Sooooooooo, this is the second to last lecture where we are "applying" the mutiple ethical/moral theories we have been exploring over the semester. This is one of my favorites, and the students bring up some interesting points in the discussion.
Bottom line, as is often the case, the question of human experimentation remains bound up with what we mean by human. As I point out in the discussion, back in the day human = image of god = person (though in all honestly the term "person" did not even exist yet. Kant attempted to limit it to person = rational being, eliminating both "human" and "image of god". In fact, Kant stresses that being a rational being need not be limited to being human; he even argues for "aliens" that might look like Lizard People, but are still rational, i.e., persons.
Today we more or less follow Kant's lead, i.e., human is a biological term. For example, a "human" fetus is clearly "human", but it is NOT clear that a human fetus is a person. In fact, legal it is NOT a person. So what IS a person exactly? That is the question we are exploring in this lecture/discussion.
Good stuff here, if not a bit "edgy". Enjoy!!
