179 réponses à ce sujet

[Zulu_DFA]

First off, the OP is obviously mixing up Hitler's army and Hitler's party, which weren't the same thing.

Then, the NАZI were bad not because they were NАZI, but because they were bad. Therefore, comparing Cerberus (or anyone) to the NАZI and drawing conclusions from this comparison is flawed, because either Cerberus (or anyone) are bad by their own virtue, or they are not.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 09 février 2011 - 01:09 .

[Flamewielder]

Playing a paragon myself, I'd take the renegade points and use the data.

My reasoning that these people are already dead. Had I been there at the beginning, I would have prevented it/stopped it. But since burning the data won't raise the dead or erase their suffering, I'll use the data to help those that are left so that SOME good can come out of it (as opposed to having them die in vain for absolutely nothing).

Had I known of Teltin before they kidnapped Jack and screwed her up, I'd have stopped it. According to your reasoning, I shouldn't use Jack's talents because they were achieved through the torture and murder of dozens of other biotic kids. I happen to think that Jack needs to find some worth in all the pain she suffered.

Anyway, that's my take on it. It's like if you're a fireman and you see a fully involved building. You know there's someone inside but you also know there's a good chance you or your team mates will die trying to get that person out. You may feel guilty for not rushing in to save that person... but you shouldn't because you did not set the fire. The fire happened, period. You didn't kill that person you didn't rescue; the fire did.

Modifié par Flamewielder, 09 février 2011 - 01:12 .

[Varus Praetor]

Choosing to let innocents suffer and die because you have moral objections to the method by which the scientific/medical breakthrough was achieved is NOT paragon. Once the experiment subjects are dead or tortured you can't undo it. The proper response to your situation is to use the results to benefit the innocent and take the scientists out back and plug them in the head. That both sends the message that such behavior is not acceptable without letting the sacrifices be in vain, which is what destroying the data does.



Personally, if you can look the mother of a dying child in the face and honestly say "sorry, I'm going to let your child die because the methods used to procure the cure make me feel bad" then I question YOUR humanity. Telling that same mother that you aren't willing to torture or kill an innocent in order to save her child is absolutely acceptable.

[mrklean007]

A 100% to the core paragon is incredibly naive, and is just as "bad" and dangerous as a complete renegade. Do you know how much harm has been/can be done by well-meaning fools?

Insisting on every action you take be paragon may not be whats best for the people either.



Also, your main arguement is that using this data signals to others that that it is ok for them to keep doing what thay are doing because you used their data.

Do you honestly believe that these people care at all about what actions you take? They will keep doing what they do completely in spite of your stance.

Furthermore, in taking this action and destroying data you have effectively sacrificed millions to send a message to other terrorists. THAT is renegade.

[Shotokanguy]

Varus Praetor wrote...

Personally, if you can look the mother of a dying child in the face and honestly say "sorry, I'm going to let your child die because the methods used to procure the cure make me feel bad" then I question YOUR humanity. Telling that same mother that you aren't willing to torture or kill an innocent in order to save her child is absolutely acceptable.

What exactly are you talking about here? The Collector base, the genophage, Saleon's experiments...the test subjects are already dead when Shepard gets there.

Did you mean "sorry, I'm going to let your child die in vain"?

If so, it's just the same problem a lot of people are presenting in this topic. Simplification of ethics...not something you should do. Saying "this is right and that is wrong" is a silly way to decide on things. 

[KainrycKarr]

Those that were tortured to obtain the data are dead. There is no justice, nor punishment, that can rectify that in any way.

In my opinion, by destroying the data, you are taking away the single positive result that came from that torture.

Throw away the data, and what's left? Just another story of a twisted a-hole who tortured and killed a bunch of people for no reason.

And you can say that "it will tell future mad-scientists that it's okay", but no, it doesn't.

Bad people will do bad things regardless of what you say and do. That's why they are bad people.

Modifié par KainrycKarr, 09 février 2011 - 05:55 .

[Dexi]

I read some good replies, I think the OP is returning to his cave



Case closed. Results: keeping the data is actually more paragon than destroying it, since destroying it is just stupid.

[TowranPeter]

Dexi wrote...

I read some good replies, I think the OP is returning to his cave

Case closed. Results: keeping the data is actually more paragon than destroying it, since destroying it is just stupid.

I'm glad that some people understand my point of view, but the rest just don't get it.

As long as you use the data, you support torture/abduction and gross experimentation on a sapient species against its will.  As long as you use the data, it will continue to happen. Indirectly supporting it makes you a hypocrite.

