Ethics committees legitimize harm
Ethics committees don’t prevent harm—they legitimize it. By transforming moral questions into procedural compliance, these institutional bodies provide bureaucratic cover for systematic damage while maintaining the appearance of ethical oversight.
──── The legitimacy machine
Ethics committees serve as moral laundering operations for institutions that need to appear ethical while pursuing harmful agendas.
Institutional Review Boards approve research that causes psychological harm to participants as long as proper consent forms are signed. Hospital ethics committees sanction treatment withdrawal based on cost considerations while framing decisions as medical judgment. Corporate ethics boards rubber-stamp profitable practices that damage communities by following established procedures.
The committee structure transforms “Is this right?” into “Did we follow protocol?” This procedural substitution eliminates genuine moral evaluation.
──── Process as moral substance
Ethics committees treat procedural compliance as equivalent to moral legitimacy:
If the paperwork is complete, the action is ethical. If committee members vote, the decision is legitimate. If proper review occurs, the outcome is justified.
This reduces ethics to administrative compliance. Moral evaluation gets replaced by checklist completion.
Human subjects research causes documented psychological harm, but receives ethics approval because informed consent procedures were followed. Medical experimentation on vulnerable populations gets sanctioned because proper committee review occurred.
The process becomes the product. Following procedure substitutes for doing right.
──── Expertise as moral authority
Ethics committees derive legitimacy from expertise rather than moral insight:
PhD philosophers on ethics boards provide intellectual credibility to harmful decisions. Medical professionals lend scientific authority to cost-cutting measures that reduce patient care. Legal experts ensure that harmful practices avoid liability exposure.
Expertise in ethics theory doesn’t translate to moral wisdom. Academic knowledge of ethical frameworks often facilitates more sophisticated justifications for harmful practices.
The committee legitimizes harm by outsourcing moral judgment to credentialed professionals who specialize in ethical rationalization.
──── Harm distribution mechanisms
Ethics committees excel at distributing harm in ways that avoid concentrated opposition:
Research protocols spread psychological damage across large participant populations in statistically insignificant individual doses. Medical resource allocation distributes treatment denial across demographic categories to avoid obvious discrimination patterns.
Corporate environmental impact gets approved in incremental doses that cumulatively devastate communities while avoiding per-incident thresholds that would trigger opposition.
The committee approves systematic harm by disaggregating it into individually defensible decisions.
──── Consent as moral absolution
Ethics committees treat consent as universal justification for harmful practices:
Informed consent absolves researchers of responsibility for predictable harm to participants. Medical treatment consent transfers responsibility for negative outcomes from institutions to patients. Employee agreements make workers responsible for workplace dangers they have no power to control.
Consent becomes a moral transfer mechanism that shifts responsibility from powerful institutions to vulnerable individuals.
The committee transforms “We harmed them” into “They agreed to be harmed.”
──── Statistical mortality
Ethics committees evaluate harm using statistical frameworks that obscure individual suffering:
Acceptable loss rates quantify how much human damage is permissible for institutional benefit. Risk-benefit analysis reduces human suffering to comparable numerical values. Population-level outcomes aggregate individual harm into statistically insignificant variations.
A 2% increase in mortality becomes acceptable if the institutional benefits exceed the calculated human costs. Individual deaths disappear into statistical variation.
The committee authorizes harm by making it mathematically invisible.
──── Regulatory capture dynamics
Ethics committees get captured by the institutions they’re supposed to oversee:
Committee members depend on institutional relationships for career advancement. Research funding influences ethics review outcomes when committees evaluate projects that could affect institutional revenue. Professional networks create conflicts of interest that bias ethical evaluation toward institutional interests.
Revolving door employment between ethics committees and the organizations they review ensures alignment between ethical oversight and institutional goals.
The committee becomes an institutional agent rather than an independent moral evaluator.
──── Innovation justification
Ethics committees reliably approve harmful practices when framed as innovation or progress:
Experimental medical procedures with high mortality rates get approved as necessary research advancement. Technology deployment that causes social harm gets sanctioned as inevitable progress. Economic policies that increase inequality get legitimized as market innovation.
The committee treats harm as acceptable collateral damage for institutional advancement.
Progress becomes a universal justification for present suffering.
──── Crisis authorization
Ethics committees expedite harmful decisions during declared emergencies:
Emergency research protocols bypass normal oversight to enable harmful experimentation. Crisis medical standards reduce treatment quality to manage resource allocation. Emergency corporate measures suspend normal ethical constraints for business survival.
The committee transforms emergency conditions into moral exceptions that justify otherwise unacceptable harm.
Crisis becomes a permanent state that requires permanent ethical compromise.
──── Comparative harm reasoning
Ethics committees justify specific harms by comparing them to worse alternatives:
Limited research harm gets approved because uncontrolled experimentation would cause more damage. Reduced medical care gets sanctioned because complete treatment denial would be worse. Workplace safety violations get authorized because plant closure would harm more people.
The committee always finds a worse alternative to justify the proposed harm.
This creates a moral race to the bottom where any harm becomes acceptable compared to imagined greater harm.
──── Institutional immunity
Ethics committees provide liability protection for institutions implementing harmful policies:
Legal immunity extends to decisions approved through proper ethics review. Public relations cover shields institutions from criticism by demonstrating ethical oversight compliance. Professional credibility maintains institutional reputation despite harmful outcomes.
The committee transforms institutional harm into defensible professional judgment.
Ethics review becomes institutional insurance rather than moral oversight.
──── Value substitution
Ethics committees systematically substitute institutional values for human values:
Efficiency replaces compassion in resource allocation decisions. Compliance substitutes for justice in policy implementation. Risk management supersedes human welfare in operational planning.
The committee evaluates proposals using institutional criteria while maintaining the language of ethical consideration.
This creates systematic bias toward outcomes that benefit institutions at human expense.
──── The normalization effect
Perhaps most insidiously, ethics committees normalize systematic harm by providing official approval:
Approved harm becomes standard practice rather than exceptional cruelty. Committee-sanctioned damage gets integrated into normal operations. Ethical review transforms questionable practices into institutional policy.
The committee doesn’t just permit harm—it makes harm routine.
Officials become comfortable implementing harmful policies because ethics committees provide moral cover for their actions.
────────────────────────────────────────
Ethics committees represent the institutionalization of moral compromise. They transform ethical questions into administrative procedures, enabling systematic harm through bureaucratic legitimacy.
The committee structure provides moral insurance for institutions that need to appear ethical while pursuing harmful agendas. By following proper procedures, institutions can claim ethical compliance while implementing policies that cause predictable damage.
This isn’t ethical failure—it’s ethical theater. The committee performs moral oversight while facilitating institutional harm through procedural legitimacy.
The question isn’t whether ethics committees make good decisions. The question is whether genuine moral evaluation can occur within institutional structures that depend on the appearance of ethics rather than ethical substance.