[keithlfrost]

This is clearly not true. If it were an effective means of getting accurate information, then there would be moral arguments for using it in some situations, to prevent even worse events (An imminent nuclear attack? Biological weapons attack? Whatever horrific scenarios you care to imagine) from coming to pass.

[cheerlessbog]

I don't believe in these mathematical greater evil arguments. I assume you would not kill a baby even if it was guaranteed to prevent a plane crash killing a hundred people.

One should not make relativistic moral calculations with fundamentally unacceptable acts.

[rhn_mk1]

You don't believe it, because you consider some acts fundamentally unacceptable, in your moral framework.

That doesn't have any bearing on other people's moral frameworks, in which relativistic calculations may be the right thing to do.

[mirimir]

Sure, one could argue that.

My only point was that morality isn't necessarily related to effectiveness. But some moral positions could of course depend on effectiveness.