Printable View
on two threads now and by 3 people human experiments have been talked about positively. to inflict upon our undesirables.
is it just me or is this the end of morality? to say that such things practiced in auschwitz by mengle are a good thing?
is that what humanity and morality has become?
i personally find it appauling.
Humans will always be appauling. But they will always be good to.
This is one of those things where it's hard to take sides. It's like my humanist and my pragmatist sides are fighting their own major war in my head.
On the one hand, the experiments (I'm assuming) are for the betterment of humanity as a whole. It would be far better to experiment on other people than on animals that are "similar."
However, to do this, it would be the same as adopting an idealist society where individuality doesn't matter. If you must die for the group, you will.
On the other hand I'm sure most of there people agreed to it right? That's the only legal way to test on humans anyway.
no this was talk of forcefully doing it on unconvicted or charged suspected terrorists and convicted child molesters.
no choice.
There are published standards for experiments that require human standards.
edit: Oh.
Ah, I see.
Doing it without choice is like I said earlier. It would be for the greater good, but it would remove any semblance of individuality and choice from these people, which I am completely against in all forms. Even convicted prisoners. They should serve their sentance, yes, but they shouldn't get this.
It's one of those hard to decide "Amoral, but for the greater good" kind of things.
Personally it doesn't matter to me as long as only new sentences would get affected by it. You see... if you commit a crime and ended up in jail.. you choose that way. Here it would be you make the decision to risk such treatment(which would have to follow certian standards anyways) when you commited the crime. So therefore I do not see a lack of choice.
However, it does still leave a somewhat bad taste in the mouth.. but as long as standards were fair and followed and we knew that they commited the crime then I could see it as an extreme sentence that could be handed down.
Also my own opinion on that would be; if they got the sentence due to a lose of control due to anger or too much alcohol, then if they were used for the advancement of science.. then the tests that they were used in must have the goal to aid those with the same problem. Thus, this could be used to maybe help cure some of the sicker people in our world.
And again, I am forced to ask: What the hell is "morality"?
Arent people like against any type of experimentation or the sort here in this country(US anyway)? The Nazi people did those things on Jews and now we are advocating it here despite people saying how despicable they were? What hypocrites.
If its on a convicted-child molestor, sure? why not?
And how/who determines levels of evil or severity of crimes? What if to someone else stealing a loaf a bread is on an equal level or even moreso than child molestation...should then someone be killed/experimented on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Excelsior
well, usually, stealing a loaf of bread doesnt smurf up someone for the rest of there life and make it hard for them to trust another individual of the same sex that molested them. But I guess if stealing a loaf of bread from someone had that effect on everyone, then, yeah, I guess so. But it doesnt, and as such, stealing a loaf of bread is completely incomparable to molesting a child.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMKA
But we already had an arguement similar to this, and I really dont want to repeat that, just posting my opinion.
I believe I had said that I it should be done on people in death row or serving a life sentance for murder.Quote:
no this was talk of forcefully doing it on unconvicted or charged suspected terrorists and convicted child molesters.
no because what if:
they develop super powers and bust out of jail and go on a crime spree
well, if that happens, Bush will turn into super dumbass and save us all. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Not At All Reno
Ok, Cloud no. 9, if i may ask where human experimentation was talked about that you are refering to?
If it was in the stemcell thread - Gnostic was against it as were most on that thread.
Using that alone, I would argue that saying
is severly ... saturated? I am sure other people have apposed it else where, and by saying it like this - seems to take the controversial ideals as few and typecaste that on the public.Quote:
on two threads now and by 3 people human experiments have been talked about positively. to inflict upon our undesirables.
is it just me or is this the end of morality? to say that such things practiced in auschwitz by mengle are a good thing?
I for one am against the experimentations on humans period. No embryos, no 90 year old convicted lunataic. If they volentier in life or death fine, but for us to make that desision because they may be sick, or a lower level as far as human society goes - that seems ill minded to me.
What if a man is in jail for a terroristic act and he was falsely accused. The judge may think he is guilty and everyone else may think so. But that one man will be tested why? to cure cancer - possibly?
Bip
Uhm, no. Not even on the most evil of people.
If someone was able to turn me into the Ultimate Weapon, I would let them.
*evil laughter*
I'm pretty sure doing medical experiments on inmates would fall under "cruel and unusual punishment".
There are actually experimental trials carried out on humans at the moment, but these involve people who consent to taking part. I really don't think I agree with people being forced to take part in such trials. As for the whole child-molestation thing, I believe there's a prison in Texas that forces these inmates to receive Depo-Provera injections. I think so, anyway.
