budaatum:
Its because of the Laff in your moniker
Oruko ni o n'ro e!

Muttley laughs though not because Muttley is funny
but hey bud, please, you too have joined gang, bastardising the best language in the world
Was the apostrophe necessary in that remark?
Or is it a case of being borne out of an aesthetic pleasure?

MuttleyLaff:
Muttley laughs though not because Muttley is funny
but hey bud, please, you too have joined gang, bastardising the best language in the world
Was the apostrophe necessary in that remark?
Or is it a case of being borne out of an aesthetic pleasure?

I did consider 'oun ro e', but generally find that tedious. I'm looking for refination to the written Yoruba, currently considering abandoning the search for the undercented e and o even, which is almost sacrilegious! I'll work on the apostrophe too as I really hate it!

budaatum:

]think I too must have this "half bake exposure to logic". I too don't know "that all human are test subject"!

"Subjects" of, or to, whom, if you don't mind me asking?

I do not mean to be rude Buda, but the moniker deserve the harsh word. Subject to scientific experimentation.

color=#770077]The 10 points constituted the "Nuremberg Code," which includes such principles as informed consent and absence of coercion; properly formulated scientific experimentation; and beneficence towards experiment participants. It is thought to have been mainly based on the Hippocratic Oath, which was interpreted as endorsing the experimental approach to medicine while protecting the patient.[/color]

That sounds like the very opposite of "human are test subject", to me!

Not really Buda, when you read the first two and the number four code. It state that "" Required is the voluntary, well-informed, understanding consent of the human subject in a full legal capacity.""

""The experiment should aim at positive results for society that cannot be procured in some other way.""

""The experiment should be set up in a way that avoids unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injuries, except, in experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects..

The first two and the four code clearly state that human can be subject into any condition of scientific experiment if the victim in question Cleary agree with it.
Emphasis on the bolded.. But it beg another philosophical question, do rat or mouse use mostly in scientific experiment willingly submit to this . It is ethical as well to use our nearest cousin as experiment when it's against their wish..do science really needs to consider this phenomenon.

You see that is why today some big wings in political arena ( especially in Germany) require scientists to document and justify why an experiment is necessary even if it will be carry out on rat. They also have the right to live. Science is less concerned about this but the actual result which is the knowledge.

Well, i Know harming humans in an experiment or doing something that is likely to harm them, is obviously perceived to be unethical by most people, i also go further by saying harming animal too like rat is also unethical .but with this idea , science progress will definitely slow down and many deases that should be eliminated will triumph. But i say when the subjects are aware, the situation is much more difference, so again the question raised ealier, how are will going to make other animal aware?

For example as you stated earlier , Medical experiments on Jews by Nazis? Obviously not ethical.

Drug experiments on desperate cancer patients with a new experimental drug, with unknown side effects, Arguably ethical.

vaxx:
The first two and the four code clearly state that human can be subject into any condition of scientific experiment if the victim in question Cleary agree with it.

No, not any! What you describe there is what caused the Nuremberg Code to be created, and to stop the above!

Since then, scientific experiment must be ethically accepted and ethically administered, so hardly "any condition of scientific experiment", even if the "victim in question" agrees.

MuttleyLaff:
1/ How did the dogs start to bite people?
2/ What means did the dogs come through to bite people and infect them with rabies?
3/ Were the people not warned about dogs, especially the alpha male dog?

I believe these are properly answered in the OP.

The scientist is being fair, if he knows the end from the beginning, and so therefore means, the end justifies the means
There definitely is a method in the scientist's madness

The scientist comes across as someone who knows perfectly well what he is doing,
comes across as someone who has everything under control
so I would certainly do the same, if I were to be the scientist and knowing everything the scientist knows

LoL, how very Machiavellian, by inference I take it you subscribe to Machiavelli's principles.

budaatum:

No, not any! What you describe there is what caused the Nuremberg Code to be created, and to stop the above!

Since then, scientific experiment must be ethically accepted and ethically administered, so hardly "any condition of scientific experiment", even if the "victim in question" agrees.

