Where the actions of Dr. Josef Mengele morally neutral?

[ummmm........]

Show me an argument that what the OP is describing is moral and I will successfuly argue it down with my hands tied behind my back. A 5 year old could. A monkey probably could!

But the immorality of the act is not at issue, only the origin of the morals applied to it . . .

 

[nonconformist]

Mengele's experiments were undoubtedly sick, and dare I say, immoral.

However, I can't say I believe in any objective set of morals.

In think the msot I can say is that Mengele knew it was wrong, therefore it was immoral, as itt cme from an immoral origin.

 

[Swiss Bezerker]

where is the "i like what he did, and he deserves a big pat on the back"
option?

 

[Sidhe]

It was wholy and abhorently immoral.

To not use any of his experiments to further medical science would also be immoral if it saved lives or inhibited disaese or whatever, I believe some people have used his experiments in positive ways, in conclusion not every act of great evil leads to moral damnation absolutely and the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If that makes any sense.

 

[The 777 Hoax]

For those who voted "yes," how would you feel if one of these experiments were done on your friends/family members?

 

[Inqvisitor]

You go ahead and adhere to your strict moral codes which only limit your place in the universe while I become god through understanding it. *shrug*

Hmm, rotting away for crimes against humanity in a prison and then descending into Hell is quite a peculiar view of becoming "god."

The ability to gain knowledge is the most important factor of humanity, not morals or the social aspect of humanity. The latter is ultimately a constraint of our own puny biology and need for a stable community in our environment. The former has the unlimited potential.

The former would not exist without the latter. Unless things are socially stable on the human side, nobody would be in the position for any type of extensive scientific research. Humanity can understand nothing if not through the grace of God.

Besides, you really arn't the one to be talking about "distrubing and twisted views."

 

[warpus]

Probably, although it usually is not necessary. What's the study?

First we'll take your mom, pour vodka into her eyes until she's blind - to determine how resilient the human eye is. Next we'll make her smoke crack until she passes out.. and in an important psychological experiment we'll make your dad kill her by kicking her repeatedly in her head.

But the immorality of the act is not at issue, only the origin of the morals applied to it . . .

The origin of morality or immorality comes out of any discussion had about the event - with arguments presented on both sides, based on the merits of the morality or immorality thereof.

Just because morality is relative doesn't mean that any action you can think of will be morally neutral, much in the same way that we don't consider everyone on this planet to be equally intelligent or beautiful.

 

[Sparta]

I can't believe there is even a discussion about this ... Mengele was a sick, twisted bastard who would have been prosecuted as a serial killer had the Nazi regime not empowered him as some deranged form of pseudo-scientist (and I use the term 'science' very lightly - the 'experiments' he conducted were almost uniformly of little, if any, scientific value or basis (as at least noted in the OP - but I really think a discussion about the origins of morality would be better served sans this despicable icon (Edit: agree with warpus above)).

What's next, a discussion about how Jeffrey Dahmer really wasn't all that bad since he was really just pursuing 'research' regarding turning humans into zombies?!? Moral objectivity aside, some things are just obviously cruel to innocent fellow inhabitants of the planet. This cretin wasn't on some noble endeavor towards a cure for cancer; he was a sick bastard enacting a God complex on innocent human beings, akin to a disturbed schoolchild torturing ants with a magnifying glass.

 

[nonconformist]

I can't believe there is even a discussion about this ... Mengele was a sick, twisted bastard who would have been prosecuted as a serial killer had the Nazi regime not empowered him as some deranged form of pseudo-scientist (and I use the term 'science' very lightly - the 'experiments' he conducted were almost uniformly of little, if any, scientific value or basis (as at least noted in the OP - but I really think a discussion about the origins of morality would be better served sans this despicable icon (Edit: agree with warpus above)).

What's next, a discussion about how Jeffrey Dahmer really wasn't all that bad since he was really just pursuing 'research' regarding turning humans into zombies?!? Moral objectivity aside, some things are just obviously cruel to innocent fellow inhabitants of the planet. This cretin wasn't on some noble endeavor towards a cure for cancer; he was a sick bastard enacting a God complex on innocent human beings, akin to a disturbed schoolchild torturing ants with a magnifying glass.

