An Ethical Dilemma

[Xero Scythe]

I was thinking about the nazi human experiments, and a thought rose in my mind: Say there is a man dying of some horrible disease. Skin melts off, blood curdles, takes 3 insanely painful weeks to die, etc. However, the nazis found a cure to this disease from the deaths of thousands to millions of human test subjects, most likely composed mostly of Jews. However, the nazis discovered this very same disease and discovered the cure. Now, would you use this cure or let the man die?

However, I realize most of you will say use the damn cure. But let me pose this thought to you: Doesn't this mean the ends justify the means? So, killing 3,000,000 Jews is alright so long as results are found? Remember, a human life hangs in the balance, and there is no other cure, no other treatment. Do you let the man die, and have his blood on your hands, or do you cure him, and open the way for thousands of other evil experiments that will be performed in the public eye, and receive no repercussions so long as results are found?

Assume for this you are the most influential man in the world. Your decision affects the rest of history. You cannot back out. Finally, for one last twist: assume the cure requires the death or crippling of another human. Would you still make the same choice?

I'm interested in your opinions. This is obviously a lose-lose situation, but I want to see which you believe to be the lesser of two evils.

EDIT: Hmmm... perhaps this is poorly worded. I meant to say people will all assume you mean the ends justify the means if you choose to save the man, regardless of your true intentions, and lead to more cruel human experiments. I want to make this choice as tough as possible.

 

[Qizx]

Doesn't justify the ends, however if we already have the ends. Why waste it simply because of the means?

 

[w@rew0lf]

Just because the ends do not justify the means, does not mean the benefits cannot be reaped.

 

[theonlyblaze2]

I would use it if the disease was affecting more that just that one man.

 

[crudus]

The saving of one life justifying the suffering and ending of 3 million? I think not. However, just because those 3 million died, doesn't mean they need to die in vein. It is close to the debate surrounding the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

 

[cWg | Konka]

I have no problem with human experiments, alot of good has come from the over the years. Most of the medical knowledge we have come from them and to be honest I belive we should still do then, just use the dregs of society eg. Criminals and people who go on the jeremy kyle show. would do more good for humanity then they do at the moment

edit1: almost half of the experiments performed by the nazi's where worthless and cruel, but the rest are very useful and have saved many lives

 

[Irridium]

Well, we already use medical techniques and stuff the Nazi's developed from killing all those people. So by default, the cure would have already been mass produced.

EDIT: Also, what this guy said:

Refusing to use the knowledge gained will not bring the people back. So yes. I would use it.
At least their sacrifices would now have some tiny gain and not be a complete waste.

Basically my opinion on the matter word for word.

 

[Worgen]

japan did this in ww2 with all the experiments they did on the Chinese and captured solders

cruelty really advances medical science

 

[Shadowkire]

I was thinking about the nazi human experiments, and a thought rose in my mind: Say there is a man dying of some horrible disease. Skin melts off, blood curdles, takes 3 insanely painful weeks to die, etc. However, the nazis found a cure to this disease from the deaths of thousands to millions of human test subjects, most likely composed mostly of Jews. However, the nazis discovered this very same disease and discovered the cure. Now, would you use this cure or let the man die?

However, I realize most of you will say use the damn cure. But let me pose this thought to you: Doesn't this mean the ends justify the means? So, killing 3,000,000 Jews is alright so long as results are found? Remember, a human life hangs in the balance, and there is no other cure, no other treatment. Do you let the man die, and have his blood on your hands, or do you cure him, and open the way for thousands of other evil experiments that will be performed in the public eye, and receive no repercussions so long as results are found?

Assume for this you are the most influential man in the world. Your decision affects the rest of history. You cannot back out. Finally, for one last twist: assume the cure requires the death or crippling of another human. Would you still make the same choice?

I'm interested in your opinions. This is obviously a lose-lose situation, but I want to see which you believe to be the lesser of two evils.

From the wording of your question, yes I would take the cure.

At the same time I am not saying the ends justify the means, as your question is stated such that the thousands of people had already suffered to make the cure. To not use it at that point would make the suffering of the Nazis' victims be in vain.

As for the requirement of death/crippling of another human, as an influential man I would use my connection to give a death-row prisoner the choice of death or pardon and being crippled. If it requires death I find a death-row prison about to be put to death and use him, probably making a deal that I will help out any family s/he has after his/her passing.

 

[Yureina]

Use it... and make sure that every last Nazi involved with that sick research is either dead or spends the rest of their life in prison. The ends didn't justify the means. At all.

 

[Simskiller]

Humans are expendable.

You and your family always first.

Apathy FTW.

 

[Frungy]

I'm going to introduce a little spin to this. Use it, because it isn't fair for 1 living person to die for 3 or even 300 000 dead people (they're dead, no amount of not using the research will bring them back), however all the profits from selling the cure MUST go to the relatives of the dead. It simply isn't ethical for anyone to profit from that research, it belongs to the group that was brutalised to produce it.

I'm a firm believer that cosmetic companies should be forced to donate all their profits from lines involving animal testing to animal shelters.

 

[Astoria]

Well you've said that the nazis have already killed all these people so why wouldn't you use the cure? At least something good came from their deaths. If you were meaning that the nazis are saying that they will find a cure if they kill all those people then you have a delemma. I wouldn't let them because I'm guessing this is a rare disease and there aren't 3,000,000 or more people who have it so there would be a lot more people who died than were saved.

