--- Log opened Fri Feb 23 00:00:07 2024
00:07 -!- TMM_ [hp@amanda.tmm.cx] has quit [Quit: https://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.]
00:07 -!- TMM_ [hp@amanda.tmm.cx] has joined #hplusroadmap
00:35 -!- alethkit [23bd17ddc6@sourcehut/user/alethkit] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
00:36 -!- alethkit [23bd17ddc6@sourcehut/user/alethkit] has joined #hplusroadmap
01:08 -!- darsie [~darsie@84-113-55-200.cable.dynamic.surfer.at] has joined #hplusroadmap
01:22 -!- Croran [~Croran@user/Croran] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
01:48 -!- Croran [~Croran@user/Croran] has joined #hplusroadmap
08:45 -!- cthlolo [~lorogue@77.33.24.3.dhcp.fibianet.dk] has joined #hplusroadmap
09:01 -!- cthlolo [~lorogue@77.33.24.3.dhcp.fibianet.dk] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
09:32 -!- L29Ah [~L29Ah@wikipedia/L29Ah] has quit [Excess Flood]
09:34 -!- L29Ah [~L29Ah@wikipedia/L29Ah] has joined #hplusroadmap
15:02 < hprmbridge> yashgaroth> The first human embryo splitting procedure was reported by a team of researchers including Robert Stillman and Jerry Hall from George Washington University in Washington, DC, in October 1993, at a joint meeting of the American Fertility Society and the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society (Hall et al., 1993).
15:03 < hprmbridge> yashgaroth> However, it was later found that the study did not possess the valid Institutional Review Board approval, and the authors were reprimanded and instructed to destroy their data (Fackelmann, 1994; Macklin, 1995).
15:03 < hprmbridge> yashgaroth> https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/23/2/156/2527545?login=false
15:03 -!- TMM_ [hp@amanda.tmm.cx] has quit [Quit: https://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.]
15:03 -!- TMM_ [hp@amanda.tmm.cx] has joined #hplusroadmap
15:16 < hprmbridge> kanzure>  https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1064664282450628710/1210726792290242570/image0.jpg?ex=65eb9c31&is=65d92731&hm=beab315751445fe900df9b63a4595b187553446174a600bb83471a64295bc6af&
15:30 < hprmbridge> alonzoc> Is being demanded to delete data common? Like if it's already done it's kinda a waste. The Nazi's human experimentation were abhorrent and many lacked any scientific usefulness but those that were useful added to the corpus of modern medicine
15:32 < hprmbridge> alonzoc> Like I know many argue self-experimentation is immoral yet there have been such experiments which advanced knowledge. Do we throw those away?
15:48 < TMA> sure. from moral standpoint it is more important to punish the wrongdoers than help the victims -- the moral signalling is stronger for punishment than for help
15:51 < TMA> in a sense, anyone who benefited from the nazi experimental data is complicit in the abhorrent act of obtaining them
15:53 < fenn> no
15:53 < TMA> however that particular data source was incorporated into the common body of knowledge in the pre-modern morality era. punishing the beneficients of those data is not morally required, because this particular datased was grandfathered as morally-clean
15:54 < hprmbridge> alonzoc> I'm not sure there's a good way to justify that from utilitarian ethics unless you can convincingly make the argument that "If society adopts the policy of punishing ethical misconduct in the sciences by also destroying research, the net utility gain is greater than any potential researches applications "
15:54 < hprmbridge> alonzoc> TMA, the issue then a lot of post-WW2 medicine is complicit. If an act has already taken place using the byproduct of that act isn't actually changing anything, the only thing for a consequentialist that matters is if using those results will cause more harm in the future. Not using the results now won't undo the harm in the past
15:54 < L29Ah> self-experimenters don't usually have an Institutional Review Board to instruct them, anyway
15:55 < hprmbridge> alonzoc> I guess your only other valid approach to ethical codification of something like this would stem from deontology but it smells a lot like the doctrine of double effect so if you admit that I think you can also conclude using results of past unethical action is morally neutral
15:57 < hprmbridge> alonzoc> Not sure how you could leverage virtue ethics in general to address questions of social and institutional policy. Would be interested to read if any virtue ethicists have discussed the topic
15:58 < TMA> alonzoc: I am being descriptive, not prescriptive. consequentialist morality is accepted as being immoral in itself, precisely because it fails to taint the fruit of past immoral acts. it is tantamount to forgiving any immorality if it is useful
15:59 < fenn> i reject your morality
16:00 < fenn> passive tense is cowardly
16:01 < TMA> That's not a morality system I have developed. I have just observed, that this seems to be the currently prevalent moral stance.
16:01 < fenn> WHO is accepting these statements and why?
16:04 < fenn> unless i see some stone tablets it's just some guy running his mouth like the rest of us
16:04 < fenn> so, do you accept a moral framework imposed on you at the point of a gun, or not?
16:05 < hprmbridge> alonzoc> Moral philosophy in general has no accepted moral stance, there's still debate. To be honest Consequentialism appears to be predominant in moral argument amongst the secular world, most contemporary moral arguments especially in political spaces appeal to the collective good of the consequences of action
16:07 < hprmbridge> alonzoc> Now we can argue meta-ethics but unless you're reading a very narrow selection of moral philosophers you cannot discard consequentialism outright. I disagree with utilitarian ethics in places myself but consequentialism is far from dead
16:09 < hprmbridge> alonzoc> However we should prolly take the ethics discussion offline as @kanzure dislikes philosophical discussions here
16:12 < hprmbridge> kanzure> Thank you.
16:13 < hprmbridge> kanzure>  https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1064664282450628710/1210741239360782376/image0.jpg?ex=65eba9a5&is=65d934a5&hm=8d96a426f64b82b9a90a8b7552b3b5a65724880841c9719079a27a6be1aec0c7&
16:20 -!- darsie [~darsie@84-113-55-200.cable.dynamic.surfer.at] has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
17:45 -!- L29Ah [~L29Ah@wikipedia/L29Ah] has quit [Read error: Connection timed out]
18:00 < hprmbridge> kanzure> they wouldn't have them delete the data if it was a negative result
18:00 < hprmbridge> kanzure> or wouldn't be published at all too
20:31 -!- mxz [~mxz@user/mxz] has quit [Ping timeout: 256 seconds]
21:25 -!- TMM_ [hp@amanda.tmm.cx] has quit [Quit: https://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.]
21:26 -!- TMM_ [hp@amanda.tmm.cx] has joined #hplusroadmap
22:37 -!- mxz [~mxz@user/mxz] has joined #hplusroadmap
23:50 -!- darsie [~darsie@84-113-55-200.cable.dynamic.surfer.at] has joined #hplusroadmap
--- Log closed Sat Feb 24 00:00:08 2024