Strangley enough, agfter doing a bit of reading on Wikipeida (my prior knowledge of Mengele was primarily culled from The Bys from Brazil, and various books), Mengele was a war hero, and had distiguished himseklf in combat.

 

[Sidhe]

Oh just be done with it and go start up a Nazi party or something, perhaps if you can get enough members you can fulfill your wildest dreams and invade Poland

I don't think a medal on your chest makes up for brutal murder and torture in the name of science somehow, in fact if he had 50 medals he'd still be an inhuman monster.

 

[nonconformist]

Oh just be done with it and go start up a Nazi party or something, perhaps if you can get enough members you can fulfill your wildest dreams and invade Poland

I don't think a medal on your chest makes up for brutal murder and torture in the name of science somehow, in fact if he had 50 medals he'd still be an inhuman monster.

My point was in answer to Sparta's statement about him being a psychopathioc serial killer had he not been a camp doctor.

I disagree. I think hat he was given the opportunity of being a monster, and he took it.
Most people are not given that opportunity, but if they were, I'd say most of them would take it.

A man who has distinguished himself in battle is not automatically a hero, nor is he a monster, he jsut needs that one opportunity.

 

[ZiP!]

Voted No...

But I get your point. Evolution is above morality, morality is a side product of evolution etc... Yeah, I get it. I would have agreed on these experiments (and voted "yes" for the poll) if Megele did them *on himself*, not on others who (obviously) didn't want.

Exemple :
An infantry group, in a war. One soldier has to die to save the others. A voluntering soldier is the man I'd respect the most. But pushing a camarade into getting killed and saying "he just has to take one for the team"... well... it's... you get my point

Oh, and please stop calling him "doctor". He's everything against Hypocrat's oath. "at least, do no harm" ... no comment. He's a disgrace to all Medical staff around the world.

 

[sanabas]

Why are so many people equating answering 'yes, morality is subjective' with 'I don't have a problem with what mengele did'? I say morality is subjective, the simple thing to equate mengele's experiments to is animal experimentation today. To those performing the experiments, the animals are less important & sub-human, and so it's ok to experiment on them in order to find out more helpful stuff for us. Quite possibly to Mengele, his test subjects were less important and sub-human too. But by my morality, what Mengele did was wrong.

 

[ZiP!]

Quite possibly to Mengele, his test subjects were less important and sub-human too.

You mean : like killing an enemy soldier in war. It's not bad. But killing a civilian on the streets is. Depends on how you value what you kill...

I think it was immoral to undervaluate Jews. They are not subpeople. Thus killing them is even more immoral. (let's not talk about torturing them).
It's not the other way round.
I mean, if I kill a random person on the street, I can't say to my defense : "but if he was a soldier from another country I would have had the right to kill him". Doesn't work that way (IMHO).

 

[Sidhe]

My point was in answer to Sparta's statement about him being a psychopathioc serial killer had he not been a camp doctor.

I disagree. I think hat he was given the opportunity of being a monster, and he took it.
Most people are not given that opportunity, but if they were, I'd say most of them would take it.

A man who has distinguished himself in battle is not automatically a hero, nor is he a monster, he jsut needs that one opportunity.

I don't think your right, being given the opportunity most people wouldn't treat human beings like animals and brutally torture and dehumanise them and then kill them. That's my impression, some people would, particularly those who were brainwashed by Nazi propaganda, most though, I seriously doubt it.

 

[Gogf]

No. Trying to rationalize what the Nazis did through some sort of complex philosophical argument is ridiculous. Whether or not morals are subjective, intentionally torturing any living being is wrong. Period.

 

[Sparta]

My point was in answer to Sparta's statement about him being a psychopathioc serial killer had he not been a camp doctor.

I disagree. I think hat he was given the opportunity of being a monster, and he took it.
Most people are not given that opportunity, but if they were, I'd say most of them would take it.

A man who has distinguished himself in battle is not automatically a hero, nor is he a monster, he jsut needs that one opportunity.

I can see your point, and I'll concede that it was not necessarily a foregone conclusion that he'd have become a monster regardless of environment. I guess I was mostly thinking that had he actually gone on to do things like that outside the bounds of WWII, he'd have been (rightly) labelled a serial killer, but you're right in that perhaps the circumstances of his role in WWII induced his transformation into what he became.

