|
|
#51
08-13-2004, 12:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Another One
Not sure why Sklansky is posting this one, but I will bite.
This question pits a utilitarian ethics vs. a deontilogical (eg. Kant) or perhaps a relegious ethics. I am a former utilitarian, but no longer. This is for a number of reasons and if this was a philosophy forum I might go into it further. I will, however, give as non-philosophical answer as possible. THE EVIDENCE SHOULD CLEARLY NOT BE SUPPRESSED BY THE RESEARCH SCIENTIST 1. he is a scientist and the value of his job is in finding the truth. That his job is to be profitable for his employer is only secondary. His profit value is through his research. I doubt that it says in his job description that he is to "provide evidence insofar as it will prove to be profitable and destroy unprofitable evidence". Ethics aside, it is the job of the executives to direct that kind of activitee, not the scientists. 2. The utility calculations must be so incomplete due to incomplete information as to make a rational judgement impossible. The argument in favor would read something like this: 1000(.90) -50seems to be a net gain of 850 units (lives) + company not going bankrupt (X), or, x vs. -850 Seems clear but it is not. There is a tangible value in truth. I cannot explicate, or clearly know it, but it is there. Suppose the evidence is suppressed and the drug is highly regarded. It could stop a research project from a competition that might take a few more years minimum, but would potentially find a drug that would save 10,000 lives w/ only 20 side effect deaths. The process of science is one in which current research draws upon old findings, in that way it is progressive. If such evidence could be suppressed it is problably the case that it is quite hidden and wouldn't be found for some time. It could certainly be the case that the discovery of the supressed evidence would further the science in many places, even unrelated to the certain condition in question. I could go on and on and Sklansky could keep amending his post to cleanse his example from utilitarian objections to the point that it could be a slam dunk for the utilitarians in favor of suppression, but perhaps that is the key factor in such a thought experiment. The utilitarian would need to go to such otherworldly extremes to get the lock. But the attraction of utilitarianism is not its problemsolving ability in a vacuum--it is that it seems to be an emperical stategy to make ethics purely raitonal. In a world of incomplete information, such decisions are not possible usually. That is why, in my opinion, the most rational ethical decision processes must be more principle based and not consequence based. When we want to equate the rational w/ the consequential (which much of lifes choices ARE based on), I like to play poker or decide if the better taste of Ben and Jerry's over Kroger brand justifies the added costs. Respectfully my 2 cents, PT 
|
|
#52
08-13-2004, 06:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another One
Easy fix....A drug company has enough money to buy a couple politicians if they don't already own several. Pay off the politicians to give tax breaks, they also are always dishing out cash for drug research, if that doesnt work we can always send a few thousand jobs overseas. To be honest though in this country one death is a tragedy 50 deaths is just a statistic.
|
|
#53
08-13-2004, 08:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another One
This is kind of a tired question. As was previously mentioned, Truman made this call. He went to his deathbed believing it was the right thing to do.
The argument that "the job of a scientist is to discover the truth" is a classic case of forest-for-the-trees. The job of the drug scientist is to save lives or at least improve the quality of life. Anything else is science for the sake of science. It is plain to see that on average, suppressing the evidence will save significantly more lives. Even if you want to take the cynical (and juvenile IMO) view that the job of the drug scientist is to make money, it will lead you to the same answer. Making a decision to kill some number of innocents to save a larger number of innocents is a textbook example of conservatism, or at least pragmatism. This same discussion can be found in the death penalty argument. One side considers the death of one wrongly convicted person a total failure of the system. The other side considers it to be the cost of saving the lives that would be lost were the threat of death not there to deter potential killers. Collateral damage, if you will.
|
|
#54
08-14-2004, 12:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another One
[ QUOTE ]
The argument that "the job of a scientist is to discover the truth" is a classic case of forest-for-the-trees. The job of the drug scientist is to save lives or at least improve the quality of life. Anything else is science for the sake of science. It is plain to see that on average, suppressing the evidence will save significantly more lives. Even if you want to take the cynical (and juvenile IMO) view that the job of the drug scientist is to make money, it will lead you to the same answer. Making a decision to kill some number of innocents to save a larger number of innocents is a textbook example of conservatism, or at least pragmatism. This same discussion can be found in the death penalty argument. One side considers the death of one wrongly convicted person a total failure of the system. The other side considers it to be the cost of saving the lives that would be lost were the threat of death not there to deter potential killers. Collateral damage, if you will. [/ QUOTE ] A bit liberal are we? It is hard to think that you actually believe what you wrote....Open your eyes man...
|
|
#56
08-16-2004, 07:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Another One
David,
I'm not going to answer your question, but I do want to thank you for posting here frequently. Since you stated doing so, the forum has grown enormously. Al
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