SCENARIO #1

    * AIDS
      (Cured, but 18239 humans died in underground experimentation and abduction facility, data was used so the victims don't die in vein.)
    * allergies
      (Cured, but 3823 humans died in underground experimentation and abduction facility, data was used so the victims don't die in vein.)
    * Alzheimer's disease
      (Cured, but 1828 humans died in underground experimentation and abduction facility, data was used so the victims don't die in vein.)
    * anxiety disorders
      (Cured, but 3239 humans died in underground experimentation and abduction facility, data was used so the victims don't die in vein.)

...... The cycle continues through 38000 known diseases and ailments.

SCENARIO #2

    * AIDS
      (Cured, but 18239 humans died in underground
experimentation and abduction facility. Data was destroyed to send a clear message that gross experimentation on sapient species will not be tolerated)
    * allergies
      (Cured, but 3823 humans died in underground experimentation and abduction facility. Data was destroyed to send a clear message that gross experimentation on sapient species will not be tolerated)

    * Alzheimer's disease
      (Cured, but 1828 humans died in underground experimentation and abduction facility.Data was destroyed to send a clear message that gross experimentation on sapient species will not be tolerated)

    * anxiety disorders
      (No known cases of torture and/or cures have arised)

    * arthritis
      (No known cases of torture and/or cures have arised)

    * asthma
      (No known cases of torture and/or cures have arised)

    * astigmatism
      (No known cases of torture and/or cures have arised)


Once it's publicly known amongst the scientists of the world that data acquired through gross experimentation against a sapient species will be destroyed, the amount of scientists who conduct these experiements will diminish. What does this mean?  It means it saves lives. 

One person is too many to be tortured because that one person could be any of you.

If one person has to be severely tortured and experimented on against his will to save 1 billion, it's not worth it because then you've lost your humanity.  This is a true paragon.

Modifié par TowranPeter, 09 février 2011 - 08:22 .

[TCBC_Freak]

Once again you have a warped assumption that these people were tortured and did not volunteer; in the Mass Effect scenario that started this all the subjects volunteered; therefore, by definition it is not torture.

However, to take your charge you are postulating events that never happen in a well regulated world. There are no scientists like this, very intelligent mad men maybe, but not scientists. And a mad man by definition would not care about the risks they do what they do regardless, you can't encourage or discourage them with punishment, they don't care. A mad man tortures because he is mad no matter if he learns something or not and no matter if you use it or not. You are postulating a sane person doing these experiment however the very nature of the experiments precludes a sane person from doing them. No sane (I should clarify, no sane person who is not a sociopath) person kidnaps people to experiment on them. They may get volunteers but then it is no longer torture so long as they sign a waver explaining that they fully understand what is possible to happen to them. In your above post you assume the experiments stop, but that is a fantasy; you have no evidence they would stop because the date is not being used only your speculation. For all you know someone might do even more to re-cure something saying, "We must keep killing and curing because you keep destroying our work, and we will work all the more, and kill all the more."

You whole argument is based on assumptions, fantasy scenarios that are not as simple as you are making them, no real world data, and warped morality. I'm sorry, but you are flawed in your logic because you are basing it all on hyperbole.

Modifié par TCBC_Freak, 09 février 2011 - 08:43 .

[Flamewielder]

In essence: strawmen, strawmen everywhere...

*throws another juicy steak to the troll*

That's the last of the good stuff... you might wanna ration yourself, as I expect pickings will soon become slim on this thread...

[Rasputin]

What we have here is a comparison between Kantianism and Utilitarianism. Ultimately, the world cannot be looked at strictly by weighing the number of people adversely effected by an act, or positively effected by an act.

Also, IRL... hsades of grey baby - just like the song.

I will say that Shepard says it best when he says that he isnt going to loose his principles and keep the base.... thats what makes it a paragon move (to destroy the base). Was it the smartest thing to do? Maybe not. Was it the correct thing to do in terms of utilitarianism, probably not.

Anyway.... the question of using the data gotten by torture is a difficult one, but if it is used to save lives then its probably the best thing to do... and also, it makes us feel good that those people "tortured" did not die/be tortured in vein.

reading:

http://en.wikipedia..../Utilitarianism

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Kantianism

Notice how Kants ethis revolve around duty, rather than emotions or end goals.  Consider how this would impact the question at hand.

Modifié par Rasputin, 09 février 2011 - 09:50 .

[JrayM16]

TowranPeter wrote...

Dexi wrote...

