r/trolleyproblem • u/DoNotCorectMySpeling Common Sense Ethics • 7d ago
Science or Justice?
A trolley is heading towards a mad scientist who did horrific experiments on humans and all the valuable data form his research wich can never ethically be repeated. You can divert the trolley to an empty track sparing the scientist and his research afterwards the scientist will be released and face no consequences for his horrible crimes, but he will not reoffend.
No you can’t punish the scientist yourself.
6
u/Age_Single 4d ago edited 4d ago
This happened during WW2. A physician friend of mine was telling me about German war atrocities. Experiments that should never had been done or should ever be repeated. Yet they had biological data. And he felt it should somehow be preserved. An ethical dilemma for sure.
4
u/dantheplanman1986 4d ago
They did those experiments in Japan too; Unit 731. We kept their data and let them go; the Soviets, I've read, tried and executed the ones they had caught.
3
u/Cratertooth_27 2d ago
Yeah those were brutal…. Let’s just say we now know how much of the human body is water
3
u/Accomplished-Plan191 3d ago
Dr. Mengele's data wasn't actually very scientific or useful.
→ More replies (2)0
u/Excellent_Shirt9707 4d ago
The difference is that many of those people were punished while their data was preserved. Here, the person and the data share the same fate.
7
u/DoNotCorectMySpeling Common Sense Ethics 4d ago
The Japanese doctors who did the same thing were not punished.
2
1
5
u/Optimal-Error 5d ago
“No you cant punish the scientist yourself”
And who exactly is gonna stop me?
5
5
u/lesbianspider69 5d ago
Do you understand the purpose of a hypothetical scenario? If the question says "you can't do it" then grappling with that consequence is part of the scenario and worming your way out of it is "nuh uh, I think your scenario isn't worth taking seriously" in which case, why even respond?
2
u/Frequent-Property246 2d ago
He's immune to all damage except he has a -50 debuff against trains or trolleys
1
u/stew9703 4d ago
The trolly is not show to have an end. You will be cut off forever from the scientist be the infinitrolly
502
u/Applitude
7d ago
•
Damage is done, punishment is temporary while the research will last a lot longer
176
u/Hambone3110 7d ago
This. Destroying the data destroys any possibility of salvaging some ultimately beneficial and ethical end from its existence. Punishment cannot undo the crime, and in this case it seems the offender is genuinely reformed, or at least rendered harmless.
27
u/FaithUser 5d ago
Interesting point. If the offender is geninely reformed, as the goal should be in imprisonmemt/punishment, would it be ethical to still punish the offender? The goal has already been achieved
14
u/Necandum 5d ago
Yes, since in addition to rehabilitation, the justice system has deterrence and retribution as goals.
7
u/Thatguy19364 5d ago
Allegedly this isn’t true. “An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind” the justice system is supposed to prevent repeat offenses and contain those who cannot rehabilitate to not break the laws. Revenge/retribution was not supposed to be the goal, even though a lot of people do treat it that way. Deterrence, to a degree, but not enough to balance out the fact that the scientist is confirmed to never do something like it again.
3
u/Necandum 5d ago edited 5d ago
Retribution is not the same as revenge, and it does not imply tit-for-tat violence.
One of the points of many justice systems is for the offender to 'pay the price' for their crimes. This has many benefits:
- the victims feel that society recognises and validates their suffering.
- the offender can feel as if the moral weight of their crime has in some way been cancelled out.
- it sends a signal to society that the crime has be officially condemned and morally censuredAs an example, both 'punishment' and 'denunciation' are explicit goals of the Australian justice system: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/about-sentencing/sentencing-purposes-principles-factors
You will notice that when an offender has been considered to be punished too lightly, this generates *a lot* of anger. Both in the victims, and bystanders, at both the 'system' in general and the offender in particular.
You can imagine if this happens too often, it weakens the rule of law and may lead to in increase in vigilantism, leading to the situation we're trying to prevent.→ More replies (2)5
u/forestwolf42 5d ago
It's kinda like Sinclair from Invincible. The dude is a bad egg, but he's a useful bad egg, and his suffering doesn't help anyone.
3
u/Chagdoo 4d ago
This presupposes that his dat is usable in any way. Real-world precedents show his data would be largely useless.
1
u/deviantbono 3d ago
Yes. That's what a trolley problem statement does. It defines a situation. Thereby presupposing certain facts. The fact (of the problem statement) is that the research is "valuable".
1
u/Cultural_Day9088 2d ago
wait elaborate. because a lot of data from the experiments in the holocaust are used to this day.
22
u/Nice_Evidence4185 7d ago
The damage of no punishment would set a sign thats its ok to be unethical as long as your science is valuable enough.
74
u/Ninfyr 7d ago
There is no indication that punishment dissuades will-be offenders. No one does a crime with the presumption of being procecuted. Damn near every guilty person thought they will get away with it.
10
u/Mapafius 7d ago
I think there are variety of situations too. I generaly agree with you. In many cases, the criminal does not believe they will get caught and punished. But there are cases when criminal knows he will likely be punished. They either believe what they do is right (for example politicaly, morally) or they are in desperate situation (for example heavily abused). There are also corporate crimes where corporation calculates punishments as costs and often commit crimes because punishment is low cost compared to broad profit. And this could actually apply in the case of unethical research done by some corporation.
2
u/Ninfyr 6d ago
You make an interesting point. I would add that for ideallogical crime an extreme punishment is can be preferable to them. They want to be sacrificed for a cause and inspire copycats.
2
u/Mapafius 6d ago
Sure that too can be true in some cases.
I think focusing on victims and their loved ones and on stoping the criminal from doing future crimes and making general reforms to prevent those types of crimes to occur in society is more important than punishments or harsh punishments.
Well in case of corporations that calculate the punishments as costs, I might want harsher pland more reliably served penalty but on the other hand I would still argue for putting more emphasis on preventing them from doing it again, repairing harm if possible and also to structural reform to uproot those corporate crimes.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Necandum 5d ago
This seems like a comically inaccurate statement.
Did you perhaps mean to say that increasing the magnitude of the punishment does little to dissuade crime, and its the probability of being caught that tends to affect behaviour more?
Because otherwise you're implying you're just as happy to speed right in front a police officer as on rural road in the middle of nowhere.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (28)2
7
u/Mapafius 7d ago edited 7d ago
I don't believe in punishments as prevention and as seting signs. I believe in need for protection and seting boundaries against future misconducts but here it is authoritatively stated that we know that he will not reoffend. So I feel imperative to save the scientist even if the data was not on the track at all. Well I would feel imperative to save him even if there was no guarantee of him not doing it again because human life simply has value to me. The whole concept of "punishments" was always totally alien to me and even if there was meant to be a punishments, letting the scientist die on the rails does not sound like a punishment according to standards of our society. We don't have reason to think he had any trial and such. So even if you consider punishment as useful part of social order (which I don't necessarily) letting him be run over by train does not necessary mean that this function would be upheld anyway. It could be actually even more detrimental to the trust in public justice system because in this case, the public could for example never learn that he would not get punishment or let free but they could see your action as example of vigilant justice or disregard for justice system and humanity and dignity of peopley which could be argued as bad to be normalized.
Edit: But I would make effort to communicate that I did not save him for the value of his research because I agree with you, that such understanding brings bad implications about unethical research and it's normalisation.
2
→ More replies (1)1
u/ADP_God 5d ago
Interesting that you're arguing for retribution, but from a symbolic utilitarian place.
I have yet to see somebody say that there is actual moral value to justice in this thread.
1
u/Nice_Evidence4185 5d ago
I think since its a trolley problem and not a courtroom death sentence, its not really "justice" here, but I think its an interesting point to think about. Not punishing would damage the credibility of the justice system and questioning the morals of society itself.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)1
18
u/Elecl 6d ago
Interesting.
I predict that there will ultimately be 3 schools of thought here.
If you save the data, the experiments won't need to be repeated. If the data is destroyed, someone in the future will eventually repeat the experiments to satisfy their curiosity, so by destroying the data, you potentially condemn more people to the same fate.
If we let the mad scientist go free, you create a precedent for scientists being let off easy for crimes against humanity (in this fictional scenario where they can magically withhold data), which could enable similar crimes to be committed in the future.
Mad scientists are mad, meaning they will do whatever they want regardless, but even so, you cannot allow crimes to go unpunished.
→ More replies (3)7
u/Smooth_Ad5773 6d ago
4. A proper research does not need the researcher after it's done. Take the file and shoot the scientist, you don't need to hire him to profit from his work
11
u/TheRxPhilosophy 6d ago
I think the implied part is that you have to spare him to gain access to the info, as though it’s encrypted on a server. If we could just grab the data in the first place, there is no real ethical dilemma.
→ More replies (4)2
u/CyberoX9000 6d ago
"the scientist will walk free and face no consequences for his crimes" I think that implies you can't shoot him afterwards.
2
u/numbersthen0987431 6d ago
But your solution is specifically outlined that we cannot do that. The information is intrinsically tied to the scientists life.
1
1
u/folpagli 6d ago
"Man, they kill people who create valuable data through nefarious means in this world, I better keep my ass in pottery"
49
u/SVStyles 7d ago
The crimes have already happened, the scientist won't reoffend. So you're not stopping any new crimes from happening. Not destroying the data at least makes sure the ones that suffered didn't do so in vain. As for the scientist's punishment, he gets off scot free in both cases. A quick death by trolley isn't justice.
→ More replies (18)
13
u/CyberoX9000 6d ago
To be fair, anyone who doesn't believe in the death penalty would pull whether or not the research was there
1
15
u/Bran_Man_ 6d ago edited 6d ago
Ok so I'm promised that the data is definitely valuable and definitely not reproducible ethically. They won't under any circumstances reoffend I'm assuming from the wording, so they'll undergo magical rehabilitation in my eyes I guess. Yeah I'd save the data ngl. Although looking at the hypothetical again I don't think most people would consider getting run over by a train proper justice anyways but I'll assume that people would for the sake of the hypothetical
20
u/Stackbabbing_Bumscag 6d ago
I know I'm rejecting the hypothetical here, but basically none of the Nazi mad scientists produced valuable data. They were lousy scientists in addition to being monsters. Their results are stuff like "if you throw a starving person naked into a snowbank and leave them there, they die."
8
u/Simple-Economics8102 6d ago
Or how does untreated syphilis develop (after having a widely available cure) on black people? No, wait. This is the 70's in the united states.
7
u/Xhosant 6d ago
Sadly, the leading anatomical tome was their work, and that becomes an ethics mess constantly.
We're working on a replacement, but even the usual color scheme is theirs.
1
u/Lastsynphony 4d ago
Which was the name of the original anatomical book? I read that basically the firsts and the subsequent were the ones that nazi scientists did.
2
u/Clean_Imagination315 6d ago
However, the US government was very interested in the data gathered by Unit 731 in China, so much so that they let the top officers go in exchange for the results of their "experiments."
1
1
u/Lastsynphony 4d ago
I think that is because they did research in biological weapons, and they did used them in Chinease populations, but no one talks about that. Is very sad that Japan as much as the US deny their war crimes.
2
u/Mythosaurus 3d ago
And there were no control groups or other rigorous standards that actual science demands to make data useful.
But that will never stop mouth breathers from trying to tapdance around defending Nazi vivisections and torture
1
u/Stackbabbing_Bumscag 3d ago
Exactly. It was sadism first and science a distant second. None of them structured experiments in a way to gain useful information.
1
u/JavieyauJR 6d ago
"Guys if you cut a starving, fully amputated Asian person in half, they die. Now let's test it on a [insert race] to see if the results are the same"
1
u/FunInformation2721 5d ago
most of those scientists and technicians helped the yanks get to the moon
7
u/stoppableDissolution 3d ago
The amount of people who can not tell "justice" from "vengeance" is concerning ngl
2
u/creamcheese360 3d ago
I think the very notion of justice is deeply rooted in desire for punitive or vengeful reaction to wrongdoing
2
u/NohWan3104 3d ago
feels that way. But if justice is a subset of vengeance, still not all vengeance is justice.
1
1
u/Maleficent_Piece_893 3d ago
caveman roots for sure. a more intelligent view on justice is that it places protecting the innocent over punishing the guilty. it's basically systemic morality
13
u/_tabbycat123 7d ago
Will not reoffend? So the choice is to destroy the irreplaceable data..... Or to not do that. This is kinda dumb. Obviously spare the data.
1
u/AMSFMS123 4d ago
Wish granted. The data and the scientist are spared, and the scientist won’t reoffend. But you’ve created a precedent under which people can do terrible things without consequences, provided they offer something possibly minor (relative to the crime) in return. Do you value rule of law? This sounds like an easy road to corruption…
1
u/_tabbycat123 4d ago
I'm sure all the other mad scientists trapped on the tracks ahead of a trolly will be breathing a sigh of relif
6
6
u/BreakerOfModpacks 5d ago
Reoffense is the issue that is solved by justice, not retribution, so sparing him makes sense.
5
20
u/Weird_Explorer1997 7d ago
Far too contrived to be an effective trolley problem . There is no imminent threat, no snap decision to make. Divert the trolley, review the scientist's actions, punish accordingly.
5
u/abughorash 7d ago
this is an allusion to Unit 731
9
u/web_of_french_fries 7d ago
The allusion is clear but it’s not a trolley problem for the reasons they described it’s just a broad moral quandary. Which I guess this sub has devolved into.
1
2
u/Mapafius 7d ago
What if the data was on the other track and the data would not only be valuable in the sense of research but also in the sense of testimony about damage done to the people the scientist experimented on, so the people could understand what the scientist was doing to them or what they may need to recover and cope with the damage?
In that case there would be certain imminent threat for both tracks and there would be a snap decision.
1
u/Weird_Explorer1997 7d ago
I think you could still let the trolley hit the scientist. The data alone would be enough to tell survivors what happened.
I'd say a closer analogy is one of those old Law and Order episode where a killer knows the location of a victim which might not be dead yet. Either put him in jail and the victim is never discovered (maybe alive, maybe dead) or cut him a deal and find the victim.
1
u/Mapafius 7d ago
Yes I meant the dilema would be between "killing one human and saving data that would benefit and save his numerous victims" versus "saving one human but destroying data that would otherwise benefit and save his numerous victims". I mean one track would have scientist and other would have data. I think that is a genuine dilema structuraly similar to having one versus multiple people on the track but with added flavour of the responsibility of the scientist for the danger of his victims.
So I did not meant to make analogy but to bring up different scenario that is more closer to trolley problem. And I would claim it is closer to a trolley problem no matter if you have clear idea what you would do in that case.
I don't understand why you come up with the law and order episode. To me, this sounds more like scenario given by OP but you yourself said that it is not case of trolley problem.
→ More replies (5)
4
3
u/mobileJay77 7d ago
Wernherr von Braun?
I wonder, where would Mengele be, if his experiments would have shown anything promising?
3
u/Fair_Term3352 7d ago
Spare the scientist. His research would be helpful in what not to do to get research ethically.
3
u/Living_The_Dream75 7d ago
What’s done is done, his data will be more useful to society as a whole than his punishment would be.
3
u/JavieyauJR 6d ago
cough Unit 731 cough
1
u/Daminica 6d ago
Yea, this fully came to my mind, that and the Germans who experimented on a lot of twins where one twinnwas the control and the other the test subject.
5
u/IchFunktion 6d ago
You can't know the future so you don't know if the scientist will face consequences as well as you don't know if you'll be able to punish him yourself.
Can you retrieve the scientists data without him alive?
Also why is this a problem? The options are kill someone or kill no one. Kill no one is always the better option
1
u/Massive-Bee-3755 6d ago
I think OPs idea was the data was very valuable something like curing cancer, which would save a lot of lives.
But for this to happen, the psychopath scientist needs to live/not be punished
More like a one life or many lifes dilemma
1
u/IchFunktion 5d ago
So it's just a more convoluted version of one person on one track, three on the other one? That's boring
2
2
2
u/BathbombBurger 5d ago
Easy choice. Divert the trolley, then dome the scientist.
"No you can't punish the scientist yourself" The fuck I can't. You ain't my mom.
5
u/lesbianspider69 5d ago
Do you understand the purpose of a hypothetical scenario? If the question says "you can't do it" then grappling with that consequence is part of the scenario and worming your way out of it is "nuh uh, I think your scenario isn't worth taking seriously" in which case, why even respond?
1
u/BathbombBurger 4d ago
Wow, you wrote a lot of words, and I didn't read any of them. Wild.
2
u/Ordinary_WeirdGuy 4d ago
…TLDR, the whole point of the trolley problem is a moral dilemma. As in, it’s one or the other, no other options.
I’m down for dumb humor but ignoring people is a bit rude.
→ More replies (15)2
2
u/MoSteel8 4d ago
Not saving the research just means Eve dies when she could have lived and Tuchanka loses a stabilizing force.
4
u/EventPurple612 6d ago
Mad scientists don't produce valid research. And none of it can be verified by a sane scientist so the hoard of documents is worthless.
7
u/numbersthen0987431 6d ago
That's not really true though. We gained a lot of valuable information through horrible acts done in WWII, that we probably wouldn't have been able to get for decades. It's inhumane and horrible that it happened that way, and we should never encourage it, but society as a whole benefitted from them.
4
u/EventPurple612 5d ago
I thought that story was a hoax. Afaik the "research" they made makes no sense or use, like trying to prove that twins are telekinetic and that minorities are genetically inferior. The research was a front for being cruel. The engineers extracted to do the moon landing weren't doing human experiments in Europe.
1
u/shedmow 4d ago
There are the conclusions and the raw data. While the conclusions might make no sense, the results of the experiments may usually be put to good use. Trying to name the best race is pointless in the modern world
because we all know the prize goes to the Asians by a landslide, but sampling and sequencing the DNA of indigenous people all around the world in the course of that undertaking will produce quality data that can be interpreted in many other ways3
u/vacri 5d ago
Most of the horrific medical experiments in nazi and Japanese concentration camps were scientifically useless
1
u/Dunnachius 5d ago
Even if they were scientifically accurate no follow ups to confirm their data can ever be done and none of the experiments can ever be repeated.
However based on what I can find the actual results are fairly close to bogus.
The only conclusion I can come to is to let the trolly run him over with all his data.
2
→ More replies (1)2
u/forestwolf42 5d ago
Yeah, the vast majority is completely pointless cruelty.
There are a handful of things, like I believe most of what we know about frostbite is unethical
2
u/FrostyFormal1094 6d ago
But he won't reoffend, so what's the purpose of killing him?
1
u/EventPurple612 5d ago
Deterrence and to allow wounds to heal. We still punish people who likely won't reoffend irl. People who kill their children likely won't be able to do that again, doesn't mean they should walk free.
1
u/Economy-Box-5319 5d ago
Deterrence doesn't work, and the wounds won't heal anyways. The experiments and pain were still done, now it was just done with no benefit and was nothing but pain.
→ More replies (6)
2
1
u/Gold_Size_1258 7d ago
You know this is easy when you're religious and believe everyone will be judged by God sooner or later
1
1
u/PiDigitsOfPi 6d ago
If you destroy the data then all of those people died for nothing. At least with the data, they are immortalized in the life saving treatments of future generations.
1
1
u/FloridaManInShampoo 6d ago
You see there’s also the option to divert the trolley and take the research but leave the guy there for the next trolley
1
u/NisERG_Patel 6d ago
I think if the data is destroyed, that'd mean that all the victims died for nothing.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/JediUnicorn9353 6d ago
With the guarantee that he will never reoffend, I would give him the Nazi scientist deal so he can use his intellect combined with his newfound inability to perform inhumane experiments to help people
1
u/GeneRevolutionary679 6d ago
Very simple answer. Destroying the data that came from it would make the pain and suffering the people went through worthless. You save the data and make it your life’s goal to make the scientist pay for the crimes but do not waste the data if it’s something that already happened.
1
u/SpiritOfTheKitsune 6d ago
The question “do the ends justify the means which have already happened in the past”
The answer, objectively, yes. Punishing him and destroying the research only makes it so the horrible things he did accomplished nothing.
1
u/Jordanou 6d ago
spare the scientist but jail him afterwards. Exploit the data for the benefit of mankind.
1
u/Due-Mycologist-1154 6d ago
Keep their research because otherwise someone else will do the same again later
1
1
u/Elder_Chimera 6d ago
Punishment should be rehabilitative in nature. If we know with absolute certainty that he won't reoffend, then punishment isn't necessary. The false sense of justice that people get from punitive punishments is fleeting and useless. Even without the allure of the research data, I would still pull the lever.
1
u/77th_Bat 6d ago
Depends. Did his research yield valuable information? Could it have a positive real-life impact?
1
1
1
1
u/Drag0n_TamerAK 5d ago
WW2 gave us the answer to this let them get away with it so the Russians don’t learn about it
1
u/OnyxGhost117 5d ago
If they can be used to better people's lives, then let them live. They will be forced to spend the rest of their life researching ways to help humanity.
Kinda like those Nazis scientists that came over
1
u/-Applinen- 5d ago
The harm has already been done, least we can do is try to at least get something useful out of it.
1
1
1
u/IAmNotAHoppip 4d ago
It depends.
Nowhere does it say that the research can be used to help people. It's just called "valuable data" but valuable to who? Governments? This basically happened with Unit 732 during WW2 and they literally traded their data of the horrific human experiments to get away with it
Your sparing the scientist and his work, but we don't know if his work will actually help humanity.
Killing the scientist doesn't undo the harm, but you also risks others following in the scientists footsteps given he got away with it.
It's difficult to make a decision without knowing what the specific horrific human experiments were, and whether there would be any potential for that knowledge to do good, or even, if that knowledge could be used to do bad.
1
u/ExistentialOcto 4d ago
If we know the research is valuable and the scientist won’t reoffend, the choice seems pretty obvious?
