An Ethical Dilemma! Honesty VS Good Consequences

[Onionsoilder]

Isn't this what drug companies do already?

Generally. At least with things like mood drugs. There was a report a while back about how a lot of anti-anxiety and anti-depression drugs that were FDA approved a couple years ago have roughly the same % of effectiveness as placebos.

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

And this. If the drug cures cancer, it doesn't matter if it's a sugar pill, and if it only works because people thinks it does what it logically shouldn't.

If the drug does not cure 100% of cancer(even if it does 'help' a small amount of people get better) they should not be allowed to lie though, because people will mistakenly take the drug in the belief that it could save them. I realize that's not what the hypothetical is asking, but I already gave my answer to the hypothetical.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Why do you hate poor African people?

They don't typically worry about cancer, in retrospect. So it's not as unfair as (I) thought (it) to be.

 

[Ayatollah So]

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.

But isn't there some point (a really trivial irritation that costs 1 cent to cure) where you'd rather just have the knowledge? There is for me, and for most people.

As for where the cut-off lies, that's part of what free speech and democracy are for: for reaching reasonable agreements that trade-off different social benefits against each other, for example knowledge and happiness.

Isn't this what drug companies do already?

Generally. At least with things like mood drugs. There was a report a while back about how a lot of anti-anxiety and anti-depression drugs that were FDA approved a couple years ago have roughly the same % of effectiveness as placebos.

Yup. And the World Health Organization found that about 2/3 of people in most countries recover from mental illness - except for countries with wide use of psychotropic drugs, where recovery rates are lower. Of course, there are confounds, but it makes you wonder...

 

[Zelig]

After some thought for my answers to remain consistent through a variety of situations, I'd have to say that no, it's not morally permissable; truth is more important than a cure for cancer.

If the hypothetical situation stipulated that the placebo was the only possible cure for cancer, it would make my choice more difficult.

 

[Defiant47]

After some thought for my answers to remain consistent through a variety of situations, I'd have to say that no, it's not morally permissable; truth is more important than a cure for cancer.

If the hypothetical situation stipulated that the placebo was the only possible cure for cancer, it would make my choice more difficult.

"We all lost our loved ones, but at least we know the truth!"

Give me a break...

 

[Traitorfish]

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

Government-mandated affirmative action, ironically enough.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

There's one problem with the hypo--if it cures cancer it's not really a placebo.

 

[Zelig]

"We all lost our loved ones, but at least we know the truth!"

Give me a break...

Eh? If I were involved in the situation, either providing the placebo-cure, or benefiting from the treatment, directly or indirectly, it would be an easy decision in favour of the placebo-cure.

That being said, I'm uncomfortable with declaring either choice as morally permissable - I'm not sure that in the long term, that a lie of that scope regarding medical knowledge would be any better than curing cancer in the short term.

 

[Defiant47]

Eh? If I was involved in the situation, either providing the placebo-cure, or benefiting from the treatment, directly or indirectly, it would be an easy decision in favour of the placebo-cure.

That being said, I'm uncomfortable with declaring either choice as morally permissable - I'm not sure that in the long term, that a lie of that scope regarding medical knowledge would be any better than curing cancer in the short term.

It is not morally permissible to break veracity in order to save lives?? Where's your moral compass pointed to?

 

[GhostWriter16]

It is not morally permissible to break veracity in order to save lives?? Where's your moral compass pointed to?

It's tough though, I think its better for society, but I also believe when the Bible says Thou shalt not lie that's what it means.

I think I agree with the few that have said its not really lying though. Whether its "Sugar" or not, if it works, its still a cure to cancer.

 

[Defiant47]

It's tough though, I think its better for society, but I also believe when the Bible says Thou shalt not lie that's what it means.

I think I agree with the few that have said its not really lying though. Whether its "Sugar" or not, if it works, its still a cure to cancer.

The Bible is irrelevant to a moral discussion.

