Do You Think Tusegee Scientists Are Justified For Making The Experiment
Case1
a. Discuss Eli Lily’s practice from the perspective of the categorical imperatives.
- Eli Lily is trying to create a new medicine for the benefit of those who are suffering from a specific illness but before it can do its job, like any other drug, it must first be tested to healthy human beings in order to assure the effects of the newly created drug. Of course, considering that the test subjects are “healthy” they would not agree on taking in any drug that doesn’t assure their health benefits from taking it. Putting it in the perspective of the categorical imperative; Universalizability: “What if every pharmaceutical company conduct an experiment on every healthy human being?” now, it may be beneficiary for future purposes because if …show more content…
Do you think Tusegee scientists are justified for making the experiment?
- In my opinion, it’s immoral to deceive people into doing something that they do not know full-knowledge of. Yes, the Tusegee scientists told the sharecroppers he reason on why they’re doing such to them, but in reality, they’re treated like lab rats because the scientists are still experimenting and doesn’t fully know what the outcome of their experiment will be. In conclusion, I don’t think the Tusegee scientists are justified for making the experiment.
b. How would Kant react to this issue? Why?
- Given than Kant only believes in moral law above any other law, I believe that he would first put in in a universalizability first; “What if every scientists deceive poor people into testing their experiments to them?”. Of course, putting it this way, it would benefit most of the scientists and their studies because they would have more test subjects. That’s where the other principle comes in; reversibility. “What if the poor people they’re testing on would deceive and do experiments on the scientists?” this way, it would be equal to everyone, regardless on their status in life. In conclusion, Kant would disapprove of the actions of the scientists because surely enough, it is immoral to do something like this to
a. Discuss Eli Lily’s practice from the perspective of the categorical imperatives.
- Eli Lily is trying to create a new medicine for the benefit of those who are suffering from a specific illness but before it can do its job, like any other drug, it must first be tested to healthy human beings in order to assure the effects of the newly created drug. Of course, considering that the test subjects are “healthy” they would not agree on taking in any drug that doesn’t assure their health benefits from taking it. Putting it in the perspective of the categorical imperative; Universalizability: “What if every pharmaceutical company conduct an experiment on every healthy human being?” now, it may be beneficiary for future purposes because if …show more content…
Do you think Tusegee scientists are justified for making the experiment?
- In my opinion, it’s immoral to deceive people into doing something that they do not know full-knowledge of. Yes, the Tusegee scientists told the sharecroppers he reason on why they’re doing such to them, but in reality, they’re treated like lab rats because the scientists are still experimenting and doesn’t fully know what the outcome of their experiment will be. In conclusion, I don’t think the Tusegee scientists are justified for making the experiment.
b. How would Kant react to this issue? Why?
- Given than Kant only believes in moral law above any other law, I believe that he would first put in in a universalizability first; “What if every scientists deceive poor people into testing their experiments to them?”. Of course, putting it this way, it would benefit most of the scientists and their studies because they would have more test subjects. That’s where the other principle comes in; reversibility. “What if the poor people they’re testing on would deceive and do experiments on the scientists?” this way, it would be equal to everyone, regardless on their status in life. In conclusion, Kant would disapprove of the actions of the scientists because surely enough, it is immoral to do something like this to