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). ...
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 :bigsmile:
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?
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.
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
... 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.
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?
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.
Imagine if you were shown a vision, before you made the choice, of each and every child who died of cancer, their struggle, and the misery of their family. A very realistic vision, as if you were there beside them. And then you went on and on, seeing the newlyweds, madly in love with each other, and watch them discover the wife's breast cancer on their honeymoon, watched her gradually grow sicker and die, watched him blow his brains out, mad with grief. Do you think your decision would be different?
Sorry for laying it on so thick, but I find ignoring the consequences to be abhorrent.
I made a similar argument at one point when we were discussing the organ donor example. To live in a society where people were capable of callously torturing others would be pretty bad.
But this is an isolated example. It would only require one or two truly callous people. We have millions of sociopaths as it is. Doing this would not create more, people would retain their moral instincts.
... Coincidentally, the OP was angling for "you wouldn't kill a human with an animal like sentience to cure cancer, so animal testing is wrong" conclusion.
No, it requires more than just that one or two people are "callous". It requires a society that allows such things. So it has systemic implications.
I think, though, that the last paragraph of the opening post suggests a different position than you seem to think. But, as no position is explicitly stated, we are left to wait and see what Oikeiosis's position is, if Oikeiosis posts such information.
1. I can only be responsible for the choice in front of me....that choice being to force a man against his will to suffer and die.
2. Cancer is very very sad but, as I said before, ain't none of us getting out of this thing(life) alive. And we have many ways in modern medicine to make people as comfortable as possible. Losing a loved one never feels good whether they die of cancer at 7 yrs old or die in their sleep at age 105. The people surrounding the issue always have 2 choices to make...they can either let the incident strengthen them or they can let it take them down too
4. for every victim of cancer you discussed there is a victim who is a survivor of cancer and a story of hope and joy and charity and courage and togetherness and just overall joy
I don't really understand this. If your choice has a definite effect, but isn't right in front of you, you aren't responsible?
By this logic, since none of us get out of thing alive, why is murder wrong? The guys family can either let it strengthen them or they can let it down. :listening:
Do you really think that an 8 year old losing their mother is the same as a 70 year old losing their mother?
The overall effect of cancer is 'joy"? :surrender: