Is classified experimentation on humans morally permissible?

More Than Mortal · January 26, 2016, 11:47:23 PM

This is a question I've wrestled with for a long time, without ever really coming to a conclusion. The usual paradigm of utility-maximisation seems to not apply here, or at least only apply very messily.

Of course, the entire point of experimentation is the discovery of previously unknown information. Given that constraint, it doesn't seem to be the case that my usual model of thinking about moral questions is all that useful. Which implies I either need to alter the model of come up with a sufficiently reductionist account of my argument that it is internally consistent.

So, removing the obvious barriers to this situation which could be used as justification--consent and majoritarian will--is the secretive and coercive conduction of any kind of experiment (medical, military, whatever) morally permissible? Permissible in only some cases? Morally necessary?

The only responses I have so far involve the inherent worth of human life and the necessity of knowledge-seeking endeavours and the acceptance of risk. The first argument, which is against coercive experimentation, I find utterly unconvincing. We seem to broadly accept that animal experimentation is at least permissible morally, the only answers to which I can see is either to advocate for a complete abolition of animal testing or to argue for some inherent superiority of human beings which universally condemns clandestine and unwilling experimentation.

The second response justifies human experimentation at least on some level. If your moral basis is rational (as opposed to super-rational, such as religious modes of thinking), then it stands to reason that more information ultimately leads to a superior decision-making process. Therefore, on the margin, human experimentation is almost a necessary bug of advancing the frontiers of knowledge.

eggsalad · January 26, 2016, 11:54:37 PM

The problem with it being classified is that directly reduces how much oversight and insurance there is on misdoings being reported and obvious criminals being punished. MK-Ultra should have put people in concrete graves.

Secondly the issue of trying to justify it with criminals and the "undesirables" puts faith in a justice system that still uses god damn juries. If you can feel that those mistakes are worth the benefits, maybe you should consider the value to you as a citizen there is in knowing that even a severe miscarriage of justice won't put you in the hands of some hawk who has a passion for winning, not doing things right.

More Than Mortal · January 27, 2016, 12:07:45 AM

Quote from: eggsalad on January 26, 2016, 11:54:37 PM

maybe you should consider the value to you as a citizen there is in knowing that even a severe miscarriage of justice won't put you in the hands of some hawk who has a passion for winning, not doing things right.

I don't find these kinds of Rawlsian arguments as convincing as most people do, although I'm not as familiar with Rawls as I should be.

But, it seems to me, if we're willing to accept some margin of error in pretty much any routine government function it's not particularly rational to consider how I would personally like it if I fell into the group poorly done-by due to said errors. It seems aggregate (potential) utility should be the possible metric. If we agree that knowledge-advancing experimentation is necessary for society, and we agree that these experiments will be secretly performed on certain criminals, it should be irrelevant if that margin of error results in innocent casualties (assuming the MoE is within an acceptable range). The experimentation is done both without the public or broader justice system being aware; the possibility of experimentation is a function of human error in the pursuit of an agreed-upon goal, not some kind of punishment for wrongdoing. If we're willing to accept a margin of error in prosecution, I don't see why human experimentation should be any different.

Elai · January 27, 2016, 12:55:58 AM

Quote from: Imperial Apologist on January 26, 2016, 11:47:23 PM

We seem to broadly accept that animal experimentation is at least permissible morally.

Speak for yourself, Hombre.

But really, aren't there already consent-based human testing programs that provide monetary incentive for participation? Could this not be expanded upon?

More Than Mortal · January 27, 2016, 12:58:32 AM

Quote from: eli on January 27, 2016, 12:55:58 AM

Quote from: Imperial Apologist on January 26, 2016, 11:47:23 PM
We seem to broadly accept that animal experimentation is at least permissible morally.

Speak for yourself, Hombre.

I didn't even try to speak for you. You can't deny a total opposition to animal testing is the majority position, or that most people see such a position as irrational.

Quote

aren't there already consent-based human testing programs

Which are utterly uninteresting, morally. Which is why I didn't include them.

Well, they aren't totally uninteresting. But pretty much so in light of the topic in the OP.

