Mentioning Phil phD's

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well philosophers ARE! Things get incorporated into society because of the beliefs of philosophers and social scientists. Science is merely pulled along (or halted). What, you think people were just more stupid in Europe during the Dark Ages?

Bow down before your rightful masters

Keep that up and I'll revoke your computer priveledges, mister.

[CyberGnu]

Jon, one of the best posts on this thread

[KrazyHorse]

these than plit into natural philophers, religious philophers, social philophers, and those who remained philophers

natural philophers begat the hard sciences
social philophers begat the soft sciences
religious philophers begat theology

those remained philophers are merely those who did not move on into doing sometihng useful

Take it to 'em jon.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by CyberGnu


Yeah, right... Things get incorporated into society because they impart an improvement of some sort. Technologial inventions often have to FIGHT the "philosophers and social scientists", yet they eventually become adapted.

It is the nature of progress.

What planet do you live on? Surely the notion of all persons as individuals with rights is an improvement over the view of most persons as inferiors put on earth to serve the powerful.

[Jon Miller]

but you forgot a stepp

engineers design it
workers build it

everyone else lives off it (And tries to take credit for it, especially the capitalist)

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

if only I had spelled philosophers right

Jon Miller

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
in the beggining there were philophers

these than plit into natural philophers, religious philophers, social philophers, and those who remained philophers

natural philophers begat the hard sciences
social philophers begat the soft sciences
religious philophers begat theology

those remained philophers are merely those who did not move on into doing sometihng useful

just as witch doctors use to be right occasionally (some herb would really do sometihng), so to were phiolophers occasionally right about something

now of course, we have science (hopefully at some point the soft sceinces will reach the level of the hard sciences)

Jon Miller

In a word, no. I'm not going to bother indulging your anti-intellectual prejudices - you can look back over the thread if you want to see how startlingly ignorant this drivel is.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
but you forgot a stepp

engineers design it
workers build it

everyone else lives off it (And tries to take credit for it, especially the capitalist)

Jon Miller

good with me.

[CyberGnu]

but you forgot a stepp

engineers design it
workers build it

everyone else lives off it (And tries to take credit for it, especially the capitalist)

Jon Miller

And there he plummeted....

[CyberGnu]

In a word, no. I'm not going to bother indulging your anti-intellectual prejudices - you can look back over the thread if you want to see how startlingly ignorant this drivel is.

I don't see it. Could you enlighten us?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

I'm starting to wonder if philosophers even understand the very basics of what ethics are...

If this thread is indictation, you don't even understand that ethics is not something that you should be "teaching" to people under the realm of it being "knowledge".

In practical ethics this question is easily avoided, although it is at root a philosophical question and not something that scientists could tell us since they have nothing interesting to say about value. I certainly wouldn't buy into your gutter relativism and it doesn't save you from having to argue about ethics for reasons I won't go into in depth, but the basic point is that you have to be logically consistent in your moral beliefs no matter what they are - that's usually enough to obtain a rational basis for argument. (now there's a philosophical argument for dispensing with navel gazing and getting to the point).

I pose these questions to you philosopher types, then explain to me why this should be taught in some kind of classroom or pondered by some elitist snob:

Is it ethical to get plastic surgery?

Not really the sort of thing we bother with. I suppose if it was a general issue of justice there would be some point here, but that's too general to make this specific point interesting.

Is it ethical to clone organs for the sake of donation?

I don't see why not. However, ordinary human beings selling kidneys is a rather more dubious case.

Is it ethical to donate blood?

Of course it is, unless you have AIDS, Hepatitis, or some other blood borne disease; or you have religious beliefs that prohibit you from doing so.

Is it ethical to receive blood transfusions?

No. The literature tends to worry more about whether it is justifiable to give people transfusions against their wishes, or what to do when parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses deny doctors permission to perform a transfusion.

Is it ethical to smoke when people don't want you to?

If it harms their health, then yes.

These really aren't the questions that applied ethics deals with. We are more interested in:

Whether abortion is permissible and what the (logical) consequences of abortion policies are (did you know that it is quite likely that liberal abortion policies renders forcing men to pay child maintenance unethical).

Euthanasia.

What rationing principles are morally justifiable in health care (since it is a scarce good).

What rights parents have over their children and what reproductive tech does to our notion of parental rights and obligations.

Whether it is permissible to sell organs on the open market.

Whether it is permissible to force medical procedures on people in some cases.

etc. etc.

I'd point out that we don't expect perfect answers to these questions, only to be able to sort out better from worse options.

[Jon Miller]

and you guys can keep talking about them

meanwhile every day people will come to their own conclusions (and implement them by politicians) independent of you and yours

Jon Miller

[KrazyHorse]

I wonder why philosophers think people pay attention to what they say?

I decide my own ethics, and have no respect for those who don't.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
In practical ethics this question is easily avoided, although it is at root a philosophical question and not something that scientists could tell us since they have nothing interesting to say about value.

A scientist could tell you your wasting time, and we all know that time is priceless.

I certainly wouldn't buy into your gutter relativism

Of course not, otherwise you'd be out of a job.
You've trained yourself to ponder the unimportant, ponder the trivial, ponder the useless to the point where you've somehow convinced yourself it is useful and relevant, and even vital.

you have to be logically consistent in your moral beliefs no matter what they are

Right, okay...
Where did you pull this from?

People believe what they want, a lot of times their beliefs are inconsistent, and a lot of times you certainly won't agree with them.

Such is life as a human being. Surely a true philosopher could see that...

Not really the sort of thing we bother with. I suppose if it was a general issue of justice there would be some point here, but that's too general to make this specific point interesting.

I don't see why not. However, ordinary human beings selling kidneys is a rather more dubious case.

Of course it is, unless you have AIDS, Hepatitis, or some other blood borne disease; or you have religious beliefs that prohibit you from doing so.

No. The literature tends to worry more about whether it is justifiable to give people transfusions against their wishes, or what to do when parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses deny doctors permission to perform a transfusion.

If it harms their health, then yes.

The reason I asked these questions, of course, is because if you ask them to 10 people, you won't get the same ten answers.

So what's the point in learning and teaching it?

I don't understand how you can't realize how relative ethics are to people's upbringing, religion, and beliefs, and why it's stupid to teach them in a classroom...

Whether abortion is permissible and what the (logical) consequences of abortion policies are (did you know that it is quite likely that liberal abortion policies renders forcing men to pay child maintenance unethical).

Euthanasia.

What rationing principles are morally justifiable in health care (since it is a scarce good).

What rights parents have over their children and what reproductive tech does to our notion of parental rights and obligations.

Whether it is permissible to sell organs on the open market.

Whether it is permissible to force medical procedures on people in some cases.

etc. etc.

So in other words, philosophers are high school debate club members?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Yeah, right... Things get incorporated into society because they impart an improvement of some sort. Technologial inventions often have to FIGHT the "philosophers and social scientists", yet they eventually become adapted.

It is the nature of progress.

Should I make a serious post in this thread? What the heck.

The problem with this is scientists and engineers frequently overlook the human side of technolgy - mainly the social impacts that it brings. Today, technological development far outstrips that of social development, breaking down old ties but new ones haven't been forged.