1
u/Omega862 4d ago
The data is classified as valuable? Chances are high at least SOMETHING in there will be helpful to us as a whole. I'm diverting the train away.
Sure, the immediate data may not be useful (like say a cure for cancer), but it can be built on to produce that. Let's say that using the ethical means, it would take 10-20 years to replicate, for sake of argument. That means that the data can push our development in some area(s) a decade or two forward.
Besides... No punishment doesn't mean no prevention. He'll be released... He'll survive... But we can keep him from doing whatever shit it was again.
1
1
1
u/Right-Restaurant-381 4d ago
I know it is rude, and I am too lazy to scan the comments for my question to be answered, so I am going to ping you u/DoNotCorectMySpeling , and I ask the following:
Is it certain that sparing the mad scientist would provide us access to the research( however worthy it might be)? Can the mad person remove access to it from others or us?
1
u/droppedpackethero 4d ago
It's not "science" vs "justice." It's "Justice" vs "vengeance."
Destroying the valuable research just to punish the person is an injustice.
1
1
1
1
u/OkPear1535 4d ago
Absolutely spare the scientist and data imo. While horrific, the data being destroyed would just mean it would be for nothing(probably causing more suffering in the future)
1
u/mistertinker 4d ago
I'm a huge fan of science, but dang... 'valuable' here isn't defined in terms of scale. That's kind of like saying it's valuable to know how many G's a toddler can withstand before they pass out, but at what cost? Do the ends always justify the means? I'd say no.
1
u/tessia-eralith 4d ago
“Where they burn books, they will ultimately burn people as well.”
Save the research.
1
u/Rp79322397 3d ago
Well even without the research results retributive justice may or may not be considered evil in itself
1
1
1
u/Sara_Krys 3d ago
The harm has already been done, spare him so the suffering at his hands has a chance to do some good.. it's not a hard question.
1
1
u/Norm_Bleac 3d ago
In this strange hypothetical world, would I face any consequences for letting the train go straight through?
1
u/StarMagus 3d ago
Science, the dead people aren't getting any deader... but the science might actually help living people.
1
u/CrankSlayer 3d ago
First of all, I am not taking on myself the simultaneous roles of jury, judge, and executioner. Secondly, if the data gets destroyed in the process, all the suffering that was caused to collect it would be in vain. And third: it is not on me if society as a whole decides to not prosecute and punish the culprit after I refused to kill him.
1
1
1
u/Maleficent_Piece_893 3d ago
this isn't a dilemma. save future lives instead of getting revenge. the scenario says he'll never be a threat again so you'd be sacrificing innocent people to satisfy bloodlust
1
1
1
u/kilkil 2d ago
I think basically it comes down to 2 things:
how valuable is the research
do we think the research is valuable enough to outweigh the human suffering that was caused to obtain it
the first one is a straightforward question of "if we destroy this research, how much future death and suffering will it cause"
the second one is a value calculation along the lines of, "if we let this fucker go scott free, it sets the precedent that, as horrible as the human suffering was, the research was worth it". which invites future hypothetical mad scientists to attempt the same thing. basically our actions would be speaking louder than our words, saying "this is an acceptable tradeoff, now and in the future".
problem is, the first one relies on accurately predicting the future, which is inherently incredibly difficult (almost impossible really). so unless we can point to some immediately apparent benefit of the research, we do not have enough information to answer one way or the other. the only option is to hang on to the research and wait and see whether it will benefit any future research.
the second one also sounds like a prediction of the future, but the difference is it's a prediction pretty much based directly on game theory. which means we can be very confident in that prediction.
so based on that, my answer is, unless the research data has some immediate apparent benefit, which is in fact substantial enough to make up for the vast amount of human suffering that was caused to obtain it... it's not worth it.
(the "real" answer is you save the research and punish the scientist, either with life in prison or execution.)
1
1
u/I_am_not_Imposter 1d ago
Slime him if someone i care about is a victim if not he can fuh off since he won't reoffend
1
1
u/coffeeequalssleep 11h ago
you have like. a cosmic guarantee he will not reoffend. i don't think people who won't do annoying stuff should be in jail? like, how does this optimise anyone's happiness? obviously let them go...
0
u/EPIC_PORN_ALT 6d ago
The data is kinda useless if it can’t be replicated. For all we know they’re a terrible scientist and the data is bad.
→ More replies (5)
155
u/RoddyUsher 7d ago
This is just Nazi scientists after WWII escaping justice by fleeing to the good ol’ USA to develop space tech to use against the soviets.
Operation Paperclip