There are no ethics broken if the participant was fully aware of the risks and benefits involved. As the same to any surgery case on a pregnant woman or any emergency that a patient can experience, what is the most important is signing the informed consent paper before every operation. This includes every study, as well. This is what Nuremberg code emphasis

I believe that ethical experiences can go both way too perhaps. When a study is being performed and digging into subjective data to collect credible information to use in evidence based research, one has to reflect if that information is being created, purposely developed, or consciously manifested to actually throw off the results? Is it falsified or valid? Only the subject or participant could know.

Although, What I see that maybe consider unfair or unethical,it is the participant case who surely can have great fun while doing this and change the roles where participant becomes researcher and researcher become the actual participants, even without their knowledge the entire time. Awareness has it’s fascinating results and amusing experience(s).which can go both way to either ethical or unethical related experiment.

LordReed:
I believe these are properly answered in the OP.
LoL, how very Machiavellian, by inference I take it you subscribe to Machiavelli's principles.

I'll let you off with the first two questions, the third question however wasnt in anyway addressed in the OP

Machiavelli might have some principles similar to mine

vaxx:

There are no ethics broken if the participant was fully aware of the risks and benefits involved.

The experiment must be ethically acceptable and the experimenter must follow ethical procedures otherwise ethics are broken.

You can't just perform any experiment you want even if the person performed on knows the risks and benefits involved and wants you to.

budaatum:

The experiment must be ethically acceptable and the experimenter must follow ethical procedures otherwise ethics are broken.

You can't just perform any experiment you want even if the person performed on knows the risks and benefits involved and wants you to.

clinical trials bro..

MuttleyLaff:
I'll let you off with the first two questions, the third question however wasnt in anyway addressed in the OP

It was by inference

because he was powerful and controlled the city, he says the dogs shouldn't be killed.

Machiavelli might have some principles similar to mine

Wow, thats interesting to note. So I take it you do not believe in an objective morality?

LordReed:

It was by inference

Wow, thats interesting to note.
So I take it you do not believe in an objective morality?

So, if as you now claiming, it is inferred in the OP, that the people were warned about the dogs, especially the alpha male dog, why then didn't the people take heed of the scientist's warning?

I also am interested in knowing how and what the scientist warned them about.

Lastly, what is objective morality?

MuttleyLaff:
So, if as you now claiming, it is inferred in the OP, that the people were warned about the dogs, especially the alpha male dog, why then didn't the people take heed of the scientist's warning?

I also am interested in knowing how and what the scientist warned them about.

They were warned not to kill the dogs.

Lastly, what is objective morality?

The idea that morality is inherent in the universe, that in any situation it will either be always true or always false.

vaxx:
clinical trials bro..

There are many ethical codes that clinical trials must very strictly adhere to. A short list would include the Nuremberg Code (1947), Declaration of Helsinki (2000), Belmont Report (1979), CIOMS (2002) and U.S. Common Rule (1991).

_{Sourced from the NIH Clinical Center}

budaatum:

There are many ethical codes that clinical trials must very strictly adhere to. A short list would include the Nuremberg Code (1947), Declaration of Helsinki (2000), Belmont Report (1979), CIOMS (2002) and U.S. Common Rule (1991).
_{Source from the IH Clinical Center}

Good, go thru those code and you will still see it validate Nuremberg code of 1, 2 And 4.

In addition, the idea of informed consent has been universally accepted and now constitutes Article 7 of the United Nations' ""International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It also served as the basis for International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects proposed by the World Health Organization""

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Ethical_Guidelines_for_Biomedical_Research_Involving_Human_Subjects

vaxx:
Good, go thru those code and you will still see it validate Nuremberg code of 1 And 4.

In addition, the idea of informed consent has been universally accepted and now constitutes Article 7 of the United Nations' ""International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It also served as the basis for International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects proposed by the World Health Organization""

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Ethical_Guidelines_for_Biomedical_Research_Involving_Human_Subjects

Do we agree that all clinical research must adhere to certain ethics as stated in the codes provided, and that no clinical research can legally be performed without considering the ethics involved?

LordReed:
They were warned not to kill the dogs.

1/ Why would the scientist warn them against killing the dogs?
2/ Did the scientist, at all, warn them the dogs will kill them?
3/ Was there anything in the line of the people being told "kill or be killed"?

LordReed:
The idea that morality is inherent in the universe, that in any situation it will either be always true or always false.

