You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Username comments on Open thread, Aug. 10 - Aug. 16, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: MrMind 10 August 2015 07:29AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (283)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: Username 10 August 2015 12:46:36PM *  12 points [-]

The moral imperative for bioethics by Steven Pinker.

Biomedical research, then, promises vast increases in life, health, and flourishing. Just imagine how much happier you would be if a prematurely deceased loved one were alive, or a debilitated one were vigorous — and multiply that good by several billion, in perpetuity. Given this potential bonanza, the primary moral goal for today’s bioethics can be summarized in a single sentence.

Get out of the way.

A truly ethical bioethics should not bog down research in red tape, moratoria, or threats of prosecution based on nebulous but sweeping principles such as “dignity,” “sacredness,” or “social justice.” Nor should it thwart research that has likely benefits now or in the near future by sowing panic about speculative harms in the distant future. These include perverse analogies with nuclear weapons and Nazi atrocities, science-fiction dystopias like “Brave New World’’ and “Gattaca,’’ and freak-show scenarios like armies of cloned Hitlers, people selling their eyeballs on eBay, or warehouses of zombies to supply people with spare organs. Of course, individuals must be protected from identifiable harm, but we already have ample safeguards for the safety and informed consent of patients and research subjects.

Comment author: [deleted] 11 August 2015 01:11:49PM 2 points [-]

I'm all in favor of "social justice" in medicine by its conventional definition, but that's not even a particularly difficult problem. Universal medical systems already exist and function well all across the planet. Likewise, nobody's actually going to vote for Brave New World.

It really does seem like "social justice", in a bioethical context, simply isn't the True Rejection.

Comment author: Gunnar_Zarncke 12 August 2015 11:04:20PM 0 points [-]

These online text comments would better belong to the Media Thread. Esp. as they are many.