Dombrowski - Nazi Records

I think the one thing I pulled from this and could have been summed up quicker is that you need to consider how/where information you read comes from and (something you will be doing anyway) how/what you are about to use the information for.

The author uses the example of technical communications between members of the Nazi Regime. He claims that it is such an extreme case that it will make the points more clear. Anything less dramatic and the points would seem obscure or insignificant. I think I would disagree with him. The situation is so vastly unethical that it is hard to pull out how it is applying to technical communication. The author mostly seems to want to express his own personal vendetta, which is understandable but not helpful.

The ethical dilemma starts well before any inclination of technical communication arises. Therefore, the problem must be addressed there. There is nothing really to talk about here in terms of fixing communication. As the author points out, the examples given are of "technical excellence." Very nearly the German Officer is only using jargon to speak with a fellow expert on a common subject matter. He knows his audience!

The author discussion lead me to wonder whether euphemisms were unethical. That seems to be the only literary/technical device that the german office was using. "Induced Death" is an appalling term but (as Kant would say) any reasoning person can see what it means. Is it unethical in itself to change the term?

An interesting topic is brought up in this chapter about the classic "means that justify the ends." I think nowadays it is fairly common that this is not acceptable. Maybe only in the rarest or mildest set of circumstances.

The author cautions about an emphasis on technical objectivity. It is the path to unethical behavior. When the researcher distances himself from the subject it can lead to situation such as in the Nazi examples.

Indifference = abandonment of ethical principals

In the chapter there is also a discussion about whether information should be used once it is in existence if it was already obtained unethically. Nearly every school of thought points to the fact that it can only help people now and not harm anyone anymore. This is compared to the us law of "inadmissible evidence" which states that those facts cannot be used. The main defense of not using them is to dissuade further attempts at obtaining info unethically.