Does the end always justify the means?

[Celestia]

I’ve been reading a book regarding anatomical practices and cadavers and it’s left me wondering, where do we draw the line at immoral practices?

To sum it short, in 19th century anatomists would dig up and rob grave sites for skeletal remains to study and research.
(Link: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...ves-180970629/)

Also, it was very common for the poor to offer themselves as practice for students and surgeons in exchange for a cheap procedure which often times ended in their death.

We are in an advanced stage of life now, and sounds immoral and unethical, however it is simply because of this that we are as advanced in anatomical studies as we are.

So it makes me wonder, where do we draw the line? Do you believe that the end always justifies the means?



If anyone is interested in the book
It’s called: “Stiff: The Curious lives of human Cadavers” by Mary Roach.

[Albertón]

No, actually, the end almost never justify the mean, save only some few exceptions( only when there is no option).
To think otherwise is a lack of ethic or morality.

[Tooting Carmen]

No, actually, the end almost never justify the mean, save only some few exceptions( only when there is no option).
To think otherwise is a lack of ethic or morality.

Exactly.

[Celestia]

So do you both believe it would’ve been better if they had not participated in such practices? Do you think we’d have the research and technology now if they hadn’t?

[Tooting Carmen]

So do you both believe it would’ve been better if they had not participated in such practices? Do you think we’d have the research and technology now if they hadn’t?

Well, everything in life (and to an extent death) involves compromises. Black-and-white morality usually gets us nowhere.

[Faklon]

I can't think that much right now, but I don't believe to a finite "end". corruption itself breeds more corruption.

The noble act is to change the morals themselves but it needs guts.

[NSXD60]

WW2 nukeing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is still being debated: Invade and lose thousands of Yankee boys or nuke civilians and save the former.

[barnumandbailey]

WW2 nukeing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is still being debated: Invade and lose thousands of Yankee boys or nuke civilians and save the former.

The Japanese sure aren't debating anything.

[Celestia]

WW2 nukeing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is still being debated: Invade and lose thousands of Yankee boys or nuke civilians and save the former.

I’ve noticed myself understanding the phrase “sacrifice a few for the good of many” lately although I’ve always considered myself a highly moral person.

Great example.

[JamesBond007]

We are in an advanced stage in life now, where this would sound immoral and unethical however it is simply because of this that we are as advanced in anatomical studies as we are.



.

My last name is slang in Britain because some people with my last name raided graves in Scotland for Cadavers. Anyway, we are not as advanced as we like to think. Modern medical practice or medicine is the third or fourth leading cause of death in America or something like that (not sure where it stands now with Covid).

Also, sorry, I'm going to upset deeply held mythical beliefs here :

„It's a great game to try to look at the past, at an unscientific era, look at something there, and say have we got the same thing now, and where is it? So I would like to amuse myself with this game. First, we take witch doctors. The witch doctor says he knows how to cure. There are spirits inside which are trying to get out. … Put a snakeskin on and take quinine from the bark of a tree. The quinine works. He doesn't know he's got the wrong theory of what happens. If I'm in the tribe and I'm sick, I go to the witch doctor. He knows more about it than anyone else. But I keep trying to tell him he doesn't know what he's doing and that someday when people investigate the thing freely and get free of all his complicated ideas they'll learn much better ways of doing it. Who are the witch doctors? Psychoanalysts and psychiatrists, of course.“ — Richard Feynman, book The Meaning of It All

Richard Feynman also observed :

“You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you’re finished, you’ll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird. You’ll only know about humans in different places, and what they call the bird. So let’s look at the bird and see what it’s doing—that’s what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something.”

Mistaking knowing the name of something for knowing something is endemic in journalism, politics, and psychiatry. We are so advanced the medical practice of psychiatry is like modern day slavery and the Catholic inquisition :

Yes, disguise it as we may , we do keep ... in a sort of slavery a multitude of unfortunates who sigh for liberty and to whom it would be sweet --Samuel Gridley Howe, M.D (medical doctor)

Yeah, schizophrenia sounds fancy cause it comes from Greek but that does not mean it points to anything real especially not on the cadaver autopsy table.