Do you commonly defer your moral judgements to a third party?
Or do you sigh only because in this instance you agree with the original author, but you don't actually think it should be a rule that others are constrained by the moral thoughts of their predecessors?
I know of a promising treatment for types of hypothyroidism, but the original discoverer doesn't want to continue work on it because she doesn't agree with animal testing.
If my moral calculus says that the quality of life of millions of humans is more important than the quality of lives of thousands of rats and dogs, am I not allowed to pick up where she left off?
Or do you sigh only because in this instance you agree with the original author, but you don't actually think it should be a rule that others are constrained by the moral thoughts of their predecessors?
I know of a promising treatment for types of hypothyroidism, but the original discoverer doesn't want to continue work on it because she doesn't agree with animal testing.
If my moral calculus says that the quality of life of millions of humans is more important than the quality of lives of thousands of rats and dogs, am I not allowed to pick up where she left off?