I read some good replies, I think the OP is returning to his cave

Case closed. Results: keeping the data is actually more paragon than destroying it, since destroying it is just stupid.

I'm glad that some people understand my point of view, but the rest just don't get it.

As long as you use the data, you support torture/abduction and gross experimentation on a sapient species against its will.  As long as you use the data, it will continue to happen. Indirectly supporting it makes you a hypocrite.

SCENARIO #1

    * AIDS
      (Cured, but 18239 humans died in underground experimentation and abduction facility, data was used so the victims don't die in vein.)
    * allergies
      (Cured, but 3823 humans died in underground experimentation and abduction facility, data was used so the victims don't die in vein.)
    * Alzheimer's disease
      (Cured, but 1828 humans died in underground experimentation and abduction facility, data was used so the victims don't die in vein.)
    * anxiety disorders
      (Cured, but 3239 humans died in underground experimentation and abduction facility, data was used so the victims don't die in vein.)

...... The cycle continues through 38000 known diseases and ailments.

SCENARIO #2

    * AIDS
      (Cured, but 18239 humans died in underground
experimentation and abduction facility. Data was destroyed to send a clear message that gross experimentation on sapient species will not be tolerated)
    * allergies
      (Cured, but 3823 humans died in underground experimentation and abduction facility. Data was destroyed to send a clear message that gross experimentation on sapient species will not be tolerated)

    * Alzheimer's disease
      (Cured, but 1828 humans died in underground experimentation and abduction facility.Data was destroyed to send a clear message that gross experimentation on sapient species will not be tolerated)

    * anxiety disorders
      (No known cases of torture and/or cures have arised)

    * arthritis
      (No known cases of torture and/or cures have arised)

    * asthma
      (No known cases of torture and/or cures have arised)

    * astigmatism
      (No known cases of torture and/or cures have arised)


Once it's publicly known amongst the scientists of the world that data acquired through gross experimentation against a sapient species will be destroyed, the amount of scientists who conduct these experiements will diminish. What does this mean?  It means it saves lives. 

One person is too many to be tortured because that one person could be any of you.

If one person has to be severely tortured and experimented on against his will to save 1 billion, it's not worth it because then you've lost your humanity.  This is a true paragon.

As of 2009, over 30 million people were infected with AIDs, and 2 million more had been infected that year.  Under your scenario, the trend continues for who knows how long.  Billions and billions of preventable deaths because of "preserving humanity". 

Well I'll tell you what, a true paragon would sacrifice his own humanity to save those people, taking the burden for the rest of the human race.  Any blood from the torture will be on his hands, and taking responsability in order to do what's right is the true paragon way, if there is one. 

Besides, no matter how much you demonstrate that crimes will be punished, crime continues.  In fact, statistically, the more crimes tha are punished, the more athat are committed, so your theory is factually incorrect.

Here's a scenario for you:

  * AIDS
      (Cured, but 18239 humans died in underground
experimentation and abduction facility. Data was destroyed to send a clear message that gross experimentation on sapient species will not be tolerated)

*AIDs
      (crazy scientist is angered by destruction of previous data, had lost family to AIDs becauseof it.  Cures AIDs bt 20000 humans die.  Data destroyed to send message again.)

*AIDs
        (Another scientist is righteous, believes hero to be evil for destroying data, continues research.  Cures AIDs, but 30000 die.  Data destroyed.)

*Meanwhile100 billion people die needlessly of AIDs.  As AIDs victims figure out that data was destroyed, they rebel against government and hero.  Millions more die in bloody civil war.  All legitimate medical research shut down.  All medical research now involves torture because there is no government regulation.

*38000 diseases researched by mad scientists, millions tortured and killed in experiments, when cures are found, they set up aristocracy where medicine is used as a tool to control the remaining population, setting themselves up as dictators, go mad and start torrturing people for fun.

Paragon, right....

[Inverness Moon]

TowranPeter wrote...

I'm glad that some people understand my point of view, but the rest just don't get it.

As long as you use the data, you support torture/abduction and gross experimentation on a sapient species against its will.  As long as you use the data, it will continue to happen. Indirectly supporting it makes you a hypocrite.

What you don't seem to understand is that your point of view is flawed.

The kind of paragon you speak of are the kind of paragons who would sacrifice 1 billion people in order to keep themselves from going against their morals. They're the kind of paragons who are only paragons in their own minds. That is akin to religious fanaticism.

Why did you even start this thread? You obviously have no intention of debating considering you have been hammer the same flawed argument since your first post without any real response to counterarguments.