Thankfully the United States constitution explicitly states that experimenting on criminals is illegal.
but the us constitution also forbids torture. yeah cos that's held up so highly nowadays.
i just don't get it. especially with suspected terrorists who are innocent (not been tried and so are innocent). with child molestors........ they are still human. every law still applies to them.
The utilitarian argument that "the good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one" has one glaring flaw - it assumes that all people are not unique, and that one life can easily be traded for another.
The only way human experimentation can be moral is if the people who are being experimented on volunteer. Many people agree to "donate their body to science" upon death, and many more take part in scientific experiements - experiments that won't have a detrimental effect on themselves, of course.
Out of curiosity, how do those of you who think human experimenting is bad think about stem cell research?
The US relaly doesn't torture its prisoner's. They harrass them until they get what they need out of them. SOmetimes they give them this highly alcoholic drink and they start talking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
OK, I was against both stem cell research and human experimentation in that thread. The only way research on humans -- any humans is marginal is if the person being experimented on consents (and isn't coerced or bribed), and the experiment will not cause the person harm.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
other than that, no experiments should be done on any humans.
stem cell research is perfectly fine and has nothing to do with experimenting on humans. The stem cells that would be used are extra cells created in fertility clinics that are currently just being thrown away. It's not like we're harvesting babies for body parts.
I am indifferent in this question.
>>> There are lab rats for that, no need to use humans..
"The US relaly doesn't torture its prisoner's. They harrass them until they get what they need out of them. SOmetimes they give them this highly alcoholic drink and they start talking."
do not get me started on this argument. at the very least the US uses sleep depravation, water torture and fake drownings, stress positions and humilition on it's prisoners.
"You see... if you commit a crime and ended up in jail.. you choose that way. Here it would be you make the decision to risk such treatment(which would have to follow certian standards anyways) when you commited the crime. So therefore I do not see a lack of choice."
so why not for punishment crush the balls of criminals with bricks? why not strap them to an electrical out let? why not dip their feet in acid? why not remove a limb or too? we could blind them. remove their tongues. steal a lung and kidney. paralyze them. boil them alive.
their criminals and choose that way of life so lets just crucify them all.
no!
You're going to have explain wth you're talking about. You're being extremely broad... If I asked if using narcotics was wrong, what would you say? It depends on the situation, right? What if ONE persons choice could save BILLIONS of lifes? Would it be immoral for that person not to? Would it be immoral if that decision involved taking 3 peoples lives? We can both be broad, but let's not.
Morals have held back science before, and this question has been asked before, the answer to it has made the society we live in. These scientists aren't doing it fors and giggles, they're doing it for a valid cause. You can't deny an obvious positive outcome to all of this, can you? But then again I still have not idea what you're talking about.
Hmm.. well if that would somehow cure them of what lead them in jail.. no problem.. to do it just for fun.. that would be a bit iffy.. but meh... that just reflects on the person doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cloud 9
And anyways I believe I said there would need to be .. proper regulations. That would maintain at the very least what we currently have on lab animals.. likely more. Meaning... no purposeful or highly possible death experiments as well as multiple other things. Mainly it would be all out mad scientist experimentation.
As for never right to experiment on people. My view on that is then we can't experiment on many animals. Many animals have feelings, thought processes, etc... So if we can't experiment on people then that includes many animals(I imagine chimps, dolphins, etc... easily fit here).
Experimentation shouldn't be stopped(where would we get without it?) but it should be monitered and controled.
I do not agree with testing on animals at all. It's not right, but if it saves many lives, like they're testing for a cure for AIDS, then it's better than many people dying. But it's still not something I like. They have no voice in it at all.
And personally, if I HAD to choose if experimentations were to be taken on say... a chimpanzee or a child rapist, I would choose the rapist. I wouldn't want either to be tested on though, it's not right without consent for anyone or anything.
"Hmm.. well if that would somehow cure them of what lead them in jail.. no problem.. to do it just for fun.. that would be a bit iffy.. but meh... that just reflects on the person doing it."
ah the medievil days. chopping of ears and torturing people. making sure they weren't bad again. but we stopped that didn't we? why was that? because it was totally evil, inhumane and devoid of all morality.
Human subjects are the only reliable test subjects for drugs or procedures which will be carried out on Humans.
My proposition would be to make the offer open to criminals, with the possibility of reducing their sentence.
