Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality

["Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri@netcom.com>]

timmy predictably states the case for moral relativism.

>I think it's an error to use "moral" or "immoral" as a modifier for "science."
>
>It's a matter of opinion/ethics as to whether some science is "for immoral
>purposes," but calling something "immoral science" is fraught with trouble.
>
>To a vegetarian, any science related to meat production is "immoral science."

well, the concept of "criminality" is likewise fraught with trouble.
what is criminal and what is not? obviously some definitions stretch
the limits. is a jaywalker a criminal? a political dissident? ok, how
about an axe murderer?  similarly, I think your predictable opposition
to the use of the word "immoral" is specious. 

moreover, I think such a  misunderstanding, or worldview, is 
detrimental to human welfare in general. I think all the evil 
government scientists I've been referring to recently would
very much agree with you on rejecting ideas of "morality" and 
"conscience". a person does not need an infallible definition
of morality to navigate the world, imho, but a person that has
none, or rejects any such attempt, is part of the problem and
not part of the solution, imho.

>Personally, I don't view scientific experiments done on condemned prisoners
>as immoral. If a human being has already been sentenced to die, and, for
>example, accepts some payment (perhaps for his heirs) to die in some
>scientifically interesting way, why call it "immoral"?

oh, well, lets see, you have a very obvious glitch in your reasoning.
you presume the prisoner gives his permssion. now lets see, assume he
doesn't? just to pop a hypothetical example out of the blue,
say someone named timmy gets arrested for gun violations and
gets thrown in jail temporarily. would it be immoral for the
police to remove his organs? perhaps without his permission? 
perhaps without anesthetic? if not immoral, what? criminal? criminal
but not immoral?

>While I would not have, I hope, worked in a Nazi death camp, the science
>obtained is undeniably real science, some of the only solid data we have on
>freezing humans, on exposing them to pathogens, etc.

I've seen your defense of these experiments before-- its a topic of
interest for you for obvious reasons; it presents a possible glitch
in your moral relativism.

I don't think BWs claim that there is a difference between 
immoral scientists and immoral science. immoral science is what
immoral scientists practice. what's the point? my personal point
is that if we had a culture of people who were concerned about
morality, perhaps we would have institutions that reflect
integrity. 

contrary to most here, I believe that our institutions
are correctly representing the people of a country-- their thoughts,
their motivations, their concerns. its key to the philosophy of
disenfranchisement, apathy, and nihilism (and anarchism) to 
claim that the government is not representing the people. what
is the evidence for this? 

because the government is corrupt,
the people are not necessarily corrupt? because the government
is greedy and full of powermongers, the population is not
full of greedy powermongers who would do the same given the
opportunity? government is a mirror into our psyches that
few people care to gaze on, precisely because we are not
the fairest of them all.

we've got the government we deserve, and it reflects our
own pathologies within our psyches back to us. it reflects our
laziness and apathy, our cynicism, our alienation, our 
withdrawal. and it takes a person who can master themselves 
to face up to this simple truth-- something that most everone of our 
country has failed to admit.

when we begin to ask questions like "what is integrity" and
"what is moral" and come up with serious answers, our world
will improve. it will degenerate otherwise, and has given us
a tremendous existence proof of that fact to date.

but just remember, again, that I'm aimlessly ranting here, and there's no
need to take any of this seriously <g>