Another One

[David Sklansky]

You are a research scientist for a drug company. Your next blockbuster drug is 90% to save 1,000 lives a year. It is about to be approved. You come across data that shows that your company's most recent drug is apparently causing more side effects than expected and is killing 50 people a year. You have the power to supress this evidence. If you don't your company will go bankrupt and it will be many years delay before the new drug will be on the market.

[James Boston]

Let the company go under. Take the new drug to a better company. I can't see how the knowledge of curing disease can be suppressed because the company who's R&D discovered the drug is now defunct.

[David Sklansky]

Don't make me be so meticulous in framing the example. The idea is not to find ways of wiggling out of the main point here.

[James Boston]

I understand that main point. Should your sacrifice 50 lives to save a thousand? (something like that anyway) My point is that any example you frame is going to be situational, and is going to have some way to "wiggle out of." You're asking a broad theoretical, moral question. The problem is that there isn't any underlying answer, each individual answer is going to be situational.

[Poker21]

Your right I agree. Use contextual instead of situational. 'Contextualism' is a school of thought alot of theorists ie.. ''Sklansky'' hate to accept as an answer to any question. Unfortunately for them and their predecessors such as 'Socrates' or 'Plato' CONTEXT, and not the sincere and all loving soul, accompanies and dictates 99% of all actions and reactions. I say 99% because there are a few good people out there.

[Matt Ruff]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't make me be so meticulous in framing the example. The idea is not to find ways of wiggling out of the main point here.

[/ QUOTE ]

In any real-world situation, when faced with a choice of two evils, the natural human impulse is going to be to try to "wiggle out" by coming up with a third, more acceptable alternative. So if you're going to pose these sorts of questions, you either need to be willing to be meticulous, or you need to keep things simple and abstract, e.g., "Would you sacrifice 50 lives in return for a 90% chance of saving 1000 lives?"

Of course, if you do ask the question in the abstract, a lot of people are going to say that they can't say what they would do without more specific details about the particular situation...

For what it's worth, in the scenario you describe, I wouldn't suppress the evidence about the defective drug -- I'd go public with it, and at the same time do everything I could to make sure that the new blockbuster drug got approved whether or not the company went bust. I know you want to stipulate that the new drug will inevitably be delayed for many years, but I don't think that's something that can be stipulated in the real world.

-- M. Ruff

[mmcd]

Simple:
Supress the evidence to save the 950 lives, and keep and the company from going under, but make sure to charge the person/people that would be hurt most if the company goes under a healthy fee for your services.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't make me be so meticulous in framing the example. The idea is not to find ways of wiggling out of the main point here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doing the right thing usually absolves you from needing to wiggle, though I agree that what the right thing is is up for debate.

People have very different views on what the right thing really is. These conversations are destined to devolve into mud-slinging at that level.

~D

[yimyammer]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

I guess Im stupid, because I dont get your point.

Supressing the data is not an option for me. So I guess thats my answer, although I really dont see a question in your statement

[Cerril]

I suppose the answer differs based on what you're getting at.

First, the solution I'd try to shoot for would be to get the drug approved, then 'uncover' the evidence about the other drug. There's no reason for this company to be the one to benefit from the newer drug.

If that's not possible, I'll sacrifice 50 to save 1000, if that's the question, assuming no other factors.