Yup cos otherwise I'd be a mutant.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
That has to be one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. I could go murder a few people, have a few experiments performed on me, and get a reduced sentence? That's almost worse than experimenting on them without their consent.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
You both have points. If you experiment on a child molester and then he gets out early it could cause problems. "woot, i'm going to go and rape another child and now that they've injected me with AIDS it'll be all the more fun."Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
But if someone has an incredibly long sentence and you reduce it by a year then who cares. It also doesn't nececarily need to be a reduced sentence. Don't detectives give cellmates t.v's and stuff for cooperation?
Peace out and :rock:
EE
morality is in the eye of the beholder. I think I may be the only one in this forum who thinks the experimentation should be done. I was the only one who said it in the stem cell thread.
>>> That will probably kill them instead of cure them..Quote:
Originally Posted by ShunNakamura
Well I did type that with a large amount of sarcasism in mind. ;)
But IF it did cure them(other then by pushing them off this mortal coil).. then well I wouldn't really have a problem with it. The problem would arise when trying to convince me that it would CURE them... and wasn't being used for a vinidictive sake.
no-one and i mean NO-ONE deserves to have their balls crushed by a brick. No way. It is sick and wrong. i would rather take anyone of those other punishments.
Peace out and :rock:
EE
You may be right... but lets say they had some disease that was causing suffering to many(think several thousand at least) individuals and the ONLY way to cure it would be to smash the person balls in.
I think I know the option I would choose. The point that happens is that I see no reason that would be the only way. Hence my remark on that they would have to convince me(very extreme situation in other words). and anyways you would have to do it in as humane way as possible... Pain killers would prolly be a prerequisite.
I would tell them to kill me and then crush my balls. For the record, are you a guy or a girl?
Peace out and :rock:
EE
I am a guy.. and I would go for the cure... but then again I will admit right out that I do have what other guys call "very little feeling" down there. I can be wrestling and go over backwards and have a 200lb guy's knee go into my balls .. and it will generally have very little effect on me(I am 155lbs btw). Also a girl once kicked me in the balls hard enough to lift me to my tippy toes.. and I just laughed it off.
no really it was funny.. you should have seen her expresion(had ment to hit my thigh) not to mention the dressing down her mother gave her. :cool:
hmm, well i still say that it would be the worst thing in the world but i guess some people will have other views. Getting the thing chopped off wouldn't be too bad, but actually crushing them...AAAAAHHHH!
Peace out and :rock:
EE
no doubt it would hurt *wince*.. but heck I like life.
Either way you would need medical attention right away.. if cut off you could easily bleed to death(if I recall).. and with smashing them.. well who knows.. but you will wan't some pain relievers among other things... hopeful they would put you to sleep first so it would be less painful.
Then would you say that the Holocaust was not evil simply because the Nazis saw it as good? That's the problem with moral relativism.Quote:
Originally Posted by IBCrayZ
Besides, we're not talking about morals here. We're talking about ethics. There's a huge difference.
And in my eye, you're immoral. And there's no way that I'm just gonna sit back and let an immoral person argue thier points with little to no resistance. Just because morality may be subjective, doesn't give you an excuse to be immoral.Quote:
morality is in the eye of the beholder. I think I may be the only one in this forum who thinks the experimentation should be done. I was the only one who said it in the stem cell thread.
What, may I ask, makes experimenting on people any less moral then experimenting on animals? hmm.. last I heard animals didn't give their consent.. heck most of them that I know don't even commit an aggressive act to land them there. They didn't do anything wrong and are still *forced* into the experiments.
My opinion is if we can experiment on animals(without thier consent) then we can experiment on people. If we can't experiment on people(without thier consent) then we can't experiment on animals(without thier consent).
By saying that you just took away my right to be moral. And because morality is subjective, it does give me a right to be immoral in your eyes. But I got really thinking about this subject earlier, and I may have to change my stance due to my morality. There are people on death row/serving life sentaces who do not deserve them. not to say that they did or did not commit the crime, but the reasoning behind it is what I question. I believe that there are certain circumstances under which murder or other crimes should be allowed, but is not in common day. And I am also a believer in the saying, "all are equal" therefore everyone on death row/serving life sentances would have to be experimented upon. Ok, im stepping of my soapbox for a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
Yes.Quote:
Then would you say that the Holocaust was not evil simply because the Nazis saw it as good? That's the problem with moral relativism.
well it's not evil in the eyes of the beholder, which leads us back to morality being in the eyes of the beholder. We don't neccecarily have to think something is good because someone else does.
Peace out and :rock:
EE
Personally, I have absolutely no problem with it whatsoever. I don't really see why anyone does.Quote:
Originally Posted by DocFrance
I hate death and toture in any form. Whether its an embryo or an adult - its not right. Save for self defence - and I mean physically immediate danger... not defending yourself against a desise -- ugh what a conundrum we have here
Bipper