A question of morals

[nsqared]

I watched some crime show the other night that involved a brilliant scientist who was killed by his insane wife. I started thinking:
If it was found that some scientist had committed some major crimes (manslaughter, kidnapping, etc) for the sake of testing a new drug they had created that would cure most major diseases, what would you do?
would you let them go, or send them to jail for their crimes?

 

[Kurai Angelo]

If it was a legitimately funded research and all the paticipants knew the risk then he can hardly go to jail for it. If he was doing it on the sly then, yeah, he would have broken the law and have to go to jail regardless of his results.

 

[Lev The Red]

i'm a consequentialist, so i wouldn't care.

 

[DEAD34345]

If it was a legitimately funded research and all the paticipants knew the risk then he can hardly go to jail for it. If he was doing it on the sly then, yeah, he would have broken the law and have to go to jail regardless of his results.

You know it was a moral question, not a legal question?

OT: I don't know, I think I'd probably want him to go to jail. I don't think I'd trust someone like that to be free after committing those kinds of crimes, even if it turned out to be more helpful than harmful this time. Someone like that would have to be pretty callous in the first place, so who's to say he won't carry on with his "testing"?

 

[spartan231490]

If it was a legitimately funded research and all the paticipants knew the risk then he can hardly go to jail for it. If he was doing it on the sly then, yeah, he would have broken the law and have to go to jail regardless of his results.

^this
No one, can be above the law. Also, the ends do not always justify the means. There is no guarantee of success in research, and there is no way uncertainty can justify cruelty.

 

[dvd_72]

This is really a question of "do the ends justify the means?". I'm assuming here that he tested this hypothetical drug on people who didn't agree to be tested.

Yes, I think he should be sent to jail. He's ended lives and broken families against peoples will. He took away the choice of what to do with thier lives, and for that he should be punished.

Now, if the ones who died knew that there was a significant risk, then it's all good. They knew what they where getting into and chose to risk thier lives for the eventual saving of millions.

 

[the rye]

hmmm, how about we say to the public that he will be sent to prison but secretly we provide him a research facility and provide him with the necessary resources to carry out his research. He will not be allowed to leave the facility and he would have limited freedom though. FOR SCIENCE.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I agree with if it was a legit reseach with voluteers than he/ she wouldn't go to jail.

I suppose the alternative is that this scientist is lock away but he/ she can still perform the experiment under heavy supervision by the authority. Sure that doesn't sound much of an punishment but the real punishment is that he/ she is trap in within those wall for a certain amount of years (depend on how big his crime were otherwise he/ she will never be free).
Sure the scientist can quit and he/ she would be a prisoner but he/ she would still be monitor.

 

[Thaluikhain]

An awkward issue. But, well, Nazi scientists won the space race and all.

 

[JoJo]

Send them to jail, but still use the drug since there's no point wasting something which has already been created. As a university science student I can't think of any legitimate justication for going around ethics and morality, there is always an ethical alternative (even if it takes longer).

 

[Nergy]

If the cure could save the lives of thousands or even millions. While the scientist should be punished for using methods than maybe didn't necessarily need to do (you'd be surprised who would volunteer for such experiments). That wouldn't make his findings invalid. In fact it would probably be an insult to not use them simply because of the inventor's ethics.

"The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few"

 

[TheRundownRabbit]

I'm an avid supporter of "the ends don't justify the means". Its not up to the rest of humanity to gamble with one innocent persons life, and I find it depressing and disgusting that the only way we have to solve a problem like this involves taking at least one life. But if it has to be that way, then at least use a condemned-to-death criminal. I think I just can't accept that life is unfair either way.

 

[Batou667]

An unpopular stance, but I think that the ends DO justify the means. This guy wasn't just being a sadist for the fun of it, or putting people's lives at risk for trivial purposes.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

No exeptions, the law is there for a reason.
I don't care if you cure cancer with the spines of children. The point is you didn't ask for them.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

If the participants knew about it beforehand, let him free.
If not, publish his research and send him to jail.