Thank you for the thoughtful response!
> Then why are you saying things like "if we try to avoid any and all pain then we could still be nomadic people"? That seems pretty binary to me.
Good question and thank you for the opportunity to clarify. My position/current opinion is that practically nothing in life can be done without some sort of pain or "harm" to self or another person. For example if the standard was "no harm", then there's no way we could have cars or motorized transport, or even bicycles for that matter. That doesn't mean that any and all pain is acceptable (that would be the binary view), but that basically it's a question of balance, not one of binary "yes" or "no."
> No, it's about who bears that pain. Is it the public or the investors? Obviously the investors and their apologists would prefer to externalize as much as the cost ("pain") as possible onto the public, and shame the public into accepting it.
I don't agree that is what the broader discussion is about, but I would certainly agree that "who bears that pain" is highly relevant to any concrete example, and certainly humans are much more accepting/tolerant of damage/harm that they don't personally have to bear. I would agree that investors should not be unilaterally making decisions on what harm is acceptable.
> That's actually an irrelevant distraction, especially if for someone who rejects ends-justify-the-means logic. Do you disagree with the premise that on the other side of unrestricted and unethical experimentation on humans is a world where many more diseases are cured and life is greatly extended (for some, at least)?
This is a interesting point, and one I'll continue to think on. My initial reaction is that ends-justify-the-means isn't/shouldn't be binary either. Some level of ends-justify-the-means is necessary for nearly everything unpleasant we do in life. For example, I just cleaned the toilet (which I hate doing) because the ends justify the means: if I don't clean it, it will get disgusting, and having a clean toilet is great so I make the sacrifice.
That said, the broader understanding and common meaning of ends-justify-the-means is absolutely one I reject and I suspect we agree fully on: There are potentially great ends that don't justify unethical means. An example of ends-justify-the-means would be the Unabomber justifying his terrorism because on the other end would be a better world. I find that horrifying and very, very wrong.
> Do you disagree with the premise that on the other side of unrestricted and unethical experimentation on humans is a world where many more diseases are cured and life is greatly extended (for some, at least)?
I would not disagree with that, and I would agree that this is not on its surface a good reason to do the experiments. I think the non-binary part comes in on how we define "unethical" however. To some people unethical would include allowing dying cancer patients the option to try potentially life saving but still experimental drugs. To me, very little is unethical so long as the person is a capable adult, is fully informed on the process, has the ability to withdraw at any time, and provides full consent. There are quite a few people who would disagree with that however, so in practice I think we still end up at the spectrum rather than the binary.