I read recently that some of the data gained by Nazi experiments on humans is still useful to science. Much of it was total rubbish, but some wasn’t. In particular, a sizeable proportion of what we know about the effects of extreme low temperatures on the body is derived from a series of German experiments on Russian prisoners of war.
The ethical dilemma is this: should we use this data, considering how it was obtained, or, conversely, by using it to help others are we, even in a small way, honouring those who died to obtain it?
In fact, the data is used all the time. Knowledge, however obtained, cannot be put back in the box.
The fact that when Air/~Sea rescue pull people out of the water in the UK, they now do it horizontally, has led to the survival of many people that would otherwise have died from blood pressure stress.
This is wholly due to the fact that the Nazis would put people in freezing water until they died.
To go back and start pulling people out of the water vertically, and compromise their survival would not be a good idea.
I think this is a case where there is a rupture between the “ends justifies the means”.
If we use it, then more people will use such techniques knowing the importance, if not the means, will be accepted. Scientist tend to be insulated and feel, if not invincible, at least not threatened and a possible commodity when regimes change.
This doesn’t stop the ideas from being studied non the less, just is very rare given the stigma for it to be attributed.
That’s it? That’s your post? “Slippery Slope Fallacy”?
I once knew this guy who, basically in any argument that he was in, would blurt out some fallacy name. “Straw Man.” “Affirming the consequent.” etc.
He was usually wrong about whatever fallacy he was calling out. But, even if he wasn’t wrong, it’s not good form to simply blurt out a fallacy name. If you’re going to blurt out ‘Straw Man,’ for example, you should at the very least point out which part was a misrepresentation of the position in question.
Slippery Slope arguments are not necessarily fallacious. Some things really are slippery slopes. You can’t just blurt out ‘Slippery Slope Fallacy’ every time someone makes a slippery slope argument. Maybe the slope IS slippery.
Now, in this particular example, I don’t believe the slope is slippery. I don’t believe that pulling someone out of the water in a safe way will actually cause people to do inhumane human experiments. So I agree that the ‘slippery slope’ in question was an inaccurate argument. But I don’t think a post solely consisting of ‘Slippery Slope Fallacy’ is really a great or enlightening response. Say something more. Say what’s wrong with it. Specifically. It’s not enough to just blurt out whatever fallacy name comes to mind when you disagree with someone.
Agreed flannel. I argued almost to the death once that a “fallacy” as we’re most often called out on is in most cases more likely an indicator that you were using some kind of language than that you were making some kind of mistake. I remember hearing these guys behind me in a class once whispering about how they were going to just use the fallacy of induction against everyone today and I sat there while they just kept on and it cracked me up.
I don’t believe in logical fallacies Hobbes, I presented more than a slippery slope agreement too, if you caught the end, causing a transubstaition to occur in its cognitive mapping. Therefor the claim slippery slope isn’t correct, as I phased in a utilitarian-technical matrix to the information sandwich.
You just focused in on the categorization of a fallacy, I stratified the stromata against the strategemata.
(kudos by the way for the critique of the spouting out of a non-supported charge of fallacy) That said, I don’t Think CN was arguing that the good use of the knowledge would cause the slide, but rather the knowledge that unethical research will end up getting used would or might cause the slide.
The Nazi regime was shattered and their country was put under foreign Control. So the research would not have benefited, directly that is, Germany. But the US and other countries did sneak out a number of researchers, including some rather unethical ones. And then some of the research will likely be used, even of those who did not get out.
I tend to agree with your assessment overall that it is ok, but I don’t want to Close the door. I also want to Point out that my agreement is based on intuition and I would Think yours is also. It is often easy to only assess the easy to track effects. But what will be the effects on researchers who are obsessed by getting the truth by whatever means. Will they be spurred on by the knowledge that their research will be used regardless of society’s punishment or judgment of them as researchers?
And what are the effects of not using the research. First directly, we have the relatively easy to track effects like how to deal with people who have been in Cold water, etc. But might there not be other effects some very subtle. To not use the research and very publically destroy it…might this not possibly have good effects, both on future researchers and perhaps on humans in general. A clear stand against ends justfiy means arguments.
I don’t know. In the specific case, well there is so much judgment aimed at these particular researchers, perhaps the difference is less. But in the Corporate World, where actually tracking the Money and beneficiaries may be tough, I am not sure some severe precedents might nto be a good idea. Otherwise we can have labs set up in developing countries - just to pull an idea out of a hat - then blame Place on scapegoats or minions. They later supposedly disconnected parties are ready to pounce on the research and benefit.
An overlapping issue.
