6 ms·

> Buxton himself could be self-effacing about his actions, saying he did not anticipate the vitriolic reaction of some health officials when he started question

> Buxton himself could be self-effacing about his actions, saying he did not anticipate the vitriolic reaction of some health officials when he started questioning the study’s ethics. Humans relentlessly believe themselves to be just and righteous. To maintain that self-sense, they will gladly deceive themselves — and often much worse.

somenameforme 2y ago
Yip, I think this is the main moral to be taken from this incident, and many like it. It's not like the people carrying out these experiments were just sadistic racists. They probably saw themselves as being able to, in the long run, save far more people and create a greater, safer, and healthier society for everybody, being able to eventually treat not only syphilis but any other disease which may manifest similarly. About the time somebody starts arguing that the ends justifies the means, something has probably gone wrong. Because the "ends" people envision quite rarely come to pass, yet the means of trying to pursue those ends do, with 100% certainty, happen. So most often you end up with all the evils, and none of the utopian justifications at the end of the road.
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  Sounds like a lot of startups.
- max_ 2y ago
  I don't think a racist ever thought about themselves as racists. Racism is usually a notion of people having an explanation for why they behave towards another race. There are always explanations. I don't think there is any racist that doesn't have an explanation. For American slavery it was that "African Americans" are just animals, not human. So it made sense to use/teat them like donkeys or vermin. In Nazi Germany, the explanation was that Jews are veramin and so veramin needs to be exterminated. In South Africa it was a "scientific" theory they had called Holism [0] which basically described that everything should be kept in its place hence apartheid policies. In Gaza the explanation is religious i.e God have us land X, and this we need to cleanse the land of it's "invaders". Also, look at caste systems in India. They have explanations of why they do that. They don't see themselves as racist. The explanations still occur today using "statistics", "data", & "science" with stuff like IQ "research" & "race realism". "Racist" is something we project on people. But racists always think they actually have a Nobel or logical cause for thier activities. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_and_Evolution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_and_Evolution
  - echoangle 2y ago
    What’s your definition of racism? White supremacists are certainly racist and would probably tell you that they are racist, too. That’s their whole message. Nazi Germany Leaders would probably have been ok with having been called racist, too. They were talking about being superior than other races all the time.
    - max_ 2y ago
      I think a black man declaring all white people evil vampires is racist. But we seldom call oppressed minorities racist. My definition of racism is the application racial stereotypes to individuals & groups
      - b112 2y ago
        For me, it depends upon how the 'groups' part is applied. An example that seems sexist: women love shoes. However, this isn't sexist... it's simply statistically true. Where *isms come into play, where sexism occurs, is seeing the individual and then thinking "Ah, a woman... clearly she must love shoes". Applying group derived statistical fact to individuals is where racism, sexism occurs. Another example, black people in America show lower outcomes on IQ tests. There is a lot of debate as to why, whether it is genetic (an example, do Black people have less incidents of autism? Autism is often correlated with mental issues, but also conversely with higher test scores in some areas.) But really, it doesn't matter why. Whether it is genetic, whether it is cultural, or what. What matters is that we understand the group statistic exists, but that no matter what we do not simply apply such