This is a terminological problem then, because many, many people argue "we" are neither civilized nor ruled by law. Furthermore, you could just write a law that says experimenting on serial killers is legal. You'd have to explain how that suddenly makes such a society uncivil, so either civility is the requirement or the law is the requirement, but not both.

So really, you're saying, "not according to our laws" which wasn't the question. It was a moral philosophical question, so your answer doesn't really address the question. It's not even on the same plane. Your answer is just a glib dismissal of the question's philosophical merit.

Sure, so we can't justify it based on our current laws. To change those laws is indirectly up to the people electing lawmakers. So it's up to people's opinion and how they view people who are convicted of serious serious crimes such as murder. Luckily, at least in the countries that I'm familiar with, people still mostly believe in rehabilitation and do not believe in any kind of eye for an eye punishment so I think we're good there. At least for a while.

I don't know how to bridge the gap here. I think I understand what you're saying. You're saying it's not okay because society has said it isn't. You agree with that.

The question is, why do you agree with that? Is it because society says so, or are you deriving that belief based on some principles. If so, what?

What is the underlying fundamental reason you believe it's not okay. I get the sense you think it's not okay to experiment on them, but I don't understand why you believe that. I don't believe you think that because other people think that in a democratic society. I get the sense that if society changed its mind and legalized it, I think you would still say it's not right. You'd go along with it, but you'd believe it is wrong.

Fair disclosure: I think it's wrong too. I am not disagreeing with your opinion, but I'm digging for the explanation you believe it. I think I know why I also believe it, but I don't want to explain why I do, because I think you're on to something, but you have to discover it within yourself.

Some closely related cases for thought:

How about experimenting on cell cultures harvested from an adult who was executed by the state?

How about experimenting on cell cultures harvested from an aborted human fetus?

In both cases, the source of the cells doesn't give consent, but their designated caretaker does.

> How about experimenting on cell cultures harvested from an adult who was executed by the state?

Like many, I'm against capital punishment and wouldn't live in a jurisdiction that applies it so this is hard for me to even imagine.

I hope though that the philosophical aspect of the question doesn't distract us from the clear practical differences between killing a human being and using cells harvested in a questionable way.

Look up "Henrietta Lacks"

Any functioning society would gladly sacrifice a serial killer to save millions of innocent children.