Check out this ethical issue..I need some clarity please

[tam]

From the view point of these schools of thought, virtue ethics, utilitarian ethics, deontological ethics; will any of them actually support carrying out an action with an unknown consequence. For example testing a drug on a lady not knowing if this drug can kill the lady but you wanna do it coz this is a breakthrough for your company and this breakthrough is needed to save the company from bankruptcy. Lets say the lady really has no say in this situation.
Let us assume the lady is the environment, the environment cant speak for itself.
The consequence can be good or bad, and it will definitely generate greater happiness if the drug yields desired results.
I really do not understand their approach on an action with an unknown consequence.

[chaz wyman]

From the view point of these schools of thought, virtue ethics, utilitarian ethics, deontological ethics; will any of them actually support carrying out an action with an unknown consequence. For example testing a drug on a lady not knowing if this drug can kill the lady but you wanna do it coz this is a breakthrough for your company and this breakthrough is needed to save the company from bankruptcy. Lets say the lady really has no say in this situation.
Let us assume the lady is the environment, the environment cant speak for itself.
The consequence can be good or bad, and it will definitely generate greater happiness if the drug yields desired results.
I really do not understand their approach on an action with an unknown consequence.

It is hard to imagine a consequence with no value. Even a failure can teach us much.

There is no ethical system I know that would do potential harm to a person that has no say in the matter.

As for the environment - it is not an ethical entity.

[rwalle61]

From the view point of these schools of thought, virtue ethics, utilitarian ethics, deontological ethics; will any of them actually support carrying out an action with an unknown consequence.

Well firstly deontological ethics does not care about consequences, known or unknown; all that matters is if the act is itself is 'good'. Eg if you believe killing is wrong then killing one to save ten is wrong, because consequences don't matter.

For example testing a drug on a lady not knowing if this drug can kill the lady but you wanna do it coz this is a breakthrough for your company and this breakthrough is needed to save the company from bankruptcy. Lets say the lady really has no say in this situation.
Let us assume the lady is the environment, the environment cant speak for itself.
The consequence can be good or bad, and it will definitely generate greater happiness if the drug yields desired results.

As for how a utilitarian would approach your scenario, he would think about on one hand the benefits if the drug works x possibility of it working, and on the other hand the bad/painful effects on the lady if it fails x probability of it failing. If there is more for the plus side then you should test the drug; if there is more for the bad side you shouldn't.

[jakaos]

This is where people's values come into play. If the desired results cant be tested or obtained in any other way, the governing body with the power to make the decision will have to make the choice. As seen in many cases undesired consequences dont really matter that much if there is money to be made for instance. Sometimes even the protests of the general population wont help. Other times things are done in secrecy to avoid problems. If favourable results are obtained then all will come out to claim their involvement. Nature or individuals or even populations dont get much say in matters of this kind but hopefully with better global communication and a trend away from monocentric power structures these days things will change.