"Wrong" is not an objective term. It's subjective. So are laws, so are moral codes.<quoted text>Ethics is more than opinion, sometimes they are law and often, universal moral code. Murder is wrong, genocide is wrong, using involuntary subject and exposing them to harm is wrong; this isn't opinion, this is fact.
As such, the entirety of your argument is invalid.
The Nazis felt that what they were doing to their subjects was ethical.
You feel that what our scientists are doing to lab rats is ethical.
Some future generation may look at what scientists have done with bacteria and be appalled.
That doesn't retroactively change the opinions of the scientists doing the work.
Ethics is opinion.
So, the Manhattan Project was not science by your standard.The experimental design speaks for itself; can the experiment be ethically recreated? If no, the experiment is invalid.
So, the Nazi experiments were fine if the results gave us information which helped other humans.If the animals are harmed without benefit to humans or to humans and animals; PETA is right about animal testing.
So, there is no "universal moral code" of "right and wrong". It's just a matter of how much you get from harming others.It depends on each experiment, how many animals were harmed, what degree of harm and what benefit?
You aren't even on a slippery slope. You are in free fall.
Well, first - there aren't any Nazi's anymore to do the experiments.Nuggin repeatedly describes Nazi experiments; he contends the results from those experiments are valid and valuable; but claims that's not 'advocating'. How does that work?
Second - since the results are already in and we use those results, there's no need to recreate the experiments.
In fact, it would have been unethical for us to risk the lives of astronauts by NOT using the data the Nazis collected.
And that is your _OPINION_.I'm rejecting experiments on involuntary subjects unless the subjects are animals, unable to give consent and the benefits outweigh harm.
A person from PETA would disagree with you and that would be her _OPINION_.
Consent is irrelevant to science.Nuggin advocates unethical science; he rejects consent.
Carbon does not give consent.
A computer does not give consent.
A beaker does not give consent.
So, doing any experiment you want on a human in a coma would be okay, because they can not give consent.Carbon can not give consent; adult human beings can.