If an evil man cures a deadly sickness. He had to kill 50,000 people to do it! Do we accept his findings or do we discard it? What if we discard it and it kills 200,000 more people before a cure is found in an "un-evil" way.

Is it more moral, to allow the evil mans findings go to pot and allow 200,000 more people die because his findings were evil? Which is more evil?

I posted this on my facebook, and one reply is: Josef Mengele.

I replied: So is his findings and actions are more evil, so evil in fact, that we can never use them, even if his findings can cure thousands if not millions of people? (I am not supporting what he did, just raising a question).

Discuss!

let's look at it this way, this is the same type of bullsh!t the "eugenics" experts claim and what had hitler acting so insane. he wanted a superior race and he wanted to steer human evolution to make a super-human race. and secondly no one is ever going to implement a cure even if it is found because it would take billions away from the drug companies, there are ways to cheaply and SAFELY get rid of cancer, but if someone makes this claim they are thrown in jail for "practicing medicine without a licsense" this happened to a guy who had a special bread recipe that could help you stay full for hours off one slice, he claimed it could help you lose weight. he was correct. but they made him throw the bread away and stop selling it. now i know you all are going to ask me for sources, but mind you i read this almost 3 years ago, i have no clue where to relocate it.

This all goes back to Machiavelli if you think about it. Do the ends justify the means?

It would cure one problem, but it would create a thousand unseen casualities. The purpose was to save human lives. But if human lives are seen only in terms of a collective mass of animated meat, with individuality taking a backseat, and you have already demonstrated a willingness to destroy a segment of that collective, what motivation would you have to try and help that collective. How could you claim to be for the greater healing of this collective and not care about the 50,000 you had to kill? Is it possible that your motives are not as benevolent as they seem? Or ever were from the beginning?

Is it possible that this carelessness for the value of human life could translate to more death from carelessness in the mass production of such a cure? Or even if there are no problems in the curing of the leftovers...can you ever say you truly cared? Probably not. But then, that probably was never really a concern from the start.

wizardovmetal wrote:

let's look at it this way, this is the same type of bullsh!t the "eugenics" experts claim and what had hitler acting so insane. he wanted a superior race and he wanted to steer human evolution to make a super-human race. and secondly no one is ever going to implement a cure even if it is found because it would take billions away from the drug companies, there are ways to cheaply and SAFELY get rid of cancer, but if someone makes this claim they are thrown in jail for "practicing medicine without a licsense" this happened to a guy who had a special bread recipe that could help you stay full for hours off one slice, he claimed it could help you lose weight. he was correct. but they made him throw the bread away and stop selling it. now i know you all are going to ask me for sources, but mind you i read this almost 3 years ago, i have no clue where to relocate it.

???!!!

We have used Nazi medical research results. I watched a documentary about experiments on hypothermia that were done with Jewish subjects in the concentration camps. That research led to discoveries that are being used today to treat people who are suffering from extreme hypothermia.

.. And it was the nazi scientists who we managed to import over to the US.. who gave use the Nuclear bomb.. advnaced rocket technology.. advnaces in physics,etc and on and on.. Einstein ( although not a nazi), Von Braun ( definitely a nazi).. and others.

The Us is also not innocent of experiement on it;'s own people. Mk Ultra was declassified along time ago now.. and directly reports the Cia experimenting with lsd and other mind altering drugs on citizens and soldiers without thier knowledge.. as well as other mid control methods. They directly used Soviet experiments as their reference information.





The USA also exposed unsuspecting civilians and military personel to radioactive substances to study the effect on them-- So how are we much different than the nazi's?

Numerous human radiation experiments have been performed in the United States, many of which were funded by various U.S. government agencies, such as the Department of Defense and the Atomic Energy Commission. Experiments included (amongst other things):

* injecting radioactive substances into babies and pregnant women
* feeding radioactive material to mentally disabled children
* releasing radioactive materials over US cities to simulate the effects of radioactive fallout
* exposing U.S. soldiers and prisoners to high levels of radiation
* irradiating the testicles of prisoners, which caused severe birth defects
* illegally exhuming bodies from graveyards to test them for radiation (without the consent of the families of the deceased)

On January 15, 1994, President Bill Clinton formed the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments (ACHRE), chaired by Ruth Faden of the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. The committee was created to investigate and report the use of human beings as test subjects in experiments involving the effects of ionizing radiation in federally funded research. The committee discovered the causes of the experiments, and reasons why the proper oversight did not exist, and made several recommendations to prevent future occurrences of similar events. The final report issued by the ACHRE can be found at the Department of Energy's website here:

wizardovmetal wrote:

let's look at it this way, this is the same type of bullsh!t the "eugenics" experts claim and what had hitler acting so insane. he wanted a superior race and he wanted to steer human evolution to make a super-human race. and secondly no one is ever going to implement a cure even if it is found because it would take billions away from the drug companies, there are ways to cheaply and SAFELY get rid of cancer, but if someone makes this claim they are thrown in jail for "practicing medicine without a licsense" this happened to a guy who had a special bread recipe that could help you stay full for hours off one slice, he claimed it could help you lose weight. he was correct. but they made him throw the bread away and stop selling it. now i know you all are going to ask me for sources, but mind you i read this almost 3 years ago, i have no clue where to relocate it.