Edit: I'm the kind of person that would let 3 die now to save 100 later. That is why Balak is dead. My ultimate concern in that situation is saving lives. Some might say that is hypocritical, but it is only because they're ignoring the obvious.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 10 février 2011 - 02:19 .

[Varus Praetor]

Shotokanguy wrote...

Varus Praetor wrote...

Personally, if you can look the mother of a dying child in the face and honestly say "sorry, I'm going to let your child die because the methods used to procure the cure make me feel bad" then I question YOUR humanity. Telling that same mother that you aren't willing to torture or kill an innocent in order to save her child is absolutely acceptable.

What exactly are you talking about here? The Collector base, the genophage, Saleon's experiments...the test subjects are already dead when Shepard gets there.

Did you mean "sorry, I'm going to let your child die in vain"?

If so, it's just the same problem a lot of people are presenting in this topic. Simplification of ethics...not something you should do. Saying "this is right and that is wrong" is a silly way to decide on things. 

I was referring to the OP's introduction of Hitler's (well, Dr. Mengele's) experiments on the Holocaust victims and the massive amount of medical knowledge that was recovered by the West after the war.  Countless lives were saved using the knowledge that was gained in such a fashion.

Personally I think that approaching situations saying "gee, I can't really say what's right and what's wrong, I think many responses are valid" is a silly way to decide on things.  Why get out of bed if you can't approach situations with a set of morals (whatever they may be) and make a decision.

Edit:  Am I the only one that finds it strange that the OP thinks the the highest motivating factor to prevent madmen from experimenting on innocent people is the idea that their research would be destroyed?

Modifié par Varus Praetor, 10 février 2011 - 02:20 .

[JrayM16]

Varus Praetor wrote...



Edit:  Am I the only one that finds it strange that the OP thinks the the highest motivating factor to prevent madmen from experimenting on innocent people is the idea that their research would be destroyed?

Not by a long shot.  The problem with the OP's argument is that it rests entirely on the assmumption that whether or not the data is destroyed will determine whether more currupt research occurs.  It will occur regardless, so the best course is to keep the data.

Towran also ignores that the only in-game justification for destroying the data is to keep the Krogan population in check. 

Not to mention that his train of thought is disproven within the real world and the ME universe.

After events like **** experiments and the incident of testing syphillis on black people, pretty much all governments outlawed inhumane research on humans but used the data anyway.  There haven't seemed to be any horrible torturous experiments in the real world of late, despite the OP's claim that the US ight have justified it by using **** research.

ME proves the other end of the spectrum.  You shut down Dr. Saleon, presumably his research goes with him.  And ExoGeni's research on the Thorian, and Binary Helix's research on the Rachni.  Despite destroying all this research, we still have Maelon torturin Krogan on Tuckanka.  THe cylce ws not even close to being stopped. 

OP, incorrect.  Case closed.

[The Elite Elite]

KainrycKarr wrote...
Bad people will do bad things regardless of what you say and do. That's why they are bad people.

Exactly. Evil people will commit evil no matter what you do. So to say you are going to destroy the cure because it's been tainted by evil acts is stupid at best and completely selfish at worst. You're so worried about making your own conscience feel good that you'd throw away data that could potentially help others. So the game choice makes sense. You want to do the paragon thing and help the Krogan, you keep the cure. You believe the genophage was the right call and that the Krogan population needs to be controlled for the good of both the Krogan and the rest of the galaxy, you destroy the cure. Simple as that.

[wrexfan32hanalei]

pretty much everything that we know about hypothermia comes from **** experiments. also, uhh NASA?

[fredster184]

How can you really think you would discourage "inhumane" scientific practice by not using their data. REALLY. I mean back in the old days we did PUBLIC executions to people who rape, murder, or just say the wrong things. And guess what. People still raped, murdered, or said what they want. Talk all you  want about how we would lose our "humanity" by using the data but being human we have a gift of using logic with our reasoning and  think critically of the consequences of our decisions and if we do that then if using this data can save millions of lives then it would be inhumane not to for the fear of other scientist doing the same horrific acts. Because choosing not to means you are falling into fear and that means they win. 

Choosing either would still result in scientist using "torture" to get results.
Scenario 1
Mad man 1: did you hear they destroyed all his data and executed him after a trial.
Mad man 2: That means that he must have gotten results.We must try to remake his tests. We can't let him and his work die in vain. Even if it costs us our lives.
Mad man1: gather me some 13 year old girls.
Scenario 2
Mad man 1: Did you hear they used his data and saved lives but still executed him.
Mad man2: He died doing what he believed in and in the end he did good. We must do the same to help, even if it costs us our lives.
Mad man 1: gather me some 13 year old girls

God forbid someone like you ever has to make a tough decision with peoples lives because you would cower and cry. But at least you keep your "Humanity".