thought processes to the individual. After all, a few percentage in group testing has no basis for determining if the person in front of me is capable or not. I've met (as an example) some very unintelligent white people, and some very intelligent black people, a few percentage difference as a group is not relevant here. Yet if we pretend group differences don't exist, how can we possible try to fix it.. if it is cultural? Or worse, what if it is environmental, such as... poor nutrition which hurts brain development during youth? Such things can be fixed, yet if we pretend there is no difference, how can we try to fix it? So again, the primary must be to treat individuals as just that, and treat groups as just that, otherwise.. how are we being fair?
- LanceH 2y ago
  > They probably saw themselves as being able to, in the long run, save far more people and create a greater, safer, and healthier society for everybody It's easy to view this as bad in this article's case, but nobody views their version of getting to play god when it comes to politics so long as their side is in charge. And the funny thing about this statement is how volatile a reaction it will get from both sides who think assume I'm supporting one or the other.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    > It's easy to view this as bad in this article's case, but nobody views their version of getting to play god when it comes to politics so long as their side is in charge This is just lazy rhetoric. Some political groups go murder crazy as soon as they gain power, while others don't. Obviously not everybody is equally bad as everybody else.
    - DFHippie 2y ago
      Yes, and the more you convince people that everyone is equally bad, the more you empower bad actors. If there is no profit in being good and there is profit in being bad, being good is for suckers. If everyone's a thief, you'd better start stealing. Otherwise you're just a victim.
      - jonathanlydall 2y ago
        In fantasy arguments I have in my head about someone justifying their bad behaviour with “but everyone does it”, my reply would be, “most people I know don’t do it, so it’s definitely not everyone, just people like you”.
        DFHippie 2y ago
        "Everyone does it" translates to "I don't think I will suffer consequences from doing it". It's a justification based on self-interest, not ethics. It looks like they are applying a version of Kant's Categorical Imperative, which is roughly "what if everyone did it?" The justifier is saying everyone does do it and everything is fine. The proof is in the pudding. But as you say, if literally everyone did it, they wouldn't be having this conversation with you. So what they mean by "everyone" is "enough people that I'm safe".
- anal_reactor 2y ago
  > Because the "ends" people envision quite rarely come to pass, yet the means of trying to pursue those ends do, with 100% certainty, happen. So most often you end up with all the evils, and none of the utopian justifications at the end of the road. So what you basically say is that we should always follow the path of least evil at the current moment. It's strange to me to think that someone would say that this is indeed the optimal way to minimize evil.
thephyber 2y ago
In _Beyond the Curve_ a writer put it succinctly: > Nobody thinks they are the Ursula of their story. I think it is the human condition that our ego protects itself by denying truth in order to “protect” our psyche from acknowledging that we may have done something extremely morally compromising.
- ImHereToVote 2y ago
  I wonder if Ursula von der Leyen thinks she is the Ursula of her story?
neilv 2y ago
That might be too generous. What if the vitriolic reaction was due to the threat of external repercussions from that information being revealed, rather than threat to internal self-image?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
ImHereToVote 2y ago
It's a good thing we don't have labs that do these amoral experiments currently. It's always by sheer luck that such atrocities always happen in the past.
hiatus 2y ago
We have known this for ages, hence the adage, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