Unless you want me to start throwing lines from the Odyssey or from the tales of Gilgamesh as relevant to moral truths.

 

[Narz]

They don't typically worry about cancer, in retrospect. So it's not as unfair as (I) thought (it) to be.

Plenty of them still die of it, especially in more well off parts.

 

[Zelig]

It is not morally permissible to break veracity in order to save lives?? Where's your moral compass pointed to?

Sure, if that were the only thing at stake, I'd even argue that it would be morally impermissible not to - but since it wasn't specified in the hypothetical, I think it's a reasonable assumption that a lie on that scale would have significant negative effects in the longer term.

 

[Defiant47]

Sure, if that were the only thing at stake, I'd even argue that it would be morally impermissible not to - but since it wasn't specified in the hypothetical, I think it's a reasonable assumption that a lie on that scale would have significant negative effects in the longer term.

Unless those "significant negative effects in the longer term" would involve a greater amount of lives being lost than how many lives would have been saved, I don't see a problem.

 

[Zelig]

Unless those "significant negative effects in the longer term" would involve a greater amount of lives being lost than how many lives would have been saved, I don't see a problem.

I dunno - cancer isn't an automatic death sentence, and tends to strike people who are old, or who put themselves at risk for cancer. Not that it isn't worth curing, but assuming an equal number of people, I'd cure cystic fibrosis over cancer.

And the hypothetical specifically specified that only people in the first-world would have access to the cure - saving a 90 year-old American from cancer doesn't necessarily have more value than saving a 10 year-old Zimbabwean from poverty.

In effect, I'm just saying that measuring "lives saved" and "lives lost" isn't straightforward.

 

[Narz]

I dunno - cancer isn't an automatic death sentence, and tends to strike people who are old, or who put themselves at risk for cancer. Not that it isn't worth curing, but assuming an equal number of people, I'd cure cystic fibrosis over cancer.

And the hypothetical specifically specified that only people in the first-world would have access to the cure - saving a 90 year-old American from cancer doesn't necessarily have more value than saving a 10 year-old Zimbabwean from poverty.

In effect, I'm just saying that measuring "lives saved" and "lives lost" isn't straightforward.

It never is, is it? Good thing it's just a pointless question on the Internet & not a real life dilemma.

I wonder sometimes what all this practice of playing God is for (although it's understandable why Civ players would enjoy it). Most of us will never have the opportunity to manage more than just a few people, let alone make ethical choices affecting millions.

Don't mind me... in a bit of a funk tonight.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

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.

And this is why hypotheticals are stupid. There is no such drug that is both a placebo and not at the same time. Your condition is therefore impossible.

 

[Ayn Rand]

And this is why hypotheticals are stupid. There is no such drug that is both a placebo and not at the same time. Your condition is therefore impossible.

Exactly, it can be dangerous to answer hypotheticals. In an alternative reality, outcomes and judgements are different to the real World, and reason can not be applied.

 

[Zelig]

And this is why hypotheticals are stupid. There is no such drug that is both a placebo and not at the same time. Your condition is therefore impossible.

You're missing the point - what a placebo is, isn't important.

Imagine that the OP didn't contain the word placebo - the drug company simply figures out a way of marketing a drug so that it cures cancer. This marketing only works so long as everyone is misled as to what the drug contains - as soon as anybody finds out the truth of the contents of the drug, it stops working.

 

[Traitorfish]

And this is why hypotheticals are stupid. There is no such drug that is both a placebo and not at the same time. Your condition is therefore impossible.

Firstly, he never suggested that it was; it is a placebo only, as the OP, I had thought, clearly states.
Secondly, you are missing the point entirely; the question posed is whether it can be moral to lie, or, more broadly, to commit an act which is, in itself, immoral if it leads to a greater end. The details themselves are not actually important, they exist merely to illustrate the question, and so act as a mental aide of sorts; he could just as easily have described the ending of Watchmen, this was simply more straightforward.

Edit: Partial crosspost with Zelig