Roger's lssue

[Oikeiosis]

Please consider the following thought experiment:

Assume that Roger, a brilliant biomedical researcher, has designed an experiment that will yield data crucial in finding a cure for cancer. The experiment, however, will work only if he uses a human being as a test subject. There is no feasible alternative. No animal subject will do; no computer simulation model will work. The human used in the experiment will suffer excruciating pain and eventually die. No volunteers offer to participate. An unwilling human--a severely and incurably retarded homeless adult with no family or friends--is chosen.

The Question: is it morally acceptable to use a severely and incurably retarded homeless human with no family or friends as an unconsenting test subject in a painful and fatal experiment that will produce a cure for cancer?

Bear in mind that our test subject is sentient: he can move, speak, eat, experience, feel pain, exhibit emotions, and so forth.

Before you answer, consider the fact that every year millions of humans around the world die of cancer. Think about their pain and suffering. Think about the pain and suffering of their loved ones. Think about the pain and suffering you would endure if you had cancer (and you most likely will). Surely the benefits of a cure for cancer would be inestimable. Would such benefits not outweigh the detriment caused to the severely retarded human in question? I'll withhold my answer for now, but I'd like to hear yours (and why you chose it).

[Jebediah]

Yes. Can't really overlook the benefits.

[Amperage]

I would find it morally UNacceptable and here's 2 reasons:

#1 We have no right to take another human's life. I find myself changing my stance on this issue after the discussion we had about the Trolley Problem(I'm looking at you Pyrrho). While it may be true that killing one could save thousands, every man has the right to life and I hold that truth to be self evident. If a man wants to continue to live his life he is within his rights to do so unless doing so requires stopping someone else from pursuing that same right.
Just where do you draw the line? Do we kill one guy and harvest his organs to save the many who need them? It is in Gods devine right to kill but not ours.

#2 even if it did cure cancer what would that accomplish? We all still die. There is something to be said for those who bear the pains they are burdened with with dignity. It is an extremely sad inevitability of human existence to die. And we all suffer with varying degrees. Many have died in the worst possible ways and have done so with pride and honor.

[1CellOfMany]

I agree with Amperage on this, but would suggest a variation of this thought experiment: Instead of an innocent homeless person, what if we had access to a convicted serial killer/rapist as our un-willing research subject? What about a suicidally depressed masochist?
These are just some "tempting" alternatives. If we use the analogy of humankind being one organism, with each of us being like single cells in this organism (thus my moniker), then any of the above subjects could be considered like cancerous cells which need to die. The extreme suffering part is problematic, though: I feel that the real, spiritual damage would be to the researcher who caused the suffering, more than to the subject himself. The researcher's capacity for compassion would undoubtedly be damaged.

[Pyrrho]

Originally Posted by Amperage

I would find it morally UNacceptable and here's 2 reasons:

#1 We have no right to take another human's life. I find myself changing my stance on this issue after the discussion we had about the Trolley Problem(I'm looking at you Pyrrho). ...

You mean that people sometimes actually change their minds because of things I post? How extraordinary!

I very much agree that this is essentially the Trolley Problem in a different form. For anyone interested, here are a couple of relevant links:

Trolley problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Joshua Greene's Homepage

To answer the question of the original post, I say no. But if you say yes, I think you should be the one chosen for the experiment. After all, according to you, it is the right thing to do, so you have no reason to complain.

[Jebediah]

To answer the question of the original post, I say no. But if you say yes, I think you should be the one chosen for the experiment. After all, according to you, it is the right thing to do, so you have no reason to complain.

And if you say no, you or one of your relatives should be given cancer

But really. I'll take my guaranteed self preservation as a first priority, but I would enter a national lottery to determine the 1 person who would be sacrificed. Wouldn't you?

[Pyrrho]

Originally Posted by Jebediah

And if you say no, you or one of your relatives should be given cancer

But really. I'll take my guaranteed self preservation as a first priority, but I would enter a national lottery to determine the 1 person who would be sacrificed. Wouldn't you?

No.

(It is unfortunate that the software for this site requires 16 characters for a post, which means that more must be typed than just the answer to your question.)

[Jebediah]

Why not? The odds of you being selected are far less than the odds of you getting cancer. Granted most people get cancer later in life, but it still works out for the best odds.

[Pyrrho]

Originally Posted by Jebediah

Why not? The odds of you being selected are far less than the odds of you getting cancer. Granted most people get cancer later in life, but it still works out for the best odds.

Whenever making a bet, there are two things to consider: the odds, and what one has to gain or lose. In this case, although one would likely not lose, if one did lose, it would be very, very bad. I never bet anything that I cannot afford to lose, unless it is impossible for me to lose. This is not a case that is impossible to lose.

If I got cancer, it might be treatable with current technology, and even if it wasn't, if the pain became unbearable, I could commit suicide. That option would not be available were I to lose the bet. So, from a purely self-interested standpoint, I would not take the bet.

However, I think there is more to it than that. I agree with 1CellOfMany in that being willing to torture someone to death is bad in itself, and so I would not want to have any part in such a thing. I think it would be terrible to live in a society in which such things were regarded as not only acceptable, but the right thing to do.

You appear to view the matter from the standpoint of the consequences. I happen to think that it would be a bad consequence to live in a society willing to torture people, but let us set that aside for the moment. Do you think that these things should be judged by their consequences? If so, why?

I happen to think that ethics is not about consequences. I will give you an example to illustrate why. Suppose we think of a murderer. In such a case, there is (presumably) a bad consequence in that someone is dead. Let us compare this with an attempted murderer. In such a case, let us say, no harm is done, so should we think it is okay to be an attempted murderer because there were no bad consequences? I think that attempted murder, and murder, are ethically equivalent. And if I am right about that, then ethics is not about the consequences. And if that is the case, we should not judge the answer to the original question by the consequences.

The consequences are relevant to what is practical, but I don't think they matter from an ethical standpoint. But, even if I am wrong about that, I still regard it as a bad consequence of your proposal that one would be living in a society willing to torture innocent people to death. I would rather live in a society which lacked a cure for cancer.

[Amperage]

I think one great thing is that I believe we live a world that is so great and there are those who love people so much(or whatever reason they want to come up with) that there would be those who freely volunteered. This would completely eliviate any problem

For me this is a tough problem to consider:

Consider if I found myself in a cage with 1 other person and I was told if I didn't kill him that 10 people would die and that if he didn't kill me 10 different people would die. In that scenario, the final decision comes down to this: Am I willing to sacrifice myself in order to not actively kill someone? And would I be wrong/what does it say about me if I wasn't?