If it turns out that the research does save more lives than it cost and reduces suffering more than it caused, would this, for all the utilitarians/consequentialists in the audiance mean that the research was ethical?
Earth-bound researchers tend to be humans, and humans don’t tend to value their research more than their own life and well-being. They might value the research more than someone else’s life and well-being, but…unless you’re talking about an absolute lunatic, not their own. So I really doubt that very many scientists will think, “Oh, if I do this research, I’ll be convicted of crimes against humanity and likely spend the rest of my life in prison, but I don’t mind as long as my research is getting used.” I’m not an expert on human psychology, but…that doesn’t seem like a strong enough motivation. I don’t think there are many humans who exist who are willing to commit crimes against humanity AND spend the rest of their lives in prison just to find out some facts.
You have to think about actual motivations for doing this research. The fact that people will use it isn’t a strong enough motivation in this case. What motivated the German ones to do it?
[] They likely didn’t expect to get caught, thinking Germany would win the war
[] They likely had a deep hatred for the Jews they were torturing, and weren’t concerned with their pain
[*] It’s possible that many of them were being coerced into doing the research, and they wouldn’t have done it otherwise
So, it’s the ‘regardless of society’s punishment’ part that I take issue with. Some scientists might do inhumane research if they’re sure they won’t be punished, but it’s not very human to care about your research more than your own life and well-being.
We kill animals for scientific research all the time. Just throwing that out there - not making an argument one way or another. I will say though, I think a lot of research is unnecessary and comes at a cost. Sometimes a very high cost.
I Think it is more like they a significant number will take risks along these lines. The risk assessment will be intuitive, to a great degree, and influenced by a whole set of rationalizations, that without thinking it all through really carefully, may seem likely to ward off future suffereing on their own parts. IOW the whole process may be filled with denial and fallacies of various kinds.
I just want to raise the issue that if stands were taken against even using the research, this might raise Another flag, and one that fights against the core of the obsession. I am not saying I weight down on the side of ‘don’t use it’, but I feel like time and concern needs to be spent there.
And even more nebulous cause, is what we would be saying to each other if we say we would not use the research. Perhaps that respect - in part in honor of those who died - might have positive effects on how we see and treat eachother, but in ways that are very hard to track. Because such things are hard to track we often analyze as if they are not there.
What about respect for the people in freezing cold water who are still alive, and who we know how to pull out of the water safely, but we’re just like “Nah we respect the dead so we’ll pull you out the wrong way and you’ll die now.” What about respect for the living?
I don’t see that refusing to use that information will lead to any more ‘respect’ of anything, I don’t think it will make anybody less obsessed than they would have been otherwise, and I think it will immensely upset anybody who knows about it when they realize that living people are being put at risk because the people saving them don’t think it’s politically correct to save them the safe way. That’s the only flag I see being raised. That would be the center piece of the entire issue. Nobody would take notice of the alleged respect for the dead, what people would notice is that we’re not saving people half as well as we could, and people would rightly be pissed off about that. Mothers with sons who got pulled out of the water the wrong way, wailing on camera when they found out the rescue team pulled him out the wrong way because they were legally obliged to out of ‘respect for the dead’ and so her sons’ blood boiled. That’s what people are going to notice. They’ll forget about ‘respect for the dead’ pretty damn quick in the face of that.
This whole argument is brain-dead. It has no merit whatever. I cannot imagine why or how you could possibly justify rejecting matters of fact that might be of use.
On what puritanical basis could such an argument be put?
I don’t Think anywhere in my argument I am saying that these people’s needs should be ignored. And actually my concern is not directly for the dead, but rather for the living who could end up in this kind of situation. IOW if taking a stand against the use of the data would prevent some amount of this kind of abusive research in the future, living and future living people are positively affected. society takes other similar types of stands - where what would create a local benefit - the violation of the privacy of what we find out is a criminal leads to information that cannot be used in Court due to what we see as potentially worse general effects of allowing government to have free reign in that way.
Well, sure. I mean if the research has been analyzed, tested, and Tools have been developed that people know about, there is Little Point. But I could see simply throwing it in the trash Before that all happens.
That’s likely what the people on the street would notice yes. I Think the scientific Community, however, would notice if the results were thrown out Before analysis, testing, and use development. I don’t Think some Coast Guard guy who knows what to do with someone they are pulling out of the water should hold back her knowledge and use some less effective method. I don’t Think the Coast Guard trainers should withhold the information from their crews. I mean something way Before the information has been analyzed, tested for use, etc.
'And again, it’s not simply a respect for the dead in an of itself, but in the sense of how immoral research will be treated when it is found. This would affect the living.