[Fiery Phoenix]

Khayness wrote...

Godwin'd right at the title.

It's amazing.

[Dexi]

TowranPeter wrote...

I'm glad that some people understand my point of view, but the rest just don't get it.

As long as you use the data, you support torture/abduction and gross experimentation on a sapient species against its will.  As long as you use the data, it will continue to happen. Indirectly supporting it makes you a hypocrite.

SCENARIO #1

    * AIDS
      (Cured, but 18239 humans died in underground experimentation and abduction facility, data was used so the victims don't die in vein.)
    * allergies
      (Cured, but 3823 humans died in underground experimentation and abduction facility, data was used so the victims don't die in vein.)
    * Alzheimer's disease
      (Cured, but 1828 humans died in underground experimentation and abduction facility, data was used so the victims don't die in vein.)
    * anxiety disorders
      (Cured, but 3239 humans died in underground experimentation and abduction facility, data was used so the victims don't die in vein.)

...... The cycle continues through 38000 known diseases and ailments.

SCENARIO #2

    * AIDS
      (Cured, but 18239 humans died in underground
experimentation and abduction facility. Data was destroyed to send a clear message that gross experimentation on sapient species will not be tolerated)
    * allergies
      (Cured, but 3823 humans died in underground experimentation and abduction facility. Data was destroyed to send a clear message that gross experimentation on sapient species will not be tolerated)

    * Alzheimer's disease
      (Cured, but 1828 humans died in underground experimentation and abduction facility.Data was destroyed to send a clear message that gross experimentation on sapient species will not be tolerated)

    * anxiety disorders
      (No known cases of torture and/or cures have arised)

    * arthritis
      (No known cases of torture and/or cures have arised)

    * asthma
      (No known cases of torture and/or cures have arised)

    * astigmatism
      (No known cases of torture and/or cures have arised)


Once it's publicly known amongst the scientists of the world that data acquired through gross experimentation against a sapient species will be destroyed, the amount of scientists who conduct these experiements will diminish. What does this mean?  It means it saves lives. 

One person is too many to be tortured because that one person could be any of you.

If one person has to be severely tortured and experimented on against his will to save 1 billion, it's not worth it because then you've lost your humanity.  This is a true paragon.

Epic Wall ahead, includes House M.D. stuff  

Look, you're entitled to your opinion ( which btw has FLAWED written all over it ), to a point you seem to actually be... stupid... No offense intended, just the truth.
You ever watch Dr. House? Martha Masters, a very young and naive doctor, new in his team is exactly the paragon type you mentioned. 
Dr. House is a ruthless, but a brilliant doctor, who puts saving the patient first, and the ethics last. Even though his methods are arguable, he is unarguably the best doctor the whole Jersey has ( and probably beyond the town's limits). He saved patients from near-certain death, patients that other doctors would have longly given up for. This happens partially because he's a a genius, and partly because he isn't bound to moral ethics. If he has to falsify scripts and reports, induce a certain potentially dangerous effect into the patient to make the other doctors believe him and allow him to do what he wants, he will do it. If he needs to play with the patient's mind to find out info that might be helpful, temporarily screwing with his head in the process, he will do it. They will all ( or at least almost all ) thank him for that.

Now... Mrs Masters comes into play. As I said she is the naive paragon you say it's a pure paragon. Since her arrival she endangered EVERY case House had, because she thought it's better to not have secrets from the patients and let them now everything, of course, that's bad when your patient is an alcoholic with bad doings in the past, who would rather shut up about those than telling them, even though alcohol and whatever might have had a serious impact on his condition. 


