Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
tommyedison

Science And Terrorists

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Not unless they were willing.

But terrorists have violated the rights of and even killed thousands of people. They cannot claim any rights. It is fitting that they should be subjected to that sort of treatment even against their will.

If we can sentence them to death, then why can't we sentence them to be the subjects of scientific experiments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But terrorists have violated the rights of and even killed thousands of people. They cannot claim any rights. It is fitting that they should be subjected to that sort of treatment even against their will.

If we can sentence them to death, then why can't we sentence them to be the subjects of scientific experiments?

Right now I do not think I can offer any substantial arguments against what you say. I will have to think about this some more. I will note, however, that when you first brought the issue up it conjoured up images in my mind of the Nazi "experiments" in the Holocaust, something rather horrific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But terrorists have violated the rights of and even killed thousands of people. They cannot claim any rights. It is fitting that they should be subjected to that sort of treatment even against their will.

If we can sentence them to death, then why can't we sentence them to be the subjects of scientific experiments?

At best, you could argue that any person who is properly sentenced to death may be experimented on before they are executed. That means you have to prove the moral correctness of executions in general, and in the particular case satisfy the epistemological requirements for imposing the death penalty (namely, absolute certain that the person accused did commit the act). So-called "known terrorists" are not the same as convicted terrorists.

If you want to specifically restrict this pre-execution experimentation to terrorists, you need a very tight definition of what counts as being a terrorist. For example, take a crowd of 10,000 pro-Palestinian demonstrators who are rallying in support of Hamas, but not throwing rocks of blowing up anything. They are acting in support of terrorism, so you can argue that they are themselves terrorists. But conventionally, rallying in support of a political organization is not a capital crime. And frankly, I see little difference between the rabid crowd of pro-Hamas demonstrators and the smug post-moderno-deconstructionist neo-feminist English professor who corrupts the intellects of children in their classes. However, I don't think that sort of stuff should be a capital crime.

Given the basis of your argument, that a murder has no rights at all, all convicted murderers should be equally subject to disposal as chattel. Since they have no rights, then there can be no objection to torturing them to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But terrorists have violated the rights of and even killed thousands of people. They cannot claim any rights.

How do you figure that? They still have a right to a fair trial, etc. They don't somehow become like animals that have no rights whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't have a problem with seeing the organs from a convicted serial killer (sentenced to death) being sold onto the free market in order to compensate victim's families.

Two questions: should a legal system be based on what you do or don't have problems with, and would you extend the same (dis)courtesy to any convicted murder? Okay, a third question: why just the victim's family? Why not his office mates, neighbors, and other presumed friends? Since "family member" isn't a type of property, I don't exactly get what damage is automatically done to family members, which isn't also done to close friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two questions: should a legal system be based on what you do or don't have problems with,

Yes, in the case of dealing with the leftover meat in a capital punishment.

and would you extend the same (dis)courtesy to any convicted murder?
Only to those who plead guilty for multiple murders.

Okay, a third question: why just the victim's family? Why not his office mates, neighbors, and other presumed friends? Since "family member" isn't a type of property, I don't exactly get what damage is automatically done to family members, which isn't also done to close friends.

At the time I was thinking that a family would have economic hardships afterward. I see your point though. Maybe the government costs that were incurred could be payed for without taxation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, in the case of dealing with the leftover meat in a capital punishment.

But what are we to do when you die, and cannot give us your divine guidance?

Only to those who plead guilty for multiple murders.

Oh, okay. I didn't realise that you reserved that 5th-quartering for just those who confess. Still, I have no problem with carving up all convicted murderers. Do you have a problem with that?

At the time I was thinking that a family would have economic hardships afterward. I see your point though. Maybe the government costs that were incurred could be payed for without taxation.

Well, the problem of cost will exist whether or not you have a serial murderer. Unless you're proposing that all convicted criminals should be sold for spare parts, I think your proposal will not only fall short of the mark, but will actually encourage the government to engage in murder as a way of generating revenue. You may have heard, for example, that a number of municipalities use speeding laws as their means of enriching themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But what are we to do when you die, and cannot give us your divine guidance?
Base it on opinions.

Still, I have no problem with carving up all convicted murderers. Do you have a problem with that?

It would be a harsh injustice to enact the death penalty upon someone who is truly innocent.

Well, the problem of cost will exist whether or not you have a serial murderer. Unless you're proposing that all convicted criminals should be sold for spare parts, I think your proposal will not only fall short of the mark,
Short of the mark for what? I never meant to imply that this would ever be the sole source of revenue for government.

but will actually encourage the government to engage in murder as a way of generating revenue. You may have heard, for example, that a number of municipalities use speeding laws as their means of enriching themselves.

