An Ethical Dilemma! Honesty VS Good Consequences

[Fifty]

Hi! Time for an ethical dilemma, with a poll. Before you read, make sure you understand the basics of how hypotheticals work..

So Pharmaceutical Company X, in the course of its research, bizarrely figures out that this harmless placebo can cure cancer, BUT in order for the placebo to work, it has to be marketed as this new wonder drug that costs a pretty good chunk of change (but cheap enough that everyone, at least in 1st world countries, can reasonably afford it), and it can never be revealed that its just sugar pills.

Pharma Company X has convinced the government and the research institutions to keep it a secret, and there is no risk of some rogue person discovering the truth. They will only reveal their secret if you tell them to. They WILL make a significant profit off of this drug, and for some reason their doing so is necessary for the placebo effect to fully work on the public.

If word gets out about the nature of the drug to ANYONE, it will be ruined for everyone and cancer will be back.

Would you be OK with Pharma Company X lying to the whole world about the nature of the drug in question, given the huge benefit it has?

If your answer is "of course!", would your answer change if the cure was for something much less serious than cancer, like restless leg syndrome or something like that? Where do you draw the line of permissability?

 

[Link]

Obviously, they should be allowed to.

 

[Ayn Rand]

In a parallel universe, something bad is shown to be good. Is it therefore good?

Obviously. It's a parallel Universe.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Where do you draw the line of permissability?

Where saving large numbers of lives is involved. Unless RLS drives someone Postal, its curing is nigh important, when compared to "the modern plague."

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

(but cheap enough that everyone, at least in 1st world countries, can reasonably afford it)

Haha, screw you Third Worlders!

Anyway, the cost savings to (US - 2004, so it's probably higher now, and not just due to inflation. Need to consider more people contracting cancer, especially with the massive wave of new seniors.) society probably justify a few billion dollars of revenue for the company. Honesty also isn't much comfort for a dead loved one.

I'd probably be queasy about doing this for anything not involving life-saving procedures.

 

[Perfection]

No. Every single nerd out there is going to want to understand how this new cancer treatment works and how can be applied to other problems.

You couldn't possibly get away with it.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

No. Every single nerd out there is going to want to understand how this new cancer treatment works and how can be applied to other problems.

You couldn't possibly get away with it.

there is no risk of some rogue person discovering the truth.

Enough said.

 

[Perfection]

Well I was trying to edit that post, because I wanted to express that point specifically, but for some reason I can't seem to do it.

Anyways, in order for that statement to be true we would not be able to live in a free society.

 

[Moss]

You are basically asking if it is okay to lie in certain circumstances, and the answer is yes.

Kant would disagree with me though.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Well I was trying to edit that post, because I wanted to express that point specifically, but for some reason I can't seem to do it.

You can't describe why the hypothesis is wrong because it requires you to suspend your reason as a condition of reasoning about it.

You are trying to apply reason to a hypothesis that has no basis in reality.

Followers of Immanuel Kant tend to use hypotheses like these.

a) describe a parallel universe similar to our own
b) demonstrate reasoning skills to be non-applicable, apparently by use of reason
c) demonstrate that truth is thereby wrong and deception is good
d) transfer the conclusion back into the real World

this is the essential philosophical argument behind communism, nazism, fascism, theology and all similar systems. Equipped with such a description they believe they have proven rationality and truth to be meaningless.

But they are just describing a non-existent universe, not the real one.

This hypothesis is trying to get you to reason "is a system of philosophical lies good if it achieves our chosen moral goals?". That is Kant's philosophy in a nutshell, and Hitler's, Stalin's etc.

 

[Perfection]

I CAN'T BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR MY POSTS IN ABSENCE OF WORKING EDIT BUTTONS. [pisssed]

 

[Defiant47]

Where are you going with this, Fifty?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You can't describe why the hypothesis is wrong because it requires you to suspend your reason as a condition of reasoning about it.

You are trying to apply reason to a hypothesis that has no basis in reality.

Followers of Immanuel Kant tend to use hypotheses like these.

a) describe a parallel universe similar to our own
b) demonstrate reasoning skills to be non-applicable, apparently by use of reason
c) demonstrate that truth is thereby wrong and deception is good
d) transfer the conclusion back into the real World

this is the essential philosophical argument behind communism, nazism, fascism, theology and all similar systems. Equipped with such a description they believe they have proven rationality and truth to be meaningless.

But they are just describing a non-existent universe, not the real one.

This hypothesis is trying to get you to reason "is a system of philosophical lies good if it achieves our chosen moral goals?". That is Kant's philosophy in a nutshell, and Hitler's, Stalin's etc.

Highly ironic to see someone named after the second most fraudulent "philosopher" deriding anything as being meaningless, irrational, and not grounded in reality.

 

[Fifty]

You can't describe why the hypothesis is wrong because it requires you to suspend your reason as a condition of reasoning about it.

You are trying to apply reason to a hypothesis that has no basis in reality.

Followers of Immanuel Kant tend to use hypotheses like these.

a) describe a parallel universe similar to our own
b) demonstrate reasoning skills to be non-applicable, apparently by use of reason
c) demonstrate that truth is thereby wrong and deception is good
d) transfer the conclusion back into the real World

this is the essential philosophical argument behind communism, nazism, fascism, theology and all similar systems. Equipped with such a description they believe they have proven rationality and truth to be meaningless.

But they are just describing a non-existent universe, not the real one.

This hypothesis is trying to get you to reason "is a system of philosophical lies good if it achieves our chosen moral goals?". That is Kant's philosophy in a nutshell, and Hitler's, Stalin's etc.

I have absolutely never seen such an amazing misreading of Kant. I mean he's a difficult author, but you would have to do all of the following to reach your argument:

A) not actually read/comprehend any Kant
B) not actually read/comprehend what anybody reputable has said about Kant
C) not understand anything about the history of totalitarian regimes.
D) not even be able to tell if your argument is internally consistent.

I'm actually very impressed... I'm no sure if I could do that if I tried.

Random thought: Why does every place on the internet have at least one token Randroid?

 

[dido]

No
When you are making profit off the drug it is not a lie anymore, it is a scam

 

[_random_]

Highly ironic to see someone named after the second most fraudulent "philosopher" deriding anything as being meaningless, irrational, and not grounded in reality.

Who's the first?

 

[shortguy]

It's definitely permissible, and it would be permissible for any illness whatsoever. In practical terms, it seems like this isn't really any different than the creation of a normal drug. A specific company can produce a specific product that others cannot, and it has been shown to work. Why shouldn't they profit? It may be a placebo in the medical sense, but it surely isn't in a practical one.

 

[Dudemeister]

Yes, it would be the right thing to lie.
But they should donate the money they make in the process to PETA.

 

[classical_hero]

Isn't this what drug companies do already?

 

[Yeekim]

Well, they say they are selling pills which cure cancer - and they are indeed selling pills which cure cancer.
They aren't even lying.