39 réponses à ce sujet

[Naughty Bear]

wikkedjoker wrote...

The Holocaust is a good example.

It was horrible, no one will say it wasn’t, but there was potential good that could have come from it. There was experiments conducted on human’s, that traditionally would have never been allowed, and a lot of medical information was gathered. However the biggest atrocity, is not that these experiments happened, but that the medical information was thrown out because of how it was gained.

Testing on humans is a gray area, if you test on 100 people and 90 of them die. What to we learn? More than we would have if none of them died. But no one wants to see people get hurt, its this mentality of morally correct actions, that I think have set us back medically. That’s not to say I think people should just be kidnapped and experimented on, no that’s not what I’m saying at all. However in order to grow in knowledge, and get to a point that this sort of testing is no longer needed, things that may seen horrible need to happen. Sort like kill one person to save 100.

Again I’m not saying that a doctor should out and out murder someone for a test, but if a person is willing, and that test is conducted and the subject dies, than we should used that knowledge.

Much like in ME 1, the guy might not have liked what was happening to his wife, but finding out what killed her, could have helped 100’s, not just medically, but in the creation of better armor and such.

My point ism horrible things happen, it’s a fact of life, everyone is as insignificant as the next, but to the race as a whole, than if a few people die to advance knowledge, that will better mankind than its acceptable.

However, I do believe that anyone that is willing to be experimented on, be informed of the facts, however if there already dead, than the family should understand. This is often not the case however. But I believe that the choice to push there wants aside for the betterment of the race is always the right one. The greater good.

This exactly. Put it in a better way than i did.

[Haasth]

I let them experiment on her.
Why? She had passed on, there is no harm in experimenting on her anymore. Although I can understand that morally her husband would like to bury her this is not the most practical solution - regardless if he buries her or not he can find peace... Personally I would find more peace in the prospect that your wife is helping potentially save countless lives even after she has passed on.

A lot of good could potentially come from this and thus I think it easily outweighs the cons.

Now in real life... Well I do not see the harm in experimenting on humans that have passed on. Providing they can persuade close family members to let them do so - and I hope that the family members are as understanding to realize that it is definitely worth it and much better than simply burying said person. Beyond that volunteers are volunteers, they do so with their own risk at hand and should be allowed.

Lastly we can find out a lot more by experimenting on humans than say animals. A lot of effects are completely different and animal testing is a lot less reliable - and if you ask me morally even worse. 

Modifié par Haasth, 21 janvier 2010 - 02:55 .

[Brannee]

Willowhugger wrote...

You are correct, however. Mrs. Bhatia's body was for both. That is the link between the two. They are investigating the attacks behind Eden Prime and also experimenting on her body to save thousands of more lives.

Or it could end up doing nothing.  The man didn't even know what they were doing with her body, they didn't bother to explain.  They just kept it for their own purposes.

Lack of communication & high status. You are the bridging point for both parties. Your Shepard is the voice of both sides. Someone ( a company) could easily be like this in the near future, one who negotiates those who are against experimentation on humans, and those who are for it. They ( I assume you mean the Military) are researching to save lives & advance human genetics.

First Contact brought us Human Biotics thanks to the Turian war. This was human experimenting. And look at the outcome. Are you really against experimenting on humans even when we got Biotics?

[Starsyder]

It was Samesh Bhatia's decision, not Shepard's, not the Allance's.

[Haasth]

Starsyder wrote...

It was Samesh Bhatia's decision, not Shepard's, not the Allance's.

But what if she did not previously say that upon her death they were allowed to use her for experiments?

[wikkedjoker]

Yootje wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Willowhugger wrote...

dtye wrote...

The way I looked at it when dealing with Samesh was "Which way will save the most lives?" Obviously, the research was working towards saving lives, and simply letting Samesh have her back could potentially kill thousands. So, prevent one man from burying his wife, or force thousands of men to bury theirs? The answer was obvious to me.

My Shepard was fully willing to KILL the people who were holding her body.  The Alliance's policy of human experimentation pretty much all leads back to Cerberus.  Experimenting with things like their bodies (which might include Husk technology) seems pretty damn dangerous to me.

Sometimes, you do the right thing even if it doesn't seem to be the Utiliatarian one.

They're just lucky they caved.  Mercy is not the quality of my Shepard.

arent you going to fell like an ass when it comes back in this game that shield tech etc. doesnt hold up as well against geth attacks as it might have it you let them keep the body and advance technology?  Meaning you just sacraficed 100s if not 1000s of lives simply based on one man's selfishness to bury his wife's body instead of furthering the protection of the ones out there protecting the bastards like Samesh Bhatia lol. 

/rant off.  Sorry, got a little worked upon that one

I actually agree with Willowhugger. Certain ideals, certain ethical choices must hold, even in the face of risk, in the face of danger. If you can alter then whenever you will, they are not ideals, but whims. For some people, the sanctity of an individuals right to their own body is so great that it is one of these ideals. It must be protected, at least in a case where the benefits of violating it are unclear. If it had been the choice 'let us keep the body or we know absolutely certain that hundred people will die and we won't be able to do a thing about it' it would have been another matter. Absolute certain death vs. we hope that this may lead to something if we're lucky.

