An Ethical Dilemma! Honesty VS Good Consequences

[Tee Kay]

It's not really lying is it?

Edit: Crosspost...

 

[azzaman333]

Good on them for curing cancer.

 

[amadeus]

If it works, it works.

Isn't the question kind of paradoxical, though? I mean, if the way to cure cancer is to take the placebo and no other way, doesn't that mean the drug works and you are not lying?

Take placebo = cure cancer.
No placebo = cancer.
Therefore, the placebo works.

Someone with more philosophy in their background (as in, more than none) can point out where I am flawed with my deductive reasoning here.

 

[GhostWriter16]

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?

Technically no, because I am a Christian and I believe "Thou shalt not lie." However, by any other measure of ethics, I would say yes. I wish there ways a "Maybe," answer

Really, its tough, because its a huge benefit, I dunno. I'll have to think hard on this one. I definitely wouldn't think of such a person as doing a bad thing, and I'd hope they would do it, but technically its wrong.

Amadeus' logic does make sense though, so maybe you could argue that they are telling the truth, and I'd be inclined to agree with that.

 

[classical_hero]

The definition of a placebo is that it is worthless and does nothing for you, whereas this is doing something for you, thus it is not technically a placebo.

 

[lovett]

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?

Why does a line of permissibility need to be drawn at all?

If we insist on tethering our morality to our moral intuition, revealed in in our reaction to moral hypotheticals, it follows that we must assume those moral intuitions are right. If we assume our moral intuitions are right we don't need any rules or 'lines of permissibility' to determine what a moral course of action is; the moral course of action will always be that which our moral intuitions direct. We can decide any moral issue on a case-by-case basis, moral theory is irrelevant. And if we have no moral intuitions in a particular case, that shows said case is not moral.

So if we wish to construct moral theories we must abandon the use of hypotheticals like this (or relegate them to an illustrative role) else our enterprise contradicts itself.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm going to say "of course", so now I have to follow up on the sneakier possibly boobietrapped question.

For the hypothetical I also am going to take away the "they're not actually lying because it does cure cancer" and assume that they have told the public some other bogus claim about the working of the pill (spirit of the thread I think), maybe answered "No" to a reporter who asked whether it was just a sugar pill.

Same pill to cure acne. If they also price it reasonably, it is simply the price one pays to get rid of acne (or cancer), not really paying for the intrinsic value of the pill. Customer pays a price and gets what he pays for. So "of course" and I draw that line quite low.

 

[amadeus]

It sounds a bit like astrology; if you believe strongly enough in it, you can always rationalize whatever it says. Since they always write "you will face a new challenge today" instead of something specific like "a piano will crash through your roof today and kill your cat," it's easy to do. It's a discussion I had about Santa Claus -- he exists because children believe he exists, even though he does not physically exist.

 

[Dudemeister]

The definition of a placebo is that it is worthless and does nothing for you, whereas this is doing something for you, thus it is not technically a placebo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

please read.

 

[Kerozine]

Beneficence > Autonomy

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

please read.

Uh, placebos are defined as not being able to do anything for you. You want a zero baseline to compare your drug against.

And the placebo effect isn't always biological. Think of how people act when they are under doctoral scrutiny.

 

[Dudemeister]

no, you want a drug that is more effective than the placebo effect so those pesky side effects are justified.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

How does that contradict what I said?

 

[Zack]

If it cures cancer, then by all means sell it.

 

[Ajidica]

Agreed, its fine for the company to sell it. Clearly something has to set it apart from another sugar pill, even if it is just psychological.
These situations are hard to argue with because most people will side with the action that produces the most good rather than the 'right' action.

 

[warpus]

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?

Profit is secondary to saved lives.

So, my answer is: probably

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?

Lives being saved.

 

[Narz]

at least in 1st world countries

Why do you hate poor African people?

 

[Narz]

Serious answer : yes, of course.

It'd be nice for my dad's hair to not be falling out. Not to mention he'll probably die fairly soon anyway despite chemo.

 

[Zack]

Not to be Johnny Raincloud or offensive, but wouldn't your dad's hair still fall out because of old age?

 

[Narz]

Not to be Johnny Raincloud or offensive, but wouldn't your dad's hair still fall out because of old age?

Nah, he's got good genes. He doesn't even have a receding hairline.