quote:

---

is it moral to benefit from results that were immorally attained, even if you did nothing to cause or encourage the immoral action, and even if it’s in the past. [?]

---

The cases being discussed were specifically Nazi medical experiments and stem-cell research. I believe those specific situations are debatable in themselves, but what interested me was the broader question as dkw put it.

At face value, it seems to me that the obvious answer is "yes, it can be moral" or at the very least "it can be tolerably immoral". A case that comes to mind (for the second time today), is the birth of the US. Our country exists as it does today largely through immoral acts done by Americans in our past. The history of Native Americans in the past 200 years is rife with horrible actions taken against them both by individuals and by the US government. And while some efforts have been made towards reparations and undoing some of the harm our forefathers have caused, we all still daily benefit from our society which would not exist as it does today were it not for those immoral acts.

This should not be construed as a question of "do the ends justify the means". To me that is a different question entirely. I do not think that all the greatness of America today justifies the evils done to the Native Americans in the past. However, in the question of the morality of benefitting from past immorality, I do not go through my day feeling enormous guilt about these sins of the past. I certainly don't think we should move out of formerly Native American held lands. I don't think it is immoral of us to move forward, benefitting directly and indirectly in hundreds of way from many of the immoral acts toward Native Americans in the past. This isn't to say we shouldn't make amends in some ways if this is even possible, but that alone does not change the immorality of the past nor does it change the fact that we are in fact benefitting today from those acts. Are we therefore an "immoral society" because of this? I say "no".

Please agree or disagree here. If you agree, can you name a situation where it *is* intrinsically immoral to benefit from an immoral act you did not perpetrate? Also, how is the one case different from the other?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I believe the big concern is that arguing that the ends ultimately justified the means can in fact be used to justify other evil means in the future; this is why most Nazi medical research was destroyed -- not because it was inherently evil, but because the rest of the world decided it was better to not let doctors think that experimenting on living humans would be "worth" it in the long run.
 

---

Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
 
Amazing. I agree with you, Karl.

I can't think of any situations in which it would be intrinsically immoral to benefit from the immoral actions of others. I can think of one condition in which it would be, however--if it would encourage someone to commit that act again. (I think that was Bush's reasoning--if he's capable--regarding stem cells, that allowing research on new lines would encourage abortions to obtain them. Possible, but not really guaranteed accurate.)

{Addit} And--bada-bing--Tom and I have covered both the original and the "test" case with the same argument. What's up with me agreeing with so many liberals lately?

[ October 12, 2004, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Mabus, it's going to be okay.

I went through a scary period when I realized my father was a liberal.

If you just take deep breaths, and then spend some time watching Fox News Channel, I promise you'll feel better soon.


 

---

Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
 
I was going to use your example Karl but you beat me to it! The question "Are we an immoral society" is a good one. Because Native Americans weren't the only ones to lose out in the building of America. There are the stories of countless immigrants--Irish, Jewish, Italian, Polish--who broke their backs for pennies and received very little respect in return. Women had a long uphill battle to be treated fairly. Slavery. The list goes on, and it's not a pretty one. You could feel guilty all day just thinking about our past attrocities. I read "People's History of the United States" and felt guilty for weeks. I calmed down when I realized, we're not alone. If America is an "immoral" society because of how we became a society, then by that definition, I'll wager there isn't one society on this planet that could be defined as "moral". Each nation has its sordid past. But humanity in general progresses, creating good. The good of the suffrage movement, the civil rights movement, equal rights, etc. These were a loooooong time coming. Do the ends justify the means? No, I don't believe that. But I do believe that although terrible things happen, a society can learn from its mistakes and build for a better future.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Shame on you Tom.

I specifically noted that my arguement was an entirely different arguement from "the ends justify the means". I believe that it is possible to believe one can morally benefit from previous immoral acts one did not perpetrate and at the same time believe that the ends do not justify the means because they are separate aspects of any given situation.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I believe that it is possible to believe one can morally benefit from previous immoral acts one did not perpetrate and at the same time believe that the ends do not justify the means because they are separate aspects of any given situation."

What you're talking about, Karl, is resignation:
"I would not have killed those Indians for this land, but now that I have this land, I guess I'll live with it."

I suspect that there are really only two ways to deal with this. One is the above example: to just let time blur memories of old wounds. The other is to attempt to either redress the perceived wrong or work with determination to ensure that the perceived wrong never happens again.

Note, too, that I'm using "perceived wrong" because I think those two options are only necessary if the wrong is, in fact, perceived. If you believe that it was worth exterminating the Indians to create America, your only obligation is to ensure that the next time an aboriginal people is destroyed in the same way, the resulting country is at least as good as America.

[ October 12, 2004, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Read or See Wagner's Ring of Die Niebelung.

The whole universe is headed for destruction because Odin used Loki to trick the Giants into building Valhalla, then reneged on the Giant's payment, all at the begining of time.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
There's the difference. I think the question of whether it was "worth" destroying another culture to build my own is an "ends/means" question. I believe this has no bearing on whether I am, in fact, an immoral bastard for living on land that was taken from another culture.

I believe that it is not logically inconsistent to believe that there is nothing immoral about my living in America and benefitting from so doing, yet at the same time believe that all we are as a nation does not justify the sins of our past. I also don't see that this, in itself, has anything to do with resignation.

Resignation (or its opposite) comes when we talk about what to do about this sins of the past.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
If someone experiments on someone else's unwilling brain and develops a technique that later saves your life, is that morally equivalent to inheriting money from an uncle who became rich by stealing?
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
I like to think that you can bring good out of horrible situations. To me, this is what God does with Satan's plans, but you could think of it totally agnostically as well.

The holocaust - perhaps the worst event of the 20th century - resulted in the Jews of Europe being gathered and restored to their homeland and for the first time in centuries being able to live without constant persecution. Does this justify the holocaust? Of course not. It does, however, provide for something good coming of something evil.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I suspect the Palestinians would disagree with you.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Well, from my point of view, being the person who's life was saved by the procedure, I don't think receiving the benefit is immoral. Does that justify the unwilling surgury, no.

Is it the moral equivalent of inheriting from a corrupt rich uncle? I don't know. Do you think they are morally equivalent?

If they are not, I think it's the surgury case that gets the moral upper hand. One reason for this might be whether reparations are possible? If I just inherited the money and found out that it was stolen, I would be morally obligated to return it, if possible. If I inherited it and sent my (hypothetical) kids to college and took a trip to Europe with the money and then found out it was stolen am I morally obligated to sell my home and car and turn over my paychecks until the money is returned? I don't think I am.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
So doesn't that bring us back to resignation, then? That once it's too darn hard to pay reparations, we have to wash our hands of it?
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 
Tom, I'd say the surgury example finds a better moral equivalent in this:

You're on a ship that is sinking. Someone evil locks the doors to the lower level, insuring that half of the passengers die. It might be weeks before you are found, but because of the murders (you didn't commit and had no way to have prevented), there are plenty of supplies to last you and the other survivors. Are these survivors morally obligated to toss half the rations into the ocean because of the immoral circumstances that brought them this boon? I say "no".
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
What you've done is STILL resignation, Karl. You've just acknowledged that, in your latter example, there's no way to make it up directly to the people who were harmed.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 

quote:

---

So doesn't that bring us back to resignation, then? That once it's too darn hard to pay reparations, we have to wash our hands of it?

---