In October 2011 Issue of Wired, page 23 , the writers refer to an experiment conducted in 1953 on 2,000 pregnant women( Note I've paraphrased and modified the information for this case).
Half of the women were given a placebo and the rest were given a high dose of synthetic estrogen. The women were told that those little pills might prevent pregnancy complications and would not harm their babies.
From that experiment scientists learned what endocrine disrupters can do to a developing human fetus, including cancer and infertility.
As a result of that experiment, thousands of future lives were saved.
Why would it have been considered ethical in the 1950's to conduct this experiment? Can we use Cultural Relativism to explain this behavior? Why or why not?
Use Utilitarianism and or other moral theories to support this experiment as ethical?
In the year 2011 why would this experiment be considered unethical? Propose a counter-argument/ ethical theories against this experiment being conducted now arguing that it was unethical. Discuss Kant's Categorical Imperative.
Explain Kant's logic in support of the death penalty/capital punishment.
In your view what would a satisfactory moral theory look like? Be specific.