From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: A Policy of Peace.
Organization: WP Group
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 03:21:47 GMT


Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> This doesn't make much sense to me.  Are you saying that any action
rl> is ethically justifiable if it results in a greater sense of 
rl> understanding on the part of the perpetrator? 
rl> 
rl> Consider, for example, the infamous Tuskegee Syphilis experiments 
rl> that were exposed by the NY Times in 1972.  As I recall, the 
rl> Tuskegee experimenters had been studying the progressive effect 
rl> of syphilis, from 1932 onward, among a group of black men 
rl> who had been mislead into believing that they were getting 
rl> effective medical treatment from the researchers, whereas in 
rl> truth, they were getting an opportunity to serve as tools in a 
rl> hideous experiment.  Would you say that anyone who's reluctant to 
rl> misuse other individuals in such a way would be engaging in a
rl> a kind of "self-imposed ignorance"?  Would it be acceptable for 
rl> parties unknown to misuse Eric Korbela in some intrusive way in 
rl> order to expand the horizons of their own knowledge?  

From article <16r2ljINN4am@agate.berkeley.edu>, by linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan):
ml> I guess you just can't fathom that many or more correctly most 
ml> everybody in this country do not equate animal life with human 
ml> life.  Every time someone makes a comment you like to compare it 
ml> to a situation with humans.  This may work in your mind but for 
ml> most everybody else it does not.  

The Tuskegee experiments were funded by the US government.  They 
began in 1932 and didn't end until 1972 when a public outcry 
brought about a cessation of HEW funding.  After the press 
exposure, the major medical journals were strangely silent on the 
subject although the Southern Medical Journal castigated the lay
press for bringing the study to the attention of the public.  A 
subsequent review panel conducted by the government exonerated the 
researchers of wrong-doing.  

One of the principles invoked to justify the experiment was the 
theory that the knowledge of one class of individuals 
[scientists] grants a kind of dispensation (of sorts) to misuse 
the members of another class [low income blacks] for the sake of 
intellectual or cultural gain.  Isn't it true that you, yourself, 
subscribe to this theory, provided of course that you're not a 
member of the victim class?  

Genetic arguments also played a major role in the Tuskegee 
research.  The suffering of the victims (ie black men) was 
discounted because they didn't belong to a preferred genetic 
class (white humans).  Isn't it true that you yourself are 
inclined to discount suffering when the victim doesn't belong to 
a preferred genetic class?  

You claim that the case of animals and humans is unrelated, and 
yet you've given me reason to believe that you don't believe in 
human rights for precisely the same reasons that you don't 
believe in animal rights...  namely that "god" owns humans in the 
same way that humans own animals.  

I can demonstrate your position in this matter by asking the following
simple question:

    Would it be wrong for you to violate a human's rights if "god" 
    were to tell you (via the bible), "Thou shalt not suffer a witch 
    to live" ???

Thanks in advance for an honest and courageous reply, and for not
evading this question as you have in the past.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