Skye Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 If the victims, or people associated with them, suffering caused by the use of the data is greater than the benefit derived for others, then it shouldn't be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Why not? a) That means no good will come from their suffering, where we do in fact have the power to wring some good out of it, and b) You can't translate the attributes of metadata onto the data itself. That makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 a) I'm talking about living people, the dead can't suffer any more. If we wring more benefit from it than these living people suffer, then fine. b) I'm not projecting it on the data, but onto 'using data from the Nazis'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 a) If the argument is that people are currently suffering due to the use of the data, then I agree. b) I don't see the logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 a) Yep. b) Using data is an action, so ethical principles apply right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 But the fact that the data was generated by the Nazis (or indeed "why") is not an attribute of the data itself, it's further up the hierarchy. In nodal terms the data is a child of the method. The method and motive are siblings. The motive is not related to the data because there is no direct nephew connection that can make logical sense in an orientation of this sort. Of course, this explanation is only acceptable if you're not so susceptible to the accompanying emotional responses so it's hardly going to sway a war widow. The data itself doesn't have Nazi tendencies or a strange desire to shoot steam into people and see what happens, nor is it a medium for transferring abstract currencies such as motive, evil or emotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 I'm not saying that the data has any kind of morality, just that you have to accept peoples reactions to a choice action however they are derived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Fair enough, but I wasn't aware we were supposed to be considering this from the point of view of anyone in particular...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 How do ethics work if no-one is affected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 I was under the impression that we were giving our opinions, not inventing case studies. I'm not going to pretend I can predict how person #6473443 will react to an emotive issue, nor whether or not they'll be "right". [edit] I didn't say no-one would be affected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 I don't particularly care about the victims, only that people today do. I can predict how people react, how well just determines whether I'm a sociopath or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 lol Atm were talking about sociopathy earlier on. It's funny because it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 I think the most important thing (might be just me because i'm closer to the subject) Is not the data - we can REAQUIRE data. It's the *way* we treat the information. Its true that if we dont use it then theres no point to the deaths of those people. But you know what? THERE IS NO POINT. No matter what you do - there's no point t six million deaths. Finding a rational behind a bunch of scientific data is what neo-nazis are doing. Not us. So I think the entire debate about giving a POINT to the victim's suffering and death is not valid in this case. The data should be used, in my opinion of course, if the COST of reaquiring is much higher than the cost of using it (and the cost of using it is extremely high, as u can see brielfly just by this argument!) You just need to know that when you USE this information taken from the nazis - you open a much much bigger issue. Its (even by little) supporting the "cause" and "good intention" and "good results" of the Nazis. And you know what? Even for only THAT reason I wouldn't use the data. And I strongly doubt holocaust victims and their families will disagree that much. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ed84c Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 Im not entirely sure what this thread was originally about but does any data from NAZI experiments e.g. making twins eat glass become used in modern research? And is there a website where i can get teh results of such testing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 Look at the first message in the thread, ed84c, there are some sites there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MishMish Posted February 10, 2004 Share Posted February 10, 2004 I have only skimmed the thread, but it remains (for some at least) a current question in a different context. I am opposed to animal testing (speaking generically, would have to get to details for drawing the line,) yet I know that much if not most of what am currently trying to comprehend is based on animal testing which I would consider immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 Err.. Yes, I think I see waht you're saying here BUT If you don't support animal testing (I don't either btw, MOSTLY), then find and work towards implementing other ways of research. The difference here is that there ARE OTHER WAYS to obtain information that the Nazis gathered through their horrible immoral testing. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 mooeypoo said in post # :The data should be used, in my opinion of course, if the COST of reaquiring is much higher than the cost of using it (and the cost of using it is extremely high, as u can see brielfly just by this argument!) What cost of using it? mooeypoo said in post # :Its (even by little) supporting the "cause" and "good intention" and "good results" of the Nazis. No, it isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 It is supporting the "cause" of the nazis, because people (mostly holocaust-deniers) claim that -- HERE! SEE!! GOOD THINGS CAME OUT OF IT!! And that's BADDDDDDDDDDD bad bad bad. That also answers the cost, by the way. There's a huge Ethical cost to this entire thing - if you use it, you know that you are legitimizing (sp?) - even if you don't want to - the tests that were made. If those results were one of a kind and impossible-to-get-any-other-way and SURE SAVING PEOPLES LIVES at *this moment* and you couldn't delay with taking anotehr tests and another results, then you might be able to concider it. But tis NOT the case here. Besides - can you be CERTAIN those tests were made 100% scientifically? I am NOT sure. That itself is one more reason to retest that. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 mooeypoo said in post # :It is supporting the "cause" of the nazis, because people (mostly holocaust-deniers) claim that -- HERE! SEE!! GOOD THINGS CAME OUT OF IT!! And that's BADDDDDDDDDDD bad bad bad. That also answers the cost, by the way. There's a huge Ethical cost to this entire thing - if you use it, you know that you are legitimizing (sp?) - even if you don't want to - the tests that were made. I don't see why using the data supports the nazis. We're going round in circles; 'It legitimises National Socialism!' 'Why?' Because it legitimises National Socialism!' mooeypoo said in post # :Besides - can you be CERTAIN those tests were made 100% scientifically? I am NOT sure. That itself is one more reason to retest that. They made pretty detailed notes, duder. I don't see why particularly they had a reason to lie, given they thought they themselves would be using the data at a later point. 'Hey, lets make UNSCIENTIFIC conclusions in case the Allies beat us and try us for war crimes!' 'Hey, good idea!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted February 28, 2004 Share Posted February 28, 2004 YOU are the one going in circles, I explained my position by saying that neo-nazis use it to justify, and the world may get teh idea that "no matter what happened, at least one good thing came out of it" which is bad. READ WHAT I WRITE before you say we're going in circles. I've been saying this - and explaining my position for at least 3 times this thread. Other than that, I disagree with you on the scietific accuracy. I wasn't speaking about notes - they did VERY good notes and also films - and most of it still exists - i'm talking about the WAY experiments were done. I am not sure they were 100% aware of fair-testing, and all the methods of making sure the tests results are actually accurate. And I would appreciate if you stop patronizing me, dude. Whatever I say is my opinion. If you don't GET MY POINT tell me and I will elaborate. Stop writing patronizing and non-helpful-one-liner-statement sentences that only piss me off without even contribute to the discussion. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 mooeypoo said in post # :YOU are the one going in circles, I explained my position by saying that neo-nazis use it to justify, and the world may get teh idea that "no matter what happened, at least one good thing came out of it" which is bad. So, you don't want us to use the data because a section of society which, when lacking actual evidence for their cause, invents it, might use this to support their faction, even though they're not actually supported by the use of this data, and are generally (as a group) reviled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 Basically, and generally, yes, I supposed that's true. However, I also said that its not only holocaust deniars and neo nazis, it's also sending a message to the world that - even by a little - those actions bear good results. Even psychologically, in the back of everyone's heads. (I wrote that in an earlier post to this thread) And on my opinion, that fact combined with the fact you can a) get more information about thsoe tests anyways from redoing them and b) can't 100% rely on their scientific accuracy, it's a big enough reason to not use them. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 I don't see the problem with relying on their scientific accuracy (as I said before). If you don't think they were AWARE of the scientific method, how do you think Germany produced some of the best physicists of the 20th century? As for using the data, it of course depends (mostly) on how the tabloids spin it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted February 29, 2004 Share Posted February 29, 2004 There's a difference between being extremely good at preserving knowledge while making good notes, and actually knowing how to create a scientific test environment so that your test results would come out correct. Dr. Mengale (sorry bout the spelling) did all sorts of experiments about all sorts of things that other than the fact half of them had no scientific value WHATSOEVER, many of them were done in very one-sided and non scientific ways. Ways that if anyone would use today in science labs, their results would not be used. No matter how good his notes are. So that is one of my problems with the subject. My BIGGER one, obviously, is the ethical matter (which we discuss here). I don't care about tabloids, whatever will happen tabloids would exploit information and turn it to their own likings. I care about the deeper and psychological and ETHICAL meaning, which is what I am trying to say here. Other thanwhat I have altready said about using the data being a message to the world, we should also concider the fact that there are still holocaust survivors alive today. Using that information is unethical towards them too, and people who lost their entire familes in the holocaust. That's my opinion, at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now