I'm not mistaken, when creating the Ebola vaccine is the last few years, many steps were skipped and large scale human testing happened very fast.