
Are There Things Which We Should Not Know? (1998) - danielam
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/TEth/TEthLekk.htm
======
chki
I don't follow the first example about jury deliberation. Isn't the criticism
in that case about the method which might harm the behavior of the jury and
not about the knowledge gained? I guess that the point is that it renders
research impossible if there is no available method but this does not seem to
support the argument that the topic of research is possibly immoral.

~~~
danielam
The author isn't claiming that the topic of research is immoral. W.r.t. the
jury example, she writes that "the topic is interesting, morally
unobjectionable methods are available and some practical profits are
reasonably expected." She is arguing that methods such a those that involve
recordings are not themselves the cause of harm because problems only begin
when there is a knowing agent at the terminus of the method of observation
used. No violation of secrecy occurs if the recordings are never watched. Yes,
the method is incomprehensible without the end, but we can still distinguish
the means from the end and it is the end that violates the condition of
secrecy, not this method of data collection itself.

Of course, concealing the presence of recording devices may prevent the jury
from finding out about the violation of secrecy, but the violation happens
nonetheless as a matter of objective fact and this could itself constitute a
breach of ethics. Furthermore, news of the violation could or even would
eventually get out (esp. if results are published) and affect future jurors.
However, in her example, the author assumes that consent has been secured
which naturally entails that the jurors know about the violation of secrecy.

