Wait, your motivating example is keeping parents out of the loop... do you give this example to show that it usually goes really bad when informed consent is missing?
Or do you mean to argue that it's okay to experiment on kids without consent, because the end justifies the means?
Or a third option, that I'm overlooking currently?
Yes, that’s correct. Because conducting experiments on things like “does this approach to teaching fractions work better” is important for society. The ends are good and the means are reasonable. We aren’t injecting kids with chemicals—we can only experiment with “normal” educational practice. It shows why nuance is important— and why requiring informed consent isn’t always the most ethical choice for society.
Ethical action involves nuance! It is very comforting to think that the world is black and white, good and bad. But it isn’t. Why is this so difficult to communicate?
