The use of the data or technology gathered by unethical means

Locksley wrote: Rather, the society as a whole should take on the moral burden of all such offenses. I'm all for a class in elementary school entitled "Our Moral Obligations" or somesuch, which clearly details the pitfalls and failings of the country (of any country).

That class would have to be a higher level one and carefully structured but I could get behind such a class for sure.

How though do you figure anyone other then those involved in the harming of others is responsible for it? Are you to blame for the man that speeds when you are on the highway? Am I responsible for the negligence of parents across the country I have never met or even heard of? The idea of social responsibility for the misdeeds of a few is something I have never understood or agreed with.

I absolutely love this point, it's one I've struggled with for a long time and can be explored through the simple thought experiment of "If I save a man's life and he then goes and commits a murder the next day, am I responsible for the murder?" We can at least ask ourselves "to what extent am I responsible for the murder?" Honestly, I would feel some personal responsibility, but in the end we have to consider the immediate action as its own entity distinct from what follows. Since I am a temporal being primarily locked within a linear experience of the universe, it is not part of my available knowledge what happens tomorrow. Therefore, acting to the best of my current knowledge and upon my personal moral compunctions, saving the man is the right thing to do. What he chooses to do with that life after I have saved it is not necessarily my direct responsibility (though we could consider it an indirect responsibility).

And, actually, indirect responsibility is very important for a society. We are all indirectly responsible for one another in innumerable ways. I might not be responsible, directly, for those abusive parents halfway across the world, but I am caught up in a system of social imagery and moors which might subtly or overtly support that abuse; there may be abuse closer to home which I do have the ability to affect; perhaps in a short story I write I can deal with this issue in such a way that it brings a small amount of light to it -- we do what we can, when we can. Personally, I see it as a challenge to learn how to look at things like responsibility in a much larger framework than what we might ordinarily consider.

Marcus Aurelius wrote that 'Men exist for the sake of one another." I try to take that to heart.

Actually, the lesson that got me started thinking about this issue was way back when I first played through Knights of the Old Republic II and Kreia posited a similar problem: no matter what we do there is a consequence to our actions. I think that we owe it to ourselves, at least, to be mindful of what sort of impacts we might be causing in the world (mindful, mind; we don't need to be living in a pit of painful pathos, simple awareness is sometimes enough).

I view the situation differently. There is another quote I have seen attributed to Marcus Aurelius that I feel applies. " I do what is mine to do, the rest does not disturb me." Meaning I take care of what I can with my current knowledge and resources. But I cannot nor do I feel anyone else should take the blame or burden on things that they could not foresee, lack any knowledge of, or lack the tools to do anything about. To try to shoulder such burden needlessly creates pain for those who feel at fault when really they did nothing wrong. The whole movement of "systems that contribute to xyz" takes the burden off of the perpetrator of the evil deed and spreads it to others. When that is not the case. Everyone is responsible for their actions once they have reached the age of majority. No one else. Should we all do our best to help and support each other? Yes. But we are not owed such help. We are not guilty of the failures of others. Nor should we suffer the burden of carrying them. No one can shoulder the misdeeds of the world.

It is possible we see things differently! But, I wonder if we've delved in deep enough to know for sure -- I feel that I agree with you, from a certain point of view, perhaps more than might be evident. To that degree I wonder -- can not both of Aurelius's quotes be true at the same time? I think there's a lot of merit in the Stoic philosophy that provides for an individual's responsibility to themself combined with their responsibility to the larger organism of their social structure, and from there the even larger structures of the species and the total environment (and these are all structures which contain innumerable regions of their own, from individual, to local, to global).

Anyway, what I question most is how we look at the word "blame" -- perhaps this word is where we are getting tripped up, because I don't think that I should lay claim to blame for the destruction of the redwood old growth because my ancestors were partly responsible for logging it. My Self is quite separate from those actions. However, I can recognize that there are certain systems which implicitly benefit me quite without my approval or support -- and that recognition is important, I think, but should not come with a moral engagement or the sort of responsibility that suggests I need to live within a negative emotional state. I think a lot of people are used to a certain sense of "wrongness" as in the Catholic idea of "sin" when confronting systems views of things like racism (or, perhaps, of ill-gotten medical research). I don't think "sin" is valuable at all, but I do think awareness and social responsibility (beyond the classical-liberal idea of association by consent) is important. Maybe?

So, what causes the aversion to this sort of thinking? I wonder, is it possible to consider the notion of systemic issues and personal accountability without becoming bogged down in a mire of ill-will and negativity? I'm not sure, personally, but I do try to play with this idea and see what arises.

See the whole idea of benefiting from whatever or systemic whatever gets dismissed by me for one reason. What good does it do? What good does it do to say in some roundabout way that any number of things are "my responsibility, or systemically benefit me". If the behavior of another is bad, I will point it out and see to change or prevent it whenever possible. But if we are not to feel guilty about something we have no control over, then what is good or use in claiming to be responsible for it? The dictionary defines responsibility thusly:
Definition of responsible
1 a : liable to be called on to answer
b (1) : liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent a committee responsible for the job (2) : being the cause or explanation mechanical defects were responsible for the accident
c : liable to legal review or in case of fault to penalties
2 a : able to answer for one's conduct and obligations : trustworthy
b : able to choose for oneself between right and wrong
3 : marked by or involving responsibility or accountability responsible financial policies
4 : politically answerable; especially : required to submit to the electorate if defeated by the legislature —used especially of the British cabinet


If we are not answerable in any emotional or legal way for these things then in what way can we claim responsibility? If we are not to feel bad or be punished for them then we are not answerable to them. If we try to try to change the definition to something else we take a and define it as b, and then we end up not speaking about the same thing.