If you've got some time, in case you haven't seen or read up on this before, you may find it interesting to check out the Stanford Prison Experiment, which for the most part reinforces your point, IMHO. They took a bunch of mostly ordinary individuals, and had some play the role of prisoners, and some play the role of (largely unsupervised) guards. It had to be shut down after only six days, due to how detached and sadistic the 'guards' had become.

So I suppose you're right that it is difficult to say if Mengele would have become that sick and twisted had it not been for the environment in which he was operating. Regardless though, I don't have any problem abhoring him and his actions - I personally believe that moral subjectivity does not extend to the levels at which he violated human decency. I'd like to hope that 'most' people would not accept a similar presented opportunity, but that's probably sadly questionable as well, depending on the circumstances (for example, see the Milgram Experiment). Some very scary stuff came out of those tests regarding human nature in extreme conditions.

Apologies for the slight hijack there, Meleager.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

intentionally torturing any living being is wrong. Period.

Then morals are not subjective. Comma,

 

[sanabas]

You mean : like killing an enemy soldier in war. It's not bad. But killing a civilian on the streets is. Depends on how you value what you kill...

I think it was immoral to undervaluate Jews. They are not subpeople. Thus killing them is even more immoral. (let's not talk about torturing them).
It's not the other way round.

Huh? I'm not saying any homo sapiens is sub-human. I'm saying that some people are quite capable of saying that not all homo sapiens are equally important, and using that to justify doing things tothe less important animals. And that a very similar argument is used to justify doing all sorts of things to less important members of the animal kingdom.

I mean, if I kill a random person on the street, I can't say to my defense : "but if he was a soldier from another country I would have had the right to kill him". Doesn't work that way (IMHO).

It doesn't work because murder laws aren't particularly subjective, and because you don't get to pick which murder law you're going to be judged by. But it's very possible to be convicted of murder for a killing that was entirely morally justified according to your morals. That's because the morals you're using are subjective, and just because it's morally ok to you doesn't mean it's morally ok to someone else.

 

[nonconformist]

I can see your point, and I'll concede that it was not necessarily a foregone conclusion that he'd have become a monster regardless of environment. I guess I was mostly thinking that had he actually gone on to do things like that outside the bounds of WWII, he'd have been (rightly) labelled a serial killer, but you're right in that perhaps the circumstances of his role in WWII induced his transformation into what he became.

If you've got some time, in case you haven't seen or read up on this before, you may find it interesting to check out the Stanford Prison Experiment, which for the most part reinforces your point, IMHO. They took a bunch of mostly ordinary individuals, and had some play the role of prisoners, and some play the role of (largely unsupervised) guards. It had to be shut down after only six days, due to how detached and sadistic the 'guards' had become.

So I suppose you're right that it is difficult to say if Mengele would have become that sick and twisted had it not been for the environment in which he was operating. Regardless though, I don't have any problem abhoring him and his actions - I personally believe that moral subjectivity does not extend to the levels at which he violated human decency. I'd like to hope that 'most' people would not accept a similar presented opportunity, but that's probably sadly questionable as well, depending on the circumstances (for example, see the Milgram Experiment). Some very scary stuff came out of those tests regarding human nature in extreme conditions.

Apologies for the slight hijack there, Meleager.

Of course, I agree with you.

People tend to do what is easiest for them to do, or what they can get away with.
I different circumstances, they'd be charming people.

My main point was that saying that he'd be a serial killer is not that clear cut....had he n ot had the oppotunity or the environment, he may very well have lead a normal, and sucessful life as a doctor, or a lawyer or soldier, or whatever.

My other point was. that in this world where we are so quick to demonise, anfd make heroes out of people, you have to remember a medla does not make you a good person.
Mengele recieved a number of medals (Iron Cross, 1st and 2nd classes, and Medal for the Care of the German People), for acts such as pulling to panzer crewmen out of their burning tank under enemy fire.
In pretty much any army in the word, that makes you a hero.
This guy went on to become a brutal killer.

I don't know where I'm going with this, but I supose it all somehow ties in to war, death, and the people who experience it.