Would you allow yourself to benefit from crimes against humanity?

What's done is done - no matter how terrible what happened was it would be stupid to let opportunity go to waste.

The people responsible for the crime should be prosecuted, but other than that if the crimes are in the past and cannot be rectified in the present, then I don't have problem gaining some advantage from them.

if you won't allow yourself to benefit from atrocities in any way, then you'd probably best just kill yourself now, or become a hermit in the woods. Our world is built upon atrocities of the past. I would refuse to participate in commiting an atrocity but I would not refuse to benefit from an side-effect of an atrocity committed long ago that I was not involved in.

There's a difference between "research on unwilling subjects" and "crimes against humanity". The US has committed the former, but, having lost only one war, has not been found guilty of the latter.
That said, I would not profit from ongoing atrocities, nor do something likely to encourage future ones. I'm somewhat uneasy with the possibility of my vehicle being a RICO theft, but I have no way of knowing.

As much as I hate to give any validity to what was done to the Nazis' victims, at least if the information is used for good, it wasn't completely in vain.

Excellent survey. I kept clicking and unclicking a couple of the boxes. I think my attitude toward this is that it would be a disservice to the people who suffered and died if we rejected the knowledge gained as a result of their suffering, possibly causing more deaths as a result. On the other hand, I'm far from wholly comfortable with this stance. It's pretty far from a black-or-white issue.

This is hard. I think it would depend on the circumstances and the atrocity

**Handle: Out of curiousity, what book was it? I thought that Gray's was pretty much the definitive work, but I don't know much about the subject.

Buying the land of displaced persons is something I'd avoid, just like I pass on buying the confiscated property coming out of the drug war.

I fail to believe that no other anatomical references can compare to one that was made at the expense of tortured, starved, and murdered subjects. In the time since the Holocaust, I dare say that that the ability of surgeons to save lives has been largely dictated by their skill and experience, and not by the failure of their textbooks to include pictures of concentration camp victims.

daver-- I've forgotten the name of the book. I think the piece was on All Things Considered, so you could probably e-mail them to find out. I heard the segment several months ago, and my thoughts have only recently returned to the subject. Sorry I can't be more help about the details.

grmbrand--Technology has likely made your point valid about this particular case. I think the dilemma remains however. Media moguls are getting rich on ratings garnered from the CO shootings and the Kosovar crisis, surely this is also benefitting from the suffering of others. What if, for example, they discovered the cure for AIDS by experimenting on prisoners in internment camps? Should the cure not be used? Would additional suffering wash the blood away of those who already died?

I am an American citizen- I even own real estate. I believe that I therefor benefit from inhumane labor conditions, unethical hazardous waste dumping, and a host of other crimes every single day, let alone enjoy the results of a heinous attempt at ethnic cleansing enacted by my "forefathers." I continue to enjoy my lifestyle, but attempt to minimize the criminal impact of it.

In terms of the types of examples you gave, I would not let the deaths of the victims be in vain, if the medical knowledge could be widely used. Perhaps, however, the profits from, for instance, a new drug treatment or something, that was derived from this information could be intentionally funnelled into programs to teach appreciation and tolerance or differences.

What's done is done...and if the people responsible for the experiments won't benefit in any way now from the sale and distribution of these pictures and if the book could help save the lives of people now....then I am afraid I'd have to say it could have some value.

worded somewhat strangely but good survey

**Handle: Your point is valid. And no, I wouldn't invalidate a cure for AIDs based on the ethics behind it's discovery. If, by some fluke, -two- cures were discovered, one through nefarious means, the other through means that were on the up-and-up, then I would support the "honest" solution.

In general, though, there is no question that people are cashing in on the suffering of others. It's called "capitalism" now, but it used to be called "the Church"...

Good survey, BTW.

What happened with Bayer? Why couldn't someone else just make some newer, better anatomy books? I think I need more information.

Bayer AG is a German chemical company, that makes Bayer aspirin among other things. During WWII Bayer AG made cyanide gas for use in concentration camps.

The anatomy books in question were made from hand painted plates that showed incredible detail--such as the position of individual nerves, veins, arteries, etc. Apparently the detail was such that no other book could match it. Remember this book was made in the days before good color photographs.

I like the way this question was constructed (as opposed to the more common ethical-judgement-of-third-parties question). Yes, I'd allow myself to benefit from this kind of thing if the situation had changed enough that I didn't feel I was encouraging its continuation.

Interesting subject, though the options are rather hard to sort out. I don't feel that knowledge is "tainted" by its source. If one is making moral judgments, there are good and evil ways of getting knowledge, and there are good and evil ways of using knowledge, but the knowledge itself is neutral.

No profit from others' suffering.

jzp? Do you eat meat? Just curious.....

When you buy land from displaced people, who do you buy it from?

Seth, sometimes the land is seized by the banks or by the government and sold off at auction. Sometimes the people know they have to move and are given a few days to sell out at whatever price they can get. I haven't studied it at all, but I've heard rumors that some significant parts of San Francisco were reallocated from the Japanese when they were interred, although I don't have any idea what the mechanism was there.

I find the selections particularly poor; I am presuming that the questor makes no distinction between 'benefit' and 'profit', but even then the responses are not nearly inclusive enough.

Although I would be squeamish making money off of the suffering of others, I would (and frequently do) gladly benefit from the fruits of past suffering. While it is a noble thing to be sorry for what some evil people have done in the past, no amount of regret on our part will undo or change the suffering. It will only help us to avoid future missteps of our own.

However, if no one benefits from it then the victims suffered for nothing. We will never again use an unpaid army of religiously-misled slaves to construct a massive monument to a self-important ruler - but that doesn't make the pyramids any less impressive or worthy of awe. The book is a great tool bought at a great price. You cannot make it worth the price, but it is foolish not to try.

Hunter - I think you meant the Japanese (and Japanese Americans) were interned. While our government was certainly guilty of some malfeasance, I would like to hope we didn't actually inter them!

Indeed...typo.

Oh boy. This is a toughy. You've stumped me. Usually I always have an aswer for a survey but this one; Oy!

It's all over now. Some good might as well come of it. I certainly don't think those responsible for that torture should be allowed to profit from it.