Break it down for a two year old to understand this

MuttleyLaff:
1/ Why would the scientist warn them against killing the dogs?
2/ Did the scientist, at all, warn them the dogs will kill them?
3/ Was there anything in the line of the people being told "kill or be killed"?

You know that parables are meant to be short right?

Break it down for a two year old to understand this

For example, if you kill you are wrong, doesn't matter what the situation. BTW are you 2 yrs old? LoLz

budaatum:

Do we agree that all clinical research must adhere to certain ethics as stated in the codes provided, and that no clinical research can legally be performed without considering the ethics involved?

my argument is ethics or no ethics, so far the patient consent is attested, the experiment can be carry out. And Nuremberg code of 1, 2 And 4 confirm it which can be found in other code.

vaxx:
my argument is ethics or no ethics, so far the patient consent is attested, the experiment can be carry out. And Nuremberg code of 1, 2 And 4 confirm it.

The Nuremberg Code does not state that any experiment can be performed if the patient gives consent! You can't even carry out any experiment you want on a rat that is considered incapable of giving consent, so how the heck can you be limiting ethics to consent?

The use of animals in research should evolve out of a strong sense of ethical self-examination. Ethical self-examination involves a careful self-analysis of one's own personal and scientific motives. Moreover, it requires a recognition of animal suffering and a satisfactory working through of that suffering in terms of one's ethical values.
_{John P. Gluck; Ethics and Behavior, Vol. 1, 1991}

The link I provided specifically states seven main principles described as guiding the conduct of ethical research, of which 'consent', an ethical consideration itself, 'informed' at that, is but one:

Social and clinical value
Scientific validity
Fair subject selection
Favorable risk-benefit ratio
Independent review
Informed consent
Respect for potential and enrolled subjects

If the above list stated "consent" alone, it still means ethics is of significance.

LordReed:
You know that parables are meant to be short right?

You know parables are lessons
and are quizzed for clarity, right?

LordReed:
For example, if you kill you are wrong, doesn't matter what the situation.

BTW are you 2 yrs old? LoLz

I am pleased I asked you so grateful for your example and teeny weeny explanation.

Well, if with that example, that is what objective morality is, then I don't buy that.

Where and/or how does incest, during its passage in time, fall with you?

No, I am not 2 years old,
but I know that if you are unable to explain a thing enough well for a two years old to understand, you really then don't know anything about what you are talking about

MuttleyLaff:
You know parables are lessons
and are quizzed for clarity, right?

Not really. It'll be like me asking why in the parable of the sower that Jesus told, the sower did not weed the ground or provide fertilizer or put the plants in a greenhouse to prevent the sun from destroying the crops. All of that is extraneous to the idea being passed across as it is not a complete representation of reality.

I am pleased I asked you so grateful for your example and teeny weeny explanation.

Well, if with that example, that is what objective morality is, then I don't buy that.

Where and/or how does incest, during its passage in time, fall with you?

This explains a lot about your views, quite different from the usual religious person. Incest may have been necessary at some point in human history, maybe not parent-offspring or offspring-offspring type but some of the closer relations we may object to today, aunty-nephew for instance. For the survival of the human species or society at the time it may be considered moral but now we have a luxury in the sheer amount of diversity when it comes to who to mate with, it is unnecessary to indulge in incest. Indeed I would call it immoral, simply because there is no need for it and it may cause harm.

No, I am not 2 years old,
but I know that if you are unable to explain a thing enough well for a two years old to understand, you really then don't know anything about what you are talking about

Dude, it was a joke.

budaatum:

The Nuremberg Code does not state that any experiment can be performed if the patient gives consent.

Not only does it state that, it also emphasis on the consent! Code 1 of Nuremberg is an evidence.

You can't even carry out any experiment you want on a rat that is considered incapable of giving consent, so how the heck can you be limiting ethics to consent?

That is why i raised a philosophical question on how do we determine if rat is willingly to undergo scientific experiment we subject them to. I further clarify that some big wings in political arena(Germany) Are advocating where scientist needs to give details of what the experiment is always about before such trials can be do done while some opposition are claiming if it is done in such way always it will slow down scientific progress.