Elai · January 27, 2016, 01:03:57 AM

Quote from: Imperial Apologist on January 27, 2016, 12:58:32 AM

I didn't even try to speak for you. You can't deny a total opposition to animal testing is the majority position, or that most people see such a position as irrational.

I wasn't being serious anyway.

Quote

Which are utterly uninteresting, morally. Which is why I didn't include them.

I just think it's pretty much a cut-and-dry argument, whether human testing is permissible or not. It isn't. And I don't see a way to justify it other than following the same train of thought that comes from animal testing, but I don't find that permissable either.

More Than Mortal · January 27, 2016, 01:07:04 AM

Quote from: eli on January 27, 2016, 01:03:57 AM

It isn't.

But on what basis?

eggsalad · January 27, 2016, 01:38:12 AM

Quote from: Imperial Apologist on January 27, 2016, 12:07:45 AM

Quote from: eggsalad on January 26, 2016, 11:54:37 PM
maybe you should consider the value to you as a citizen there is in knowing that even a severe miscarriage of justice won't put you in the hands of some hawk who has a passion for winning, not doing things right.
I don't find these kinds of Rawlsian arguments as convincing as most people do, although I'm not as familiar with Rawls as I should be.

But, it seems to me, if we're willing to accept some margin of error in pretty much any routine government function it's not particularly rational to consider how I would personally like it if I fell into the group poorly done-by due to said errors. It seems aggregate (potential) utility should be the possible metric. If we agree that knowledge-advancing experimentation is necessary for society, and we agree that these experiments will be secretly performed on certain criminals, it should be irrelevant if that margin of error results in innocent casualties (assuming the MoE is within an acceptable range). The experimentation is done both without the public or broader justice system being aware; the possibility of experimentation is a function of human error in the pursuit of an agreed-upon goal, not some kind of punishment for wrongdoing. If we're willing to accept a margin of error in prosecution, I don't see why human experimentation should be any different.

Medical and psychological experimentation is hardly comparable to imprisonment. The core failure of the justice system today is the fact it does permanent damage to the incarcerated, an equitable justice system failing wouldn't have nearly as severe or irreversible effects on someone as experimentation would. Grouping "testing new malaria vaccines" with "waiting for parole" is hardly fair I'd think you'd agree.

CIS · January 27, 2016, 02:51:44 AM

The idea of forcing people into medical or military experiments without any consent sounds horrifying.

challengerX · January 27, 2016, 04:05:21 AM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Cadenza has moved on · January 27, 2016, 05:04:25 AM

Tempted to say yes so that future generations don't have to, but that doesn't give any indication on if or when it should be stopped, and I haven't a clue what kind of information we could gain that we couldn't otherwise. As long as you're not being needlessly cruel for the sake of being cruel, I don't see much of a problem with it.

In all honesty I don't understand the opposition to animal testing either; I value humans more than animals, and collections of people more than individuals.

Ender · January 27, 2016, 10:01:09 AM

Kind of a toughie

A long time ago experimenting on dead bodies was seen as a terrible thing to do, but someone did it and now we have the ability to help people with injuries better and to do stuff like surgery.

It's a pretty complicated situation.

More Than Mortal · January 27, 2016, 10:44:51 AM

Quote from: eggsalad on January 27, 2016, 01:38:12 AM

an equitable justice system failing wouldn't have nearly as severe or irreversible effects on someone as experimentation would.

This is irrelevant, though. I agree that the justice system ought to be reformed, but that's simply because the current system does nothing for aggregate well-being; recidivism, ignorance of mental health issues etc. What is necessary is some kind of incarceration and rehabilitation for offenders, and since such institutions are necessary we are willing to accept a margin of error in its operation.

Experimentation, even if functionally linked to the justice system, is a separate institution. If we have a defined subset of the population who we deem appropriate for experimentation, we should also be willing to tolerate some kind of margin of error regardless. If, for instance, we knew with certainty that of all the experiments conducted only one would be conducted on a wrongly prosecuted person, I think we would both agree that such a cost is worth bearing. So we hit a point where opposition to some margin of error is not, in fact, a moral principle.

This is, of course, all based on the premise that we choose prisoners to perform experiments on.

Turkey · January 27, 2016, 11:06:31 AM

What does classification have to do with it?