As long as the government does not interrogate people into confessing for murder (this should be illegal) and since lawyer's for the defence never would let that slip by either, I think it wouldn't happen. Any evidence of interrogation usually means an admission of guilt is dismissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you figure that? They still have a right to a fair trial, etc. They don't somehow become like animals that have no rights whatsoever.

I am talking about terrorists of whom it has been proven that they have murdered innocent men. They are worse than animals. Atleast animals don't act against their own existence.

Those who cannot value others' lives, their own lives have no value whatsoever.

It would be a harsh injustice to enact the death penalty upon someone who is truly innocent.

I am talking about those who have been proven to be guilty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The system isn't always right, that's why I think it can only be applied to those who admit they are guilty.

Yet I am sure no one would admit to be guilty if he/she knows that the punishment can be anything from death to being a subject for scientific experiments.

BTW, do you think that life sentence is a valid punishment for murderers. It is not just in the sense that it is not eye for an eye but some people do admit murders to escape the death penalty.

Fear of death penalty as opposed to a life sentence can extract a confession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I should get into those issues here, because they are not the topic of thread, and I believe have been discussed elsewhere. All of this lies on whether the death penalty is acceptable.

As to the point of your thread however, I think that if a body is being killed anyway there is no legal difference between letting it rot, or using organs for transplants. The punishment is the same, but one option serves a better purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think I should get into those issues here, because they are not the topic of thread, and I believe have been discussed elsewhere. All of this lies on whether the death penalty is acceptable.

As to the point of your thread however, I think that if a body is being killed anyway there is no legal difference between letting it rot, or using organs for transplants. The punishment is the same, but one option serves a better purpose.

Actually I am not talking about donating organs. I am talking about using LIVE murderers and terrorists for scientific experiments instead of animals as it would yield better results and help in the development of medicine.

Yes, I know this sounds evil, cruel and Machievellian but is it right and ethical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I know this sounds evil, cruel and Machievellian but is it right and ethical?

Only if they are in fact murderers. IF they are, then it is okay. The problem is: can a justice system be sure enough to decide that?

As others have said, IF the death penalty is acceptable, then anything else is as well, so long as it serves a rational purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there is a problem with torturing convicted murderers for two reasons.

If it is torture for the sake of torture and is allowed because they, like animals, have no rights, then it is immoral on the part of the torturer for the same reason it is immoral to torture animals: the torturer is getting pleasure from destruction, and this just isn't a good way to spend your time because it doesn't benefit you. I'm not sure that this is a reason to outlaw it, but it is an ethical reason against it.

If it is torture in the name of science, for experiments for new drugs or procedures, then it runs the same risk as the death penalty. The US doesn't have a completely objective legal system, so it is quite possible that the person being tortured is innocent. There have been people who were sentenced to death, only to be later shown innocent. I think it would be wise to refrain from allowing death row inmates to be tortured for any reason, since there is the real possibility of innocence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it is torture for the sake of torture and is allowed because they, like animals, have no rights, then it is immoral on the part of the torturer for the same reason it is immoral to torture animals

Very true, which is exactly why I said "so long as it serves a rational purpose." The implication being that the pleasure of the torturer was not a rational purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear ya, Inspector. That makes sense- I just wanted to rule out that one. I think that as long as the "rational purpose" is maintained, my main objection would be my second one I listed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we started to experiment on captured terrorists it would certainly anger the terrorists who were not captured. It may possibly lead them to do even worse things to the hostages they capture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we started to experiment on captured terrorists it would certainly anger the terrorists who were not captured. It may possibly lead them to do even worse things to the hostages they capture.

Worse? Worse than what? I am thinking that you cannot get much worse than cutting somebody’s head off with a dull knife with no drugs.

Besides we cannot rule ourselves by "fear of what they may do"

I am of the option that criminals, ANY criminals, have no/limited rights until they suffer the penalty for the crime they committed. If they committed murder, then they forfeit life/rights and the judicial system can do with them as the law(s) deem appropriate.

Now all of this is based off of having a logical/rational judicial system, if we are talking about what exists in the US today, well then the death penalty needs to be frozen, and torture is right out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we started to experiment on captured terrorists it would certainly anger the terrorists who were not captured. It may possibly lead them to do even worse things to the hostages they capture.

So we shouldn't attack the terrorists at all, but placate them? for attacking them and eliminating as many of them as possible would certainly anger those who were not attacked and eliminated and would lead them to do more terrorist acts. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...