[

i]The use of animals in research should evolve out of a strong sense of ethical self-examination. Ethical self-examination involves a careful self-analysis of one's own personal and scientific motives. Moreover, it requires a recognition of animal suffering and a satisfactory working through of that suffering in terms of one's ethical values.[/i]
_{John P. Gluck; Ethics and Behavior, Vol. 1, 1991}

first what gives human the right to test on a defenseless animal, if not egocentric....i wonder what it is ?

Well the same way we have no qualms eating other species of birds and animals, it clearly shows we really don't regard killing them as an issue of ethics. As egocentric is embedded on us.

The fact is that whether we are curious about how a new drug may work on humans or how we may survive outer space, our collective mentality comes from the curiosity that separates us from most other animals - the need to know how things work. We would kill not just to eat, but dissect animals to get a good idea what's inside them and hence, probably inside us. It's just in our nature to be egocentric.

Humanity is about surviving and is ready to do anything for such.

vaxx:

The fact is that whether we are curious about how a new drug may work on humans or how we may survive outer space, our collective mentality comes from the curiosity that separates us from most other animals - the need to know how things work. We would kill not just to eat, but dissect animals to get a good idea what's inside them and hence, probably inside us. It's just in our nature to be egocentric.

And this, 'egocentric', is the reason why there are ethical standards that apply to clinical research! We refuse to allow your egocentric nature the freedom to do as it might like! The imposition of ethical standards is how we reign your egocentric nature in.

Please be aware, not all humans have an "egocentric nature" as such. Some, do not place their ego at the forefront when taking decisions. And the ego definitely mustn't be a consideration in clinical research as the seven main principles clearly show.

vaxx:

first what gives human the right to test on a defenseless animal, if not egocentric....i wonder what it is ?

Nothing gives humans the right to "test on a defenseless animal". You know what we are like acting like gods and assuming? So ethical standards are imposed to limit that "right". At least, to impose standards you must adhere to and limit what you can do under your assumed " right".

budaatum:

And this, 'egocentric', is the reason why there are ethical standards that apply to clinical research! We refuse to allow your egocentric nature the freedom to do as it might like! The imposition of ethical standards is how we reign your egocentric nature in.

what is the essence of ethics that regard consent even when experimentental procedure is way risky? That is even the reasons the standard are not yet implemented or allowed in any country. Well it is still regarded as one of the most brillant idea ever created in medical research.

It is still a big debate anyway.

Please be aware, not all humans have an "egocentric nature" as such. Some, do not place their ego at the forefront when taking decision

Humans revolve around themselves...it's a survival trait...in a live or die situation, it's everyone for himself...and those very few who do not, are not the survival exception, if they choose to die to save someone else, it will be because they chose their survival. To extend their survival possibilities humans became social, gathered in groups, being stronger as a group rather than alone. That has peaked until now, the 21st Century where the family cells and the grouping of individuals is becoming weaker and weaker, because in this 21st Century humans now need less of each other to survive. Thus, now society as a whole is becoming more egocentric, and of course individuals.

budaatum:

Nothing gives humans the right to "test on a defenseless animal". You know what we are like acting like gods and assuming? So ethical standards are imposed to limit that "right". At least, to impose standards you must adhere to and limit what you can do under your assumed " right".

That further begs the question.....how do you define ethics? I do not want to push you to the wall.

vaxx:
That further begs the question.....how do you define ethics? I do not want to push you to the wall.

What question?

Ethics are the moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.

budaatum:

What question?

Ethics are the moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.

what are this moral principle? You will begin to see the loopholes yourself.

LordReed:
Not really.
It'll be like me asking why in the parable of the sower that Jesus told, the sower did not weed the ground or provide fertilizer or put the plants in a greenhouse to prevent the sun from destroying the crops. All of that is extraneous to the idea being passed across as it is not a complete representation of reality

What is "Not really"?
"Not really" about what?

Everyone except you knows, parables are moral or spiritual lessons.
What is and where is the lesson in your wannabe parable?

LordReed:
This explains a lot about your views, quite different from the usual religious person.