What about all the good things Hitler did? ^_^

Hguols wrote:

wizardovmetal wrote:

let's look at it this way, this is the same type of bullsh!t the "eugenics" experts claim and what had hitler acting so insane. he wanted a superior race and he wanted to steer human evolution to make a super-human race. and secondly no one is ever going to implement a cure even if it is found because it would take billions away from the drug companies, there are ways to cheaply and SAFELY get rid of cancer, but if someone makes this claim they are thrown in jail for "practicing medicine without a licsense" this happened to a guy who had a special bread recipe that could help you stay full for hours off one slice, he claimed it could help you lose weight. he was correct. but they made him throw the bread away and stop selling it. now i know you all are going to ask me for sources, but mind you i read this almost 3 years ago, i have no clue where to relocate it.

What about all the good things Hitler did? ^_^

One of the ONLY good things Hitler did...

Hguols wrote:

wizardovmetal wrote:

let's look at it this way, this is the same type of bullsh!t the "eugenics" experts claim and what had hitler acting so insane. he wanted a superior race and he wanted to steer human evolution to make a super-human race. and secondly no one is ever going to implement a cure even if it is found because it would take billions away from the drug companies, there are ways to cheaply and SAFELY get rid of cancer, but if someone makes this claim they are thrown in jail for "practicing medicine without a licsense" this happened to a guy who had a special bread recipe that could help you stay full for hours off one slice, he claimed it could help you lose weight. he was correct. but they made him throw the bread away and stop selling it. now i know you all are going to ask me for sources, but mind you i read this almost 3 years ago, i have no clue where to relocate it.

What about all the good things Hitler did? ^_^

Highway system....


anyway voldemort....in answer to your question, I do believe that it is okay to use the results, but at the same time condemn the means by which they were acquired.

Why let pontentially thousands of people die just for the sake of principal and atrocities that happened in the past?

We need Mystery here to defend Hitler

Hguols wrote:

wizardovmetal wrote:

let's look at it this way, this is the same type of bullsh!t the "eugenics" experts claim and what had hitler acting so insane. he wanted a superior race and he wanted to steer human evolution to make a super-human race. and secondly no one is ever going to implement a cure even if it is found because it would take billions away from the drug companies, there are ways to cheaply and SAFELY get rid of cancer, but if someone makes this claim they are thrown in jail for "practicing medicine without a licsense" this happened to a guy who had a special bread recipe that could help you stay full for hours off one slice, he claimed it could help you lose weight. he was correct. but they made him throw the bread away and stop selling it. now i know you all are going to ask me for sources, but mind you i read this almost 3 years ago, i have no clue where to relocate it.

What about all the good things Hitler did? ^_^

are you effin serious????!?!??!?? i hope not. you have no clue how pissed i get at ****-faced tyrants.

and olias mystery doesent even have a say in this because he beleives the holocaust never happened LOAD OF BS!

and about the highways, they are getting ready to be used against us. a world without borders will ensure easy control of the population.

Wizard, my post was meant in jest.

The way I see this is that both are immoral.

When one has to torture and kill for a "good result" than that by itself shows itself to be anything but good.

When one has to destroy "good results" due to it being tainted, and allows more to die, on a human level, that is just as immoral.

So on a human level, both are immoral. So it is not whether it can be moral, both are immoral.

If we look at things as "moral" than we can never do or accept anything. Everything we do is immoral. Look at companies today, they do immoral things, yet we buy their products, so morals have nothing to do what we buy. We tell ourselves that only Hitler is bad, yet a company can build a product with cheap stuff, sell it for the highest price, and people get killed, and they only do something when they are "caught". Yet we buy their products.

Is that moral? If we do everything on a moral level, we would find ourselves with very few things.

Mankind will do what it is bent to do, to do evil and sell it at the highest price. All we can do is take what is good out of the evil and build on it.

Quote :

When one has to torture and kill for a "good result" than that by itself shows itself to be anything but good.

Well, only if you rid yourself of the "morality", can you easily compare killing and torture as equivalent things. Killing can be moral, because Morality is not eh same as Goodness.

Using morality ( GOd given conscious).. one can understand , for example, that Killing for a "good result' is not the same thing as " torturing for a good result".

We can kill an animal for the good result of eating.

That is not the same as saying we can "torture" an animal for the good result of eating. At this point wer have to take the word Good out of it. All we are left with is " we can torture an animal for the result of eating... and even that is at best.. not right.

Of course, the concept of Good and Evil is a different subject than morality and immorality. They are not the same thing.

Morality deals with being and doing Right as a human.

Good and Evil deals with becoming Divine. Becoming like God.

Quote :

If we look at things as "moral" than we can never do or accept anything. Everything we do is immoral.

I believe you are referring to "good", nor morality. If you are refrerring to Good Then your statment is true. But with morality it is untrue. We can accept things that we do as being moral.. but not Good. For Christ Taught that only the Father is Good.

Quote :

We tell ourselves that only Hitler is bad,

I seriously doubt anyone tells themselves that only Hitler is bad.

Quote :

Mankind will do what it is bent to do, to do evil and sell it at the highest price. All we can do is take what is good out of the evil and build on it.

No. We can know , as Christ taught us.. that no man is Good.. and that Only God the Father is... and in so doing we can become righteous.

The point of humanity is not to Become Good.. that is the great Falsehood of the Fall. The point of Humanity is simply to be completey Human, in other words to be Right, or Righteous.

" only the righteous can inherit the kingdom of God"

" why do you call me Good? Do you not know that only the Father in heaven is Good? ' - Jesus ( paraphrasing).