In the last episode ( SPOILERS for the guys who watch House ), House had to treat Dr. Cuddy's mom ( Cuddy is the dean of the hospital and House's girlfriend - their relationship is kinda new but they had a rough history from the beginning of the series ). Cuddy and her mom don't get along well. At all. Her case is very difficult since no condition seems to fit. The only man for this job: House. Of course, Mom doesn't like House, so she won't have him as a doctor. Cuddy places a "fake" doctor ( a real doctor, but he's not the one treating her, House is, it's just so the mom thinks otherwise). Who tells mom about this? Masters, of course, because it's not right to do so, in her opinion. Mom, is closer and closer to death, regardless, she wants to move to another hospital. Cuddy makes her stay, barely. House has even more barriers between him and his patient. He works with what he gots and needs to test if Mom has a certain condition, but he needs to replace the meds she currently has ( for the condition the other doctors thought she had) with other meds, deadly for her current-thought condition, but case-solving otherwise. House threatens Masters, blackmails her; she will be kicked out of the med school, her career would be over, not killing only her, but, in perspective, all the patients she could save during her career. More than that, telling that to Mom would prevent her curing. 
Of course, Masters, being the TRUE PARAGONNNZZ you talk about, told Mom "because it's just wrong"... House saved Mom in the end, but in no part due to Masters' help.


Now, replace House with the mad genius ( that he is, anyway) and the paragon with Masters ( that she is, anyway). House's practices are ethically wrong, they promote things such as: "everybody lies, in every circumstance" ( this is like his catch-phrase), lying, fooling. His successes though would make other doctors think his methods are right. Masters, the paragon, of course doesn't want that.
she wants to stop House from his methods. But thing is, House saved hundreds of people who would have otherwise died, patients Masters would have never cured in a billion years. 
Another thing, House already corrupted other doctors ( almost all his team and all the doctors he previously had in his team, all of them seeing his methods are efficient), but almost none would use his methods. Why? One House is enough.
When House was temporarily unable to treat patients, another doctor stood up and used his practices. Thing is, House is bad, but he's actually a good, as long as there's only one. And, only one House can be. There won't be others to do this because it requires only one to do those that he does. But when House stops existing, there will rise another House, because, House is a necessary evil. 


In conclusion: your paragon is plain stupid. If you keep pretending otherwise you'll just make people think you're the same. 

Modifié par Dexi, 10 février 2011 - 08:34 .

[Undertone]

*yawn* another thread?



Every time I see some super-duper idealistic 15 year old kid making stupid incorrect comparisons I want to rocket head-shot Tali again (so enjoyable ^.^ ). But for the love of Tali, stop it.



Do you realize how many lives that research has saved? I can personally attest to one at least - my friend being treated from hypothermia. For the love of the Enkindlers - life isn't bloody black and white. Yeah sure the ****s did bad stuff...mkay moving on. They got useful data that helps us treat stuff - and you are just going to throw it away? Mkay...retard.



If you want an idealistic approach to it - people died for that research, their deaths will mean something. I don't even need to bring a logical, rational argument to prove you wrong.



While I play predominantly renegade in most situations, I keep the research. Who knows when it might be useful. Same reason why I keep the Collector Base.

[Zulu_DFA]

What the OP seems to be incapable of grasping, is that his so called "message" will reach only himself and the like-minded "OMG torture is bad!!!" individuals. But the "Let's torture somebody and look what happens!" folks will discount it without second thought and get on with the evil science as soon as opportunity presents itself. The difference between the "let's keep it" and "let's destroy it" approach toward the results of such people's work is that if you destroy it, the next bunch of them will have to do it all over again. Therefore, destroying it is just asking for a vicious circle, and completely forfeiting the sufferings of the victims.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 10 février 2011 - 11:29 .

[Para Pett]

OP, what makes you think that evil people will stop doing evil things just because you destory any data from theirs or others, horrific experiments? Evil people do evil things because they have no moral compass, don't care for any rules and won't particularly care if you have stopped others in the past.



Just look at the world we live in (you've already used Hitlers army) people shoot, kill, stab, murder, beat up, and abuse others (just to name a few.) We have laws already in place for those, but does that deter others from doing it? Nope it doesn't. So why would you destorying data 'to send a message' stop others? What you are doing, in essence, is cutting of your nose to spite your face.



You can't say, by stopping 5 horrific experiments the 6th will NEVER happen, that is just naive and wishfull thinking. You are also giving evil people a shred of humanity or logic they clearly don't have. As I said above they do things because they feel a need to, or becuase they get some pervese pleasure from it.



A true paragon, (others have pointed this out) would go, 'damn I've got here to late, but I won't take the law into my own hands, I'll hand you in and let the Government decide what to do with you, but this information must be used, so that the deaths of these innocent people will of meant something'

[Lord Architect Mage-Smith Kagrenac]

The original poster's morality appears to be black and white. Research should never be done by torture and brutality, and is unacceptable, but what's done is done. You can't 'undo' what they did by destroying it. The victims will all still be dead or traumatised even if the results are gone. You may as well use the data rather than putting it all to waste.