 

[Agayek]

I was thinking about the nazi human experiments, and a thought rose in my mind: Say there is a man dying of some horrible disease. Skin melts off, blood curdles, takes 3 insanely painful weeks to die, etc. However, the nazis found a cure to this disease from the deaths of thousands to millions of human test subjects, most likely composed mostly of Jews. However, the nazis discovered this very same disease and discovered the cure. Now, would you use this cure or let the man die?

However, I realize most of you will say use the damn cure. But let me pose this thought to you: Doesn't this mean the ends justify the means? So, killing 3,000,000 Jews is alright so long as results are found? Remember, a human life hangs in the balance, and there is no other cure, no other treatment. Do you let the man die, and have his blood on your hands, or do you cure him, and open the way for thousands of other evil experiments that will be performed in the public eye, and receive no repercussions so long as results are found?

Assume for this you are the most influential man in the world. Your decision affects the rest of history. You cannot back out. Finally, for one last twist: assume the cure requires the death or crippling of another human. Would you still make the same choice?

I'm interested in your opinions. This is obviously a lose-lose situation, but I want to see which you believe to be the lesser of two evils.

EDIT: Hmmm... perhaps this is poorly worded. I meant to say people will all assume you mean the ends justify the means if you choose to save the man, regardless of your true intentions, and lead to more cruel human experiments. I want to make this choice as tough as possible.

The way I see it, it's definitely not an acceptable means of finding a cure. I would not condone the use of or research into that branch of science.

That said, if the cure already exists, I would likely use it. I would viciously murder anyone who tries to replicate the experiments that created it, and I would likely destroy the research notes so no one was tempted to do so, but if I had a vial of the cure that already existed I would likely use it.

In your hypothetical situation, where it's a false binary choice between letting the man die or tacitly allowing for the murder of millions, I will let the man die. That's a frankly impossible scenario though. In any even vaguely realistic setting, I would simply use the cure, then brutally murder anyone who attempted experiments on unwilling human (and some non-human) subjects.

 

[punksnotdead]

Morals don't inherently exist. So yeah, I would use it.

 

[BonsaiK]

I was thinking about the nazi human experiments, and a thought rose in my mind: Say there is a man dying of some horrible disease. Skin melts off, blood curdles, takes 3 insanely painful weeks to die, etc. However, the nazis found a cure to this disease from the deaths of thousands to millions of human test subjects, most likely composed mostly of Jews. However, the nazis discovered this very same disease and discovered the cure. Now, would you use this cure or let the man die?

However, I realize most of you will say use the damn cure. But let me pose this thought to you: Doesn't this mean the ends justify the means? So, killing 3,000,000 Jews is alright so long as results are found? Remember, a human life hangs in the balance, and there is no other cure, no other treatment. Do you let the man die, and have his blood on your hands, or do you cure him, and open the way for thousands of other evil experiments that will be performed in the public eye, and receive no repercussions so long as results are found?

Assume for this you are the most influential man in the world. Your decision affects the rest of history. You cannot back out. Finally, for one last twist: assume the cure requires the death or crippling of another human. Would you still make the same choice?

I'm interested in your opinions. This is obviously a lose-lose situation, but I want to see which you believe to be the lesser of two evils.

This is a silly question because the Nazi experiments found no useful data out whatsoever other than "gee, there's a whole bunch of things we tried that don't actually work", simply because the science behind those experiments was faulty.

Assuming those experiments DID come up with something useful, then - no. Killing one person to save another, when neither did anything wrong - what's the point, may as well not bother.

 

[jawakiller]

If you believe in any form of god... Killing 3 million people is wrong. Except for those few fucked up religions where its cool to commit genocide.
If you believe in spirits n shit, well same deal.
If you believe in all that new age bs, its prolly wrong.
If you think you're god? Please have yourself checked out.
If you believe in nothing? Well than morals don't technically exist so nothing is "wrong". Morals require a base which I believe humans can't realistically create. The reason being very simple. They'll just change and why the fuck should I listen to a humans view on life? They're just as fucked up as me. Agnostics can believe whatever they want so I guess they're exempt.

According to a practicing atheist, survival is all there is.
But I think killing 3 million people is wrong. But hell use the discovery, wouldn't want all that work to go to waste.

 

[balanovich]

Since the tests have already been done, it doesn't pose a problem. You can give the cure without approving of the tests.
If they had to be done then.... not for only one man.
How many others will be infected and cured?
If the cure requires the death or the crippling of another man then their can be no general rule. It depends of the worth of the dying man versus the one who is going to die or be crippled.

"The end justifies the means." Is actually a meaningless sentence. What end? What means?
Kill one to save 2 ? sure.
Everything can be justified as long as it's to prevent worst.

 

[balanovich]

If you believe in nothing? Well than morals don't technically exist so nothing is "wrong".

Not necessarily. It means morality is simply a human concept. You can define what wrong and what isn't. But people can still have very strong principles. They can't change them to satisfy their whims.

 

[Rayne870]

there are a few medicines in use that did come to being as a result of the Nazi testing. I would use the medicine based on the research already conducted. I would not however start my own battery of testing in the same method. As for killing one person to save another, that depends on the condition of the person being sacrificed. Essentially I don't mind carving up a vegetable to save a productive member of society.

Given a couple more decades most of this will be moot anyway, some of the current medical research is fascinating, like the idea of "printing" skin cells, once they have that mastered it really isn't that hard to stretch it to printing organ and bone tissues.