somenameforme 2y ago

Yip, I think this is the main moral to be taken from this incident, and many like it. It's not like the people carrying out these experiments were just sadistic racists. They probably saw themselves as being able to, in the long run, save far more people and create a greater, safer, and healthier society for everybody, being able to eventually treat not only syphilis but any other disease which may manifest similarly. About the time somebody starts arguing that the ends justifies the means, something has probably gone wrong. Because the "ends" people envision quite rarely come to pass, yet the means of trying to pursue those ends do, with 100% certainty, happen. So most often you end up with all the evils, and none of the utopian justifications at the end of the road.

kerkeslager 2y ago
Sounds like a lot of startups.
max_ 2y ago
I don't think a racist ever thought about themselves as racists. Racism is usually a notion of people having an explanation for why they behave towards another race. There are always explanations. I don't think there is any racist that doesn't have an explanation. For American slavery it was that "African Americans" are just animals, not human. So it made sense to use/teat them like donkeys or vermin. In Nazi Germany, the explanation was that Jews are veramin and so veramin needs to be exterminated. In South Africa it was a "scientific" theory they had called Holism [0] which basically described that everything should be kept in its place hence apartheid policies. In Gaza the explanation is religious i.e God have us land X, and this we need to cleanse the land of it's "invaders". Also, look at caste systems in India. They have explanations of why they do that. They don't see themselves as racist. The explanations still occur today using "statistics", "data", & "science" with stuff like IQ "research" & "race realism". "Racist" is something we project on people. But racists always think they actually have a Nobel or logical cause for thier activities. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_and_Evolution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_and_Evolution
- echoangle 2y ago
  What’s your definition of racism? White supremacists are certainly racist and would probably tell you that they are racist, too. That’s their whole message. Nazi Germany Leaders would probably have been ok with having been called racist, too. They were talking about being superior than other races all the time.
  - max_ 2y ago
    I think a black man declaring all white people evil vampires is racist. But we seldom call oppressed minorities racist. My definition of racism is the application racial stereotypes to individuals & groups
    - b112 2y ago
      For me, it depends upon how the 'groups' part is applied. An example that seems sexist: women love shoes. However, this isn't sexist... it's simply statistically true. Where *isms come into play, where sexism occurs, is seeing the individual and then thinking "Ah, a woman... clearly she must love shoes". Applying group derived statistical fact to individuals is where racism, sexism occurs. Another example, black people in America show lower outcomes on IQ tests. There is a lot of debate as to why, whether it is genetic (an example, do Black people have less incidents of autism? Autism is often correlated with mental issues, but also conversely with higher test scores in some areas.) But really, it doesn't matter why. Whether it is genetic, whether it is cultural, or what. What matters is that we understand the group statistic exists, but that no matter what we do not simply apply such thought processes to the individual. After all, a few percentage in group testing has no basis for determining if the person in front of me is capable or not. I've met (as an example) some very unintelligent white people, and some very intelligent black people, a few percentage difference as a group is not relevant here. Yet if we pretend group differences don't exist, how can we possible try to fix it.. if it is cultural? Or worse, what if it is environmental, such as... poor nutrition which hurts brain development during youth? Such things can be fixed, yet if we pretend there is no difference, how can we try to fix it? So again, the primary must be to treat individuals as just that, and treat groups as just that, otherwise.. how are we being fair?
LanceH 2y ago
> They probably saw themselves as being able to, in the long run, save far more people and create a greater, safer, and healthier society for everybody It's easy to view this as bad in this article's case, but nobody views their version of getting to play god when it comes to politics so long as their side is in charge. And the funny thing about this statement is how volatile a reaction it will get from both sides who think assume I'm supporting one or the other.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  > It's easy to view this as bad in this article's case, but nobody views their version of getting to play god when it comes to politics so long as their side is in charge This is just lazy rhetoric. Some political groups go murder crazy as soon as they gain power, while others don't. Obviously not everybody is equally bad as everybody else.
  - DFHippie 2y ago
    Yes, and the more you convince people that everyone is equally bad, the more you empower bad actors. If there is no profit in being good and there is profit in being bad, being good is for suckers. If everyone's a thief, you'd better start stealing. Otherwise you're just a victim.
    - jonathanlydall 2y ago
      In fantasy arguments I have in my head about someone justifying their bad behaviour with “but everyone does it”, my reply would be, “most people I know don’t do it, so it’s definitely not everyone, just people like you”.
      - DFHippie 2y ago
        "Everyone does it" translates to "I don't think I will suffer consequences from doing it". It's a justification based on self-interest, not ethics. It looks like they are applying a version of Kant's Categorical Imperative, which is roughly "what if everyone did it?" The justifier is saying everyone does do it and everything is fine. The proof is in the pudding. But as you say, if literally everyone did it, they wouldn't be having this conversation with you. So what they mean by "everyone" is "enough people that I'm safe".
anal_reactor 2y ago
> Because the "ends" people envision quite rarely come to pass, yet the means of trying to pursue those ends do, with 100% certainty, happen. So most often you end up with all the evils, and none of the utopian justifications at the end of the road. So what you basically say is that we should always follow the path of least evil at the current moment. It's strange to me to think that someone would say that this is indeed the optimal way to minimize evil.

thephyber 2y ago

In _Beyond the Curve_ a writer put it succinctly: > Nobody thinks they are the Ursula of their story. I think it is the human condition that our ego protects itself by denying truth in order to “protect” our psyche from acknowledging that we may have done something extremely morally compromising.

ImHereToVote 2y ago
I wonder if Ursula von der Leyen thinks she is the Ursula of her story?

neilv 2y ago

That might be too generous. What if the vitriolic reaction was due to the threat of external repercussions from that information being revealed, rather than threat to internal self-image?

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

ImHereToVote 2y ago

It's a good thing we don't have labs that do these amoral experiments currently. It's always by sheer luck that such atrocities always happen in the past.

hiatus 2y ago

We have known this for ages, hence the adage, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."