Are you just talking about experiments on non-consenting subjects?

N/A · January 27, 2016, 01:10:21 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · January 27, 2016, 02:06:16 PM

Quote from: Turkey Sanders on January 27, 2016, 11:06:31 AM

What does classification have to do with it?

Like classified information. State secrets.

Quote

Are you just talking about experiments on non-consenting subjects?

Yeah.

Desty · January 27, 2016, 02:23:08 PM

I'm all for it.

Only catch is that the experiment must be for gathering important information.

I value information highly, and I also reckon that there are a lot of lives, and most of them are gonna be wasted. The CEO of a company isn't really gonna have too much of an effect on the world, because his interests will be for the company, and if that is the case then someone else should be able to take that seat.

I do however think that you should not experiment on people who have potential unless it's just for that reason. A genius mathmatician would be safe for instance, unless there is a need for data in genius mathmaticians.

eggsalad · January 27, 2016, 02:26:36 PM

Quote from: Imperial Apologist on January 27, 2016, 10:44:51 AM

Quote from: eggsalad on January 27, 2016, 01:38:12 AM
an equitable justice system failing wouldn't have nearly as severe or irreversible effects on someone as experimentation would.
This is irrelevant, though. I agree that the justice system ought to be reformed, but that's simply because the current system does nothing for aggregate well-being; recidivism, ignorance of mental health issues etc. What is necessary is some kind of incarceration and rehabilitation for offenders, and since such institutions are necessary we are willing to accept a margin of error in its operation.

Experimentation, even if functionally linked to the justice system, is a separate institution. If we have a defined subset of the population who we deem appropriate for experimentation, we should also be willing to tolerate some kind of margin of error regardless. If, for instance, we knew with certainty that of all the experiments conducted only one would be conducted on a wrongly prosecuted person, I think we would both agree that such a cost is worth bearing. So we hit a point where opposition to some margin of error is not, in fact, a moral principle.

This is, of course, all based on the premise that we choose prisoners to perform experiments on.

At what point does this obsession with aggregate good preclude slavery, Stalinism, or other collectivist nonsense?

Elai · January 27, 2016, 02:30:41 PM

Quote from: Imperial Apologist on January 27, 2016, 01:07:04 AM

Quote from: eli on January 27, 2016, 01:03:57 AM
It isn't.
But on what basis?

It violates consent.

ΚΑΤΑΝΑΛΩΤΗΣ · January 27, 2016, 02:59:48 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · January 27, 2016, 03:04:53 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on January 27, 2016, 02:26:36 PM

At what point does this obsession with aggregate good preclude slavery, Stalinism, or other collectivist nonsense?

The point where you realise that slavery, Stalinism and collectivist nonsense has been pretty clearly consequentially bad for aggregate well-being.

The point I'm making is about operations it may be necessary to conduct on the margins of knowledge, in order to better inform our various decision-making processes.

Turkey · January 27, 2016, 03:07:38 PM

Quote from: Imperial Apologist on January 27, 2016, 02:06:16 PM

Quote
Are you just talking about experiments on non-consenting subjects?
Yeah.

Are we talking Nazi gas chamber stuff or innocuous traffic surveys? Clearly there's a spectrum that can't be answered with a yes or no. The only reason utilitarianism works for the military is because it's dealing with a volunteer service fighting enemy combatants; experiments on citizens a la MKULTRA are certainly unethical, and with no exceptions I'm aware of, largely fruitless.

More Than Mortal · January 27, 2016, 03:12:01 PM

Quote from: eli on January 27, 2016, 02:30:41 PM

Quote from: Imperial Apologist on January 27, 2016, 01:07:04 AM
Quote from: eli on January 27, 2016, 01:03:57 AM
It isn't.
But on what basis?

It violates consent.

Except this is an irrational (or, perhaps, super-rational) basis on which to think about morality. It seems that all forms of morality are fundamentally Eudaimonic, while not necessarily utilitarian, otherwise they would make no sense. Even Nietzschean forms of meta-ethics have clear conceptions of utility has some function of human experience. It seems like the deontological case for consent being the basis for morality is because there is significant difficulty in making a broadly consequentialist or utilitarian case for accepting a hard moral law based around consent, and even a soft moral law would be troublesome. It seems incredibly clear to me that some form of coercion is necessary for the preservation of human well-being.

