back
5 comments
I found it did not make much sense until I read the linked original review which the OP links - http://newramblerreview.com/book-reviews/law/ethics-on-the-r...

The original review is what I found interesting. OP seems to distract a little of the seriousness of the review but does contain interesting follow up links.

How can an account of driving a car to kill someone possibly pass ethics? It's a crime or it's made up.

Her friend was murdered and she watched him die at his bedside. Of course searching for a murderer is illegal, but it's really hard for me to get upset over this. She could have just omitted it and no one would have known, but she was honest.
So you wouldn't get upset if the bullet intended for the victim missed and went though the head of a small child instead? as long as she was honest.

Let alone how did she really for sure know who the murderer was? The review sounds like is was through gossip.

This book is supposed to be scientific, although good science can be done without ethics, generally it's a flag it's not. Which we also see from the research in the original review that she just made stuff up.

>So you wouldn't get upset if the bullet intended for the victim missed and went though the head of a small child instead? as long as she was honest.

And what if she though the killer was working in a gas factory and the bullet hit a tank and the whole place exploded?

Maybe we should not get upset for BS hypotheticals.

Except that didn't happen. In another made up hypothetical, the murderer could have gone on and killed 20 other people, and they saved them.

And I seriously want you to imagine your friend being murdered, and then tell me you'd act completely rational about it. I certainly wouldn't. Or that you wouldn't want to hunt down the killer, let alone just ride in the car.

In any case, I'm not arguing that it's not illegal, and she should have omitted it. I'm just saying I find it very hard to get upset, let alone want to disband the entire field of ethnography.