scientists need to GET OVER IT

[Berzerker]

I think professional "bioethicists" are leeches and a complete waste of society's resources. They should be shot on sight. (This goes for any ethicist, for that matter; I don't need to pay someone to tell me what my ethics are, thank you very much.)

Someone better

[Berzerker]

physicists always seem very guilty about the atomic bomb

it was bad, I don't see what the big deal was though...

Compared to what would have happened, I'd say it was good. It may be our downfall in the long run, but it is a logical step toward space travel, and the continuation of humanity is at the core of our essence and that means spreading.

[Agathon]

Just going to show that scientists know enough about ethics; its the ethicists who need to learn more science.

The reverse is true. Believe me, I've taught enough of them to know.

The amount of people who would say things like, "of course you can trust employers not to mishandle an employee's genetic information" and crap like that is frightening.

Anyway, there's general ethics which is what I do (for money, when I have to) and the lucrative field of professional ethics.

A lot of professions seem to like the idea of having a code of ethics as a supplement to the law (which attracts internal or profession wide sanctions). A business guy told such sanctions help stop some of the counterproductive behaviour that sometimes arises but isn't legally punishable.

Just goes to show that Hobbes was right. When there is no law to help, people will club together and make their own.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Agathon


The reverse is true. Believe me, I've taught enough of them to know.

The amount of people who would say things like, "of course you can trust employers not to mishandle an employee's genetic information" and crap like that is frightening.

Anyway, there's general ethics which is what I do (for money, when I have to) and the lucrative field of professional ethics.

A lot of professions seem to like the idea of having a code of ethics as a supplement to the law (which attracts internal or profession wide sanctions). A business guy told such sanctions help stop some of the counterproductive behaviour that sometimes arises but isn't legally punishable.

Just goes to show that Hobbes was right. When there is no law to help, people will club together and make their own.

Even the Mafric try to live by than code of behaviour. One of my grandmother once threw out her hubhand when she caugh him have sex with his 2 year old daughter. He was than member of the Germany Mafric, when the italion took it over he try to get then to murber her when the godfather was told the truth he told him if you donnot stop borthing her and if you try to have sex with your daughter against I will deal with you in an permant way.

[Last Conformist]

We conclude "Mafric" is a particularly bizarre misspelling of "Mafia"?

[Kuciwalker]

I guess.

[Agathon]

CharlesBHoff, Apolyton's own surrealist.

[Az]

One of my grandmother once threw out her hubhand when she caugh him have sex with his 2 year old daughter.

So... that would make the 2 year old daughter... your mother?

...

...

...

[Cruddy]

Re: Re: Re: scientists need to GET OVER IT

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by Cruddy
...I think you missed the point. The atomic bomb is still killing people and will continue to do so when you and I are maggot food.

I think you missed my point in being pedantic about what tense I used.

OK. If you think science hasn't seriously screwed a lot of people, you're living in your own world.

Ever met a thalidomide victim? It's an experience.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

After about the fiftieth time you've made the same point, yes.

I can understand that you feel EXTREMELY patronised by the way you've been talked down to... but it's a really important subject.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Dissident
birth defects from radiation are not proven.

* Cruddy points at Dissident and laughs.

Damage to human cells by radiation is a long documented fact.

I don't know, beat a cell around the head and break it's limbs - you expect it to grow up to be a normal happy cell?

I mean, if you're soo keen on this point - why not volunteer as the guinea pig that proves beyond doubt that radiation kills?

[Elok]

Okay, why and how do you distinguish between "religious" and "non-religious" ethics? Aren't all moral beliefs based on certain assumptions about the relative importance of certain aspects of our lives? Different religions have different principles, but the different non-religious people have different principles too. Do Kuci, UR, and GePap agree on what is "right" all of the time? You sound like you discern between a clear and obvious "ethics" on one hand, and what those religious nuts think on the other. It isn't that simple.

People say "playing god," but I suspect that's mostly an artifact of their poor speaking skills, not of any moral ineptitude on their part. What they might mean, in terms of that blue-eyes example, is, "is it right for one human being to deliberately alter the nature of another without consent?" "Of course it is," you say, "it doesn't actually hurt anybody"-but right there you're dismissing their concerns out of hand. That ain't right.

There is no homogenous "ethics," really. The most intelligent response to this would probably be more of a bio-PR-man than a bioethicist. You can't scientifically determine right or wrong, but you can determine what rough percentage of human beings are likely to find your activities abhorrent.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Azazel

One of my grandmother once threw out her hubhand when she caugh him have sex with his 2 year old daughter.

So... that would make the 2 year old daughter... your mother?

Or aunt.

[Last Conformist]

accidental post

[Kuciwalker]

Re: Re: Re: Re: scientists need to GET OVER IT

Originally posted by Cruddy
OK. If you think science hasn't seriously screwed a lot of people, you're living in your own world.

Where did I say that?

In fact, in the OP, I said that the a-bomb killed a lot of people. I know that science has, among other things, resulted in many deaths. I'm saying that I get the point and they need to get over it and go back to doing science. They're scientists. No, they shouldn't do unethical things. Also no, they should waste my time and theirs going over theoretical ethical dilemmas ad nauseum.

Ever met a thalidomide victim? It's an experience.

Yay! Appeals to emotion!

I can understand that you feel EXTREMELY patronised by the way you've been talked down to... but it's a really important subject.

It's really not, anymore.

[Agathon]

Okay, why and how do you distinguish between "religious" and "non-religious" ethics? Aren't all moral beliefs based on certain assumptions about the relative importance of certain aspects of our lives? Different religions have different principles, but the different non-religious people have different principles too. Do Kuci, UR, and GePap agree on what is "right" all of the time? You sound like you discern between a clear and obvious "ethics" on one hand, and what those religious nuts think on the other. It isn't that simple.

That's all irrelevant to Applied Ethics.

In Applied Ethics the origin or meanings of ethical terms are not at issue (that is for metaethics).

The standard procedure in Applied Ethics is to find some normative principle that almost everyone agrees on (like "torturing people for fun is wrong") and derive moral arguments from it. No appeal to religion or any other metaethical principles is required.