Explains a lot about what views of mine?
List a couple of them

You mean quite different from the blindspot view of what the world and you think religion really is?
I am a religious person, but not in same way/manner, what you deem being religious is

LordReed:
Incest may have been necessary at some point in human history,
maybe not parent-offspring or offspring-offspring type but some of the closer relations we may object to today, aunty-nephew for instance.
For the survival of the human species or society at the time it may be considered moral
but now we have a luxury in the sheer amount of diversity when it comes to who to mate with, it is unnecessary to indulge in incest.
Indeed I would call it immoral, simply because there is no need for it and it may cause harm

"What is objective morality?
The idea that morality is inherent in the universe,
that in any situation it will either be always true or always false."
- LordReed ©

Now you see why I pushed your "objective morality" back at you and said I am not buying it.
That incest has dropped a fly in your definition of objective morality oil ointment
As much as you wouldnt like to admit to, the human race sure kicked off with the offspring-offspring type

You declared that you'll call incest immoral, simply because there is no need for it and it may cause harm
How about, incest that acccording to your words, may have been necessary at some point in the early human history?
How would you categorise that incest?
Moral or immoral?

LordReed:
Dude, it was a joke.

I dont need you to tell me it was a joke
Of course, it was a joke.
It was a joke of a rhetorical question, I played along with.

MuttleyLaff:
What is "Not really"?
"Not really" about what?

Everyone except you knows, parables are moral or spiritual lessons.
What is and where is the lesson in your wannabe parable?

That's an assignment for you to figure out.

Explains a lot about what views of mine?
List a couple of them

Unnecessary to list them out so I won't.

"What is objective morality?
The idea that morality is inherent in the universe,
that in any situation it will either be always true or always false."
- LordReed ©

Now you see why I pushed your "objective morality" back at you and said I am not buying it.
That incest has dropped a fly in your definition of objective morality oil ointment
As much as you wouldnt like to admit to, the human race sure kicked off with the offspring-offspring type

You declared that you'll call incest immoral, simply because there is no need for it and it may cause harm
How about, incest that acccording to your words, may have been necessary at some point in the early human history?
How would you categorise that incest?
Moral or immoral?

What the heck are you on about? Is not clear that I think morality is relative? That incest at some point in human history was necessary and so moral? Damn, you just like dribbling your own shadow.

I dont need you to tell me it was a joke
Of course, it was a joke.
It was a joke of a rhetorical question, I played along with.

It's OK to admit you were a bit flustered and thought I was questioning your intelligence.

LordReed:
That's an assignment for you to figure out.

Cat got your tongue

LordReed:
Unnecessary to list them out so I won't.

What you afraid of revealing?
I'll be judge of whether it's unnecessary to list or not to list.
Budaatum doesnt know I can judge, that I am a god.

LordReed:
What the heck are you on about?
Is not clear that I think morality is relative?
That incest at some point in human history was necessary and so moral?
Damn, you just like dribbling your own shadow.

"What is objective morality?
The idea that morality is inherent in the universe,
that in any situation it will either be always true or always false."
- LordReed ©

You cant have your cake and eat it
Incest according to your objective morality explanation, that you voluntarily gave and/or gave without being duress, cant be immoral and moral
Your explanation says, it has to be always true or always false. Not switching from being moral to immoral
Going along with your objective morality explanation,
if incest was moral to begin with, then it has to be always moral, and be moral till and/or after kingdom come.

LordReed:
It's OK to admit you were a bit flustered and thought I was questioning your intelligence.

I wasnt a tad flustered nor did I at any moment think you are questioning my intelligence

I actually was, as a matter of fact, amused,
and so decided to borrow & unleash on you Einstein's "If you can't explain it to a six-year-old, you don't understand it yourself" remark

MuttleyLaff:


What you afraid of revealing?
I'll be judge of whether it's unnecessary to list or not to list.
Budaatum doesnt know I can judge, that I am a god.

Oya come and force me to list it. LoLz. I declare it unnecessary, go and bring police. LMAO.

"What is objective morality?
The idea that morality is inherent in the universe,
that in any situation it will either be always true or always false."
- LordReed ©

You cant have your cake and eat it
Incest according to your objective morality explanation, that you voluntarily gave and/or gave without being duress, cant be immoral and moral
Your explanation says, it has to be always true or always false. Not switching from being moral to immoral
Going along with your objective morality explanation,
if incest was moral to begin with, then it has to be always moral, and be moral till and/or after kingdom come.

It seems English is hard for you today