As a Lupus patient , and cancer patient in remission ( for now) i can tell you that there are always souls , (animal and human) that have suffered severely for your right to live. Should we destroy the data and let their lives be lost for nothing , or should we acknlowledge their suffering and use the dat in honour of them? What is more ethical ? How do we apply reason to this without inflicting more suffering?

Senan wrote: As a cancer patient and a participant in clinical trials, I have a biased opinion about ill gotten medical data or technology that isn't very popular. We should never use data collected or technology developed in an unethical fashion. Ever. It isn't simply about the ends justifying the means or the greater good. It is about maintaining the sanctity of human life and each individual's right to it. I am willing to sacrifice my life in the name of science if it will save others in the future, but it has to be with my full consent, cooperation, and on my terms.

Once we allow the use of data or technology acquired by unethical means, we are setting the precedent that one life (the future patient or benefactor of the research) is more important than another (the person being experimented on). This creates the opportunity for those of greater means (read that as "rich") to justify exploiting people who are in desperate life and death situations. The fact that a procedure, medication, or treatment is discovered through unethical experimentation will not stop a drug company or a hospital from selling that remedy for profit, and they will not compensate the original victim or their family because they don't have to legally. Meanwhile, they will get a patent on the technology, procedure or recipe and then jack up the price.

I realize the irony of denying someone a life saving treatment because it was obtained unethically given that I am currently looking for any life saving treatments for myself, but this is a very slippery slope and human nature has demonstrated time and again that once you condone behavior like this, it is impossible to go backward. There will always be a justification for using tainted data or technology, no matter how loud the dissenting voices become. It cannot be allowed or tolerated. Any doctor doing research of this kind is in violation of his Hippocratic Oath to "first do no harm" and isn't a doctor in my eyes. They are a criminal violating one of the most sacred of the inalienable rights, that being the right to life.

I respect and understand why you would feel this way. I feel, however, that humans (certain humans) will do unethical things for profit or power no matter how much we rail against it, no matter the threat of punishment. To deny someone a treatment that we know could save (or greatly improve) their lives simply because the knowledge of said treatment was gained in an unethical manner seems like doing harm, in its own way. I also would like to believe that, had I been a victim of this sort of thing, I would want something positive to come from my experience. If it can help someone, and humanity as a whole, I feel like that would only help me in terms of healing from that experience.

The interesting part of this conversation so far is that there are two different questions being asked. There is the practical question of using data and technology to aid those who need it, and the ethical question of whether it is right to do so if you know it was gathered via nefarious means. To say that we shouldn't waste the suffering of the victim and honor them by using the information gained at their expense may seem noble and just, but it dodges the ethical question entirely. It is removing ones self from any complicity. To believe that there is nothing you can do about the way the information was gathered after the fact is to admit that you are okay using it for personal benefit without the responsibility of paying the price.

Basically, wanting to help people and ease suffering is a noble pursuit and each individual has the choice to use whatever is at their disposal to do so, but that does not mean you are not acting unethically while doing so. It is entirely possible to do the right thing while still being wrong. That is the difference between ethics and morality.

We cannot change the past. Information, however gathered, should be used for the greater good. Define "personal benefit", because that is not what I was talking about. I'm talking about benefiting humanity as a whole. We can punish the people who gathered the info via nefarious means, but it is a complete waste not to use the info if it can, in fact, help people. Those who suffered will have then suffered for nothing. I believe we should always try to make a positive impact from a negative situation, whenever possible.

Senan wrote: The interesting part of this conversation so far is that there are two different questions being asked. There is the practical question of using data and technology to aid those who need it, and the ethical question of whether it is right to do so if you know it was gathered via nefarious means. To say that we shouldn't waste the suffering of the victim and honor them by using the information gained at their expense may seem noble and just, but it dodges the ethical question entirely. It is removing ones self from any complicity. To believe that there is nothing you can do about the way the information was gathered after the fact is to admit that you are okay using it for personal benefit without the responsibility of paying the price.

Basically, wanting to help people and ease suffering is a noble pursuit and each individual has the choice to use whatever is at their disposal to do so, but that does not mean you are not acting unethically while doing so. It is entirely possible to do the right thing while still being wrong. That is the difference between ethics and morality.

Complicit? How? No one advocated for the evil to happen, no one took part in hurting them, the people in this convo are even for the laws making the practice that created the info/tech to be illegal and to punish those who break them. So in what way do we help commit the crime? Because that is what complicit means.
What can be done after the fact about the information other than tossing it? How is it more ethical to cause further suffering you have the power to prevent?

We cant change the suffering of those that were hurt. We can make laws against what was done to them but I am assuming we already have that in place. We can jail the people who hurt them but that has been a given the entire convo. So what can we really do other than toss out the life-saving info and let people die as a result?

( BTW this is not meant to be read anywhere near as aggressive as it could sound. But just incase the disclaimer is here, because no tone is heard on the interwebs )