EDIT: Gah, this topic moves too fast for me!

You don’t speak of ideals, speak of beliefs.
In its very nature and ideal can change or be morphed, its fluid enough to change on the morality of the situation.
Beliefs however are unchanging.

What is right? Is allowing one man to burry his wife to make him feel better the right choice? Or is allowing them to study how the body was killed the better choice?

Lets lay out the facts the woman joined the army, she wanted to help people. If what they learned form her body helped even one person, or advanced even in the smallest way a study that could have very well advanced technology, than to someone who would willingly sign a piece of paper knowing full well they could die, living on in this way, is more then they could have dreamed for. 

[Yootje]

Yootje wrote...
You don’t speak of ideals, speak of beliefs.

Sorry, English is my second language and it's hard to always find the exact nuance I'm looking for.

Lets lay out the facts the woman joined the army, she wanted to help people. If what they learned form her body helped even one person, or advanced even in the smallest way a study that could have very well advanced technology, than to someone who would willingly sign a piece of paper knowing full well they could die, living on in this way, is more then they could have dreamed for. 

If she had signed the piece of paper, then yes, use her, by all means. But in case of doubt the answer must always be NO.

I am surprised how many people would not only allow experimenting on corpses without their consent, but think it's a good idea. You are basically saying that any moral or religious objection you can think of during life means jack **** when you're dead. Screw individual rights, screw freedom, screw the fact that the place you were born is an accident of birth and you may not have had the opportunity to move to a country with different laws: the government owns your ass, whether you like it or not.
How is that a good train of thought?
I don't mean to offend people, but I really, honestly, don't get how you can think that it's okay to say that anyone but you has a right to your body at any time. You're not land the government or a company owns, you're not an asset, you're a PERSON. A sentient being. You should be able to decide for yourself what happens with YOUR body when you die, and if you decide to donate it to research, great. But if you cannot do this, the government (or a company, again, but seriously, it's gonna be the government) infringes upon your rights as an individual in an astounding manner.
So yes, I would be against the experiments even if we got biotics, even if we got geth-proof shields, even if we found a cure for cancer. If the experiments are done anyway and we end up with a cure for cancer, great, don't throw it out - but to condone the use of unwilling subjects for any reason is... unspeakable.
Some people need to watch Soylent Green.

Maybe I'm not expressing myself properly here, but what Willowhugger said earlier is the best I can sum it up as: if we lose our humanity, we lose something more valuable than our lives. If that quote doesn't speak to you at least a little bit, I don't think I can explain my point ot view.

Modifié par Yootje, 21 janvier 2010 - 03:05 .

[Brannee]

Starsyder wrote...

It was Samesh Bhatia's decision, not Shepard's, not the Allance's.

No. It was her decision. She decided that she wanted to help and serve her people. She did not have any say in the experiments on her, but as a person who wanted to serve and help the fate of humanity she would have concented. Ashley even says so because she was in her unit and told Mr. Bhatia.

[wikkedjoker]

Yootje wrote...

Yootje wrote...
You don’t speak of ideals, speak of beliefs.

Sorry, English is my second language and it's hard to always find the exact nuance I'm looking for.

Lets lay out the facts the woman joined the army, she wanted to help people. If what they learned form her body helped even one person, or advanced even in the smallest way a study that could have very well advanced technology, than to someone who would willingly sign a piece of paper knowing full well they could die, living on in this way, is more then they could have dreamed for. 

If she had signed the piece of paper, then yes, use her, by all means. But in case of doubt the answer must always be NO.

I am surprised how many people would not only allow experimenting on corpses without their consent, but think it's a good idea. You are basically saying that any moral or religious objection you can think of during life means jack **** when you're dead. Screw individual rights, screw freedom, screw the fact that the place you were born is an accident of birth and you may not have had the opportunity to move to a country with different laws: the government owns your ass, whether you like it or not.
How is that a good train of thought?
I don't mean to offend people, but I really, honestly, don't get how you can think that it's okay to say that anyone but you has a right to your body at any time. You're not land the government or a company owns, you're not an asset, you're a PERSON. A sentient being. You should be able to decide for yourself what happens with YOUR body when you die, and if you decide to donate it to research, great. But if you cannot do this, the government (or a company, again, but seriously, it's gonna be the government) infringes upon your rights as an individual in an astounding manner.
So yes, I would be against the experiments even if we got biotics, even if we got geth-proof shields, even if we found a cure for cancer. If the experiments are done anyway and we end up with a cure for cancer, great, don't throw it out - but to condone the use of unwilling subjects for any reason is... unspeakable.
Some people need to watch Soylent Green.