The fact that the NAP cannot be justified by its consequences on a Eudaimonic ground, it's not particularly rational or convincing.

More Than Mortal · January 27, 2016, 03:13:01 PM

Quote from: Dissonant and Repentant on January 27, 2016, 02:59:48 PM

The very fact that you can ask this question unironically is a clear demonstration of the toxic mess that is consequentialist thinking.

Not really; the strongest arguments against this position come from a consequentialist line.

Anonymous (User Deleted) · January 27, 2016, 03:25:56 PM

Quote from: Imperial Apologist on January 27, 2016, 03:04:53 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on January 27, 2016, 02:26:36 PM
At what point does this obsession with aggregate good preclude slavery, Stalinism, or other collectivist nonsense?
The point where you realise that slavery, Stalinism and collectivist nonsense has been pretty clearly consequentially bad for aggregate well-being.

The point I'm making is about operations it may be necessary to conduct on the margins of knowledge, in order to better inform our various decision-making processes.

Not for slave owners or Stalin supporters. I think perspective is a key issue here.

OT: I don't see how it being secret or not matters so much as the rationale and accomplishments of it... not that I'm endorsing it or anything.

More Than Mortal · January 27, 2016, 03:46:36 PM

Quote from: Poopo No Pico on January 27, 2016, 03:25:56 PM

Not for slave owners or Stalin supporters.

Quote

consequentially bad for aggregate well-being.

eggsalad · January 27, 2016, 03:47:26 PM

Quote from: Imperial Apologist on January 27, 2016, 03:04:53 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on January 27, 2016, 02:26:36 PM
At what point does this obsession with aggregate good preclude slavery, Stalinism, or other collectivist nonsense?
The point where you realise that slavery, Stalinism and collectivist nonsense has been pretty clearly consequentially bad for aggregate well-being.

The point I'm making is about operations it may be necessary to conduct on the margins of knowledge, in order to better inform our various decision-making processes.

Are you implying that the world today would be better off without the forced and rapid individualization of Russia? That the course of World War 2 wouldn't probably have been unpredictable without it?

I mean you are certainly justifying the acts of kooks like Mendelle as far as I can see. It's unfortunate that the victims were simply jews, but hey as long as we learn some things maybe then we should continue letting that process continue.

eggsalad · January 27, 2016, 03:48:28 PM

Quote from: Imperial Apologist on January 27, 2016, 03:46:36 PM

Quote from: Poopo No Pico on January 27, 2016, 03:25:56 PM
Not for slave owners or Stalin supporters.

Quote
consequentially bad for aggregate well-being.

How can you easily quantify the aggregate when it may take from one victim to hundreds to achieve a positive outcome.

Thinking that we just need one fella to get an injection in this scenario is unrealistic. This is about establishing the ability to indefinitely exhaust "undesirables".

Anonymous (User Deleted) · January 27, 2016, 03:52:10 PM

Quote from: Imperial Apologist on January 27, 2016, 03:46:36 PM

Quote from: Poopo No Pico on January 27, 2016, 03:25:56 PM
Not for slave owners or Stalin supporters.

Quote
consequentially bad for aggregate well-being.

Guess who decides that.

More Than Mortal · January 27, 2016, 03:55:06 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on January 27, 2016, 03:47:26 PM

Are you implying that the world today would be better off without the forced and rapid individualization of Russia?

This is a myth. Prior to the removal of Nicholas II, Russia had been following a relatively liberal course towards agricultural and commercial reform under the watch of ministers like Sergei Witte and Pyotr Stolypin. The idea that the Soviets had a meaningfully positive impact on the Russian economy is largely false; almost all of the growth throughout that period is due to an increase in both available capital (and the replacement of that capital following the War) and the labour supply, with very little growth in productivity or quality of life.

Quote

It's unfortunate that the victims were simply jews

At what point did I say we should discriminate on such bases?

Hell, at what point did I say I supported the idea?

Quote

but hey as long as we learn some things maybe then we should continue letting that process continue.

Except its unreasonable to discriminate against Jews and subject them to experimentation because of some belief in inherent superiority.