Dem Nazis

** Dombrowski makes the somewhat inane disclaimer that he does not endorse any of the NAZI's research.

1) Biggest fundamental ethical issue: Nazi's attempted to justify their actions by calling them "scientific research"
The scientist writing the technical documents stripped the humanity from the people they were testing, subjugating them to mere specimens.

2) Second fundamental ethical issue is sacrificing morals because of some great scientific cause or scientific merit.

*Reality behind the research: Nazi scientists were mass murderers/torturers/eugenicists.

Argument against using unethical scientific data still exists today and organizations like The New England Journal of Medicine has made it very clear that no matter the brilliance or groundbreaking nature of a scientific report, it has refused to publish anything with questionable ethics.

Drawing a hardline against progress in order to preserve ethics is vital, however opposition in support of progress at all cost will try hard to stretch the boundaries.

Nazi's redefined medical terms to suit their purposes and clear their consciences.
*For example: "Euthanasia" is commonly understood as "mercy killing" but Nazi scientists redefined it to suit a diabolical/pragmatic end which basically included being able to put someone to death if "science" deemed them unworthy to live.

*That's seriously messed up and Dombrowski/Katz points out that the objectification of humans must be avoided at all cost. It is a slippery slope.

THe scientists would talk about the machines and methods they used to kill the Jews in technical terms, completely avoiding the reality of what they actually were doing. They were completely blinded by constantly reminding themselves in their documentation that what they were doing was nothing more than scientific research for human betterment.

The

Dombrowski CHPT 4: Ethic Tradition

Foundational Ethics, according to Dombrowski, can be broken up into four main categories; Aristotelian, Kantian, Utilitarianism, and Ethics of care. There are subcategories but he doesn't deem them necessary to talk about. I appreciate the disclaimer that Dombrowski throws out in the first paragraph that ethics are as broad and multifaceted as there are ideologies and different religions. What he is trying to do is hit the heart and foundation of the ethical system. What he really does is narrow down the basics of Ethics in WESTERN CULTURE. Ethics, in my opinion are not social conventions that have evolved over time, they are based on an individuals' worldview. The way they see the world, the ideologies that they have adopted--all these things make ethics a subjective thought. Ethical decisions are important, but what if the person committing a crime sees it as an utilitarian ethical decision. How can I then say to him, that is not ethical since I am talking out of my own ethical framework...

Aristotle.

*Believed ethics to be more practical than theoretical (a diversion from the metaphysical sophists of his time).
*He took a pragmatic approach to ethics.
-each person, each thing, when functioning correctly, will be virtuous. This is completely based of analysis of action. If the eye works well, the eye is good and virtuous.
*Be good for goodness sake ethics. Why? Aristotle thought he could empirically understand everything and categorize based on its optimum activity level.
*Even thought he could determine the optimum activity of the human soul.
*We have to seek after virtue so that we can become more proficient. Basically, Aristotle is saying that virtue and ethics are not genetic, they are not instinctive.
*The first step towards virtue and true "happiness," is, in the words of Wikipedia, "having the fortune to be habituated not deliberately, but by teachers, and experience, leading to a later stage in which one consciously choses to do the best things.
*Not like Plato, Aristotle is more practical than metaphysical. Plato wanted to know the substance of virtue. Aristotle is interested in the action that ethics produce.

Kant

*Categorical imperative
*Moral, ethical lives are centered on a sense of duty. Duty to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
*Good comes from the man, unlike Aristotle who believed goodness and virtue to be entities in and of himself.
*It requires "one's chosen decision to be ethical." Duty as freely imposing obligation on one’s own
self
*The Categorical imperative requires men to be loyal to the laws that are imposed on him by society. Live respectfully.
*Kant wasn't a big fan of human feelings. Thought they, and human motivation, were very unreliable.
*What is fair for one is fair for all. Flaws in this system of thought? Yes. It is theoretical.
*So these laws, these imperatives, who enforces them. Kant would say that the individual enforces them on him or her. They should be binding commands at all times.
*Kant gives his input into the imperatives by providing a list of maxims that should be innate to every man.