Maybe I'm not expressing myself properly here, but what Willowhugger said earlier is the best I can sum it up as: if we lose our humanity, we lose something more valuable than our lives. If that quote doesn't speak to you at least a little bit, I don't think I can explain my point ot view.

I see your point.
But counter it by asking, if your dead and YOU, do not leave it in your will to leave your body to science, because you never believed you would be in such a situation. Than who gets to make that choice for you? Does your husband or wife who wants closure, or out of some religious belief get to decide that? How is that any different?

I don’t believe that bodies should just randomly be taken form family’s, unless they have died of something that has never been seen before.

However if you sign up for the army, or an experiment, than if not written, it is heavily implied, that you and your body are property of that agent. And in the event of your death, it is them who do as they see fit. Normally the body would be returned, but in the event that something killed you that has never been seen before, than its there right to experiment. 

[wikkedjoker]

Brannee wrote...

Starsyder wrote...

It was Samesh Bhatia's decision, not Shepard's, not the Allance's.

No. It was her decision. She decided that she wanted to help and serve her people. She did not have any say in the experiments on her, but as a person who wanted to serve and help the fate of humanity she would have concented. Ashley even says so because she was in her unit and told Mr. Bhatia.

I think its implied when you join the army that if you die in a way they have never seen before than your body is there’s until they figure it out.

[Fuzzyrabbit]

It's a soldier's lot to die in the line of duty. It's beyond disrespectful to deny their loved ones the chance to bury them, however. How do you think the rest of the SA Navy would feel if they knew their bodies would be withheld for experimentation? How much could actually be learned about Geth weaponry from a corpse, and if it were at all legal or moral to do so why didn't they explain the situation?



How can we deny them the rights they died to protect?

[wikkedjoker]

Fuzzyrabbit wrote...

It's a soldier's lot to die in the line of duty. It's beyond disrespectful to deny their loved ones the chance to bury them, however. How do you think the rest of the SA Navy would feel if they knew their bodies would be withheld for experimentation? How much could actually be learned about Geth weaponry from a corpse, and if it were at all legal or moral to do so why didn't they explain the situation?

How can we deny them the rights they died to protect?

Your not don’t know much on forensics do you?

You can tell a lot about a weapon simply based on the injury it inflicts, burns react one way, cuts another, radiation, and chemical, even different.  Theoretically this data can be compiled and a way to fend off what ever did this can be created.

If you see how a weapon inflicts damage, than you can make something to protect against it.

 As for the your soldiers lot comment, do you realize how many soldiers bodies governments have kept, because they did not, at the time understand how they died? Its fairly common.
 
There is also the fact that if a soldier dies, and you have no clue how the weapon that killed them reacts, do you take the chance of releasing that body, with some latten biological weapon?

No better safe than sorry.

[Brannee]

wikkedjoker wrote...

Fuzzyrabbit wrote...

It's a soldier's lot to die in the line of duty. It's beyond disrespectful to deny their loved ones the chance to bury them, however. How do you think the rest of the SA Navy would feel if they knew their bodies would be withheld for experimentation? How much could actually be learned about Geth weaponry from a corpse, and if it were at all legal or moral to do so why didn't they explain the situation?

How can we deny them the rights they died to protect?

Your not don’t know much on forensics do you?

You can tell a lot about a weapon simply based on the injury it inflicts, burns react one way, cuts another, radiation, and chemical, even different.  Theoretically this data can be compiled and a way to fend off what ever did this can be created.

If you see how a weapon inflicts damage, than you can make something to protect against it.

 As for the your soldiers lot comment, do you realize how many soldiers bodies governments have kept, because they did not, at the time understand how they died? Its fairly common.
 
There is also the fact that if a soldier dies, and you have no clue how the weapon that killed them reacts, do you take the chance of releasing that body, with some latten biological weapon?

Quoted for truth.
The cure for cancer is laying in front of you eyes.
Do you let it go, to console the loss for loved ones? Or keep it for futher intent to cure Cancer for the whole world / Human race?
I don't see many people doing the former, honestly.

[DPSSOC]

I let them experiment on the body. My reasoning is in times of war certain rights, certain dignities, need to be suspended for the greater good (conscription, rations, etc.). The Geth attacked and for all we know, at the time, this is the precursor to a full out war with the synthetics, we need every advantage we can get.



On the broader subject of human testing in general I support it on live subjects provided the subjects are fully informed volunteers. That means they are fully aware of what's going to be done, risks, side effects, etc. On dead subjects I support it provided consent of the deceased or next of kin. That is to say the deceased consented before death to allow tests to be done after they die, or the family agrees to submit the body to study. Again in times of war the limitations on the dead subjects can be dropped entirely though I still hold that live subjects should be volunteers.

[Willowhugger]

In any case, I don't think my Shepard really was thinking too much of the long term consequences.



He acts very much on his gut.



Sometimes, this is good, sometimes it's bad.



His gut says to save the Council, even if logically they're immaterial versus stopping Sovereign.