4 ms·
Likely. You have to be able to see the trade offs and cascading effects. It is similar to the ethical question where if you reroute the train track it kills som
by Lost_BiomedE 12y ago
Likely. You have to be able to see the trade offs and cascading effects. It is similar to the ethical question where if you reroute the train track it kills someone and if you don't it kills two.
Of course, it is more hairy than that. There is an estimate of the number of people on the original track as well as a probability that the reroute does not save them.
- disbelief 12y agoThe ends don't justify the means for me. The study hopes to gain a better understanding of the early causes of anxiety and depression. We're not saving the human race here, we're not necessarily even saving lives. Even if a new treatment for depression were developed due to this research (which it probably won't), and you were clinically depressed, would you want to receive it knowing it was came about after the torture and eventual deaths of 20 baby monkeys? I wouldn't feel comfortable with that.
- Lost_BiomedE 12y agoIf it developed a better treatment or prevention for depression, lives would be saved. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with taking said treatment, but I know that others may have different feelings about that. The ends don't justify the means is a very valid ethical opinion, how relatively extreme it is in this case depends on the size of the possible award vs. the trade-off, which takes professional knowledge to properly estimate.