3 ms·

Well, if the research can prove and point out to the general public that this kind of false memory already widely affects serious matters such as criminal inves

by nsajko 12y ago

Well, if the research can prove and point out to the general public that this kind of false memory already widely affects serious matters such as criminal investigation it is probably okay.

eutectic 12y ago
As a society we seem to weight positive harm much more heavily than negative consequences averted. It might not be the best way of looking at things but it seems to be a deeply ingrained aspect of human nature.
- pwr22 12y ago
  Well in this case it is weighing up potential benefits for everyone forever vs some negative for a few people. How we respond to that depends on our individual ethical dispositions
colordrops 12y ago
What if we could cure cancer and heart disease by physically debilitating a few dozen people? Would that also be okay?
- firethief 12y ago
  Of course. Debilitating a few dozen people is nothing compared to the harm caused by cancer and heart disease, and if we had a choice between the two it would be wrong to pick the greater evil. Is the premise of the question that choosing inaction adverts culpability, in a situation where either outcome is abhorrent? But inaction has only the appearance of innocence: if you really have the choice of which outcome will occur, you cannot absolve yourself of responsibility by going with a default. The fact that the greater evil is the status quo doesn't make it a more ethical choice.
  - k-mcgrady 12y ago
    >> "Of course. Debilitating a few dozen people is nothing compared to the harm caused by cancer and heart disease, and if we had a choice between the two it would be wrong to pick the greater evil." You say that like it's fact but it's your opinion based on your ethics. There's also information we don't know. Are these people volunteering or being selected against their will? Either way it would also be fine to argue that the rights of those people are so important that society can't debilitate them even if it solves cancer and heart disease. Everybody has to die of something so why ruin these peoples lives when the people saved by not getting heart disease/cancer die from something else anyway?
    - pwr22 12y ago
      From the standpoint of maximising human survival it is the right call
  - vegedor 12y ago
    >if we had a choice between the two it would be wrong to pick the greater evil. No, you can't compare the two because the evil is completely different. It's not really my opinion, but a common ethical standpoint that is laid out in the Human Rights, i.e. life is invaluable. IMHO that says nothing about voluntary test subjects. Anyhow, volunteering in good faith of unclear conditions hardly qualifies as exercise of free will, e.g. if anything but the outcome of the test itself is the reward. If the target of the test is vaguely described, not only the result was the reward, but also knowing what was tested to begin with. Therefore it could not be a freely willing decision. For example and just to put things in perspective: Cancer and heart diseases might be prevented other ways (choosing a healthy life-style?); Aging 120 or 60 is not a sufficient basis to value the content of life.
- spacefight 12y ago
  "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

by nsajko 12y ago

Well, if the research can prove and point out to the general public that this kind of false memory already widely affects serious matters such as criminal investigation it is probably okay.

eutectic 12y ago

As a society we seem to weight positive harm much more heavily than negative consequences averted. It might not be the best way of looking at things but it seems to be a deeply ingrained aspect of human nature.

pwr22 12y ago
Well in this case it is weighing up potential benefits for everyone forever vs some negative for a few people. How we respond to that depends on our individual ethical dispositions

colordrops 12y ago

What if we could cure cancer and heart disease by physically debilitating a few dozen people? Would that also be okay?

firethief 12y ago
Of course. Debilitating a few dozen people is nothing compared to the harm caused by cancer and heart disease, and if we had a choice between the two it would be wrong to pick the greater evil. Is the premise of the question that choosing inaction adverts culpability, in a situation where either outcome is abhorrent? But inaction has only the appearance of innocence: if you really have the choice of which outcome will occur, you cannot absolve yourself of responsibility by going with a default. The fact that the greater evil is the status quo doesn't make it a more ethical choice.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  >> "Of course. Debilitating a few dozen people is nothing compared to the harm caused by cancer and heart disease, and if we had a choice between the two it would be wrong to pick the greater evil." You say that like it's fact but it's your opinion based on your ethics. There's also information we don't know. Are these people volunteering or being selected against their will? Either way it would also be fine to argue that the rights of those people are so important that society can't debilitate them even if it solves cancer and heart disease. Everybody has to die of something so why ruin these peoples lives when the people saved by not getting heart disease/cancer die from something else anyway?
  - pwr22 12y ago
    From the standpoint of maximising human survival it is the right call
- vegedor 12y ago
  >if we had a choice between the two it would be wrong to pick the greater evil. No, you can't compare the two because the evil is completely different. It's not really my opinion, but a common ethical standpoint that is laid out in the Human Rights, i.e. life is invaluable. IMHO that says nothing about voluntary test subjects. Anyhow, volunteering in good faith of unclear conditions hardly qualifies as exercise of free will, e.g. if anything but the outcome of the test itself is the reward. If the target of the test is vaguely described, not only the result was the reward, but also knowing what was tested to begin with. Therefore it could not be a freely willing decision. For example and just to put things in perspective: Cancer and heart diseases might be prevented other ways (choosing a healthy life-style?); Aging 120 or 60 is not a sufficient basis to value the content of life.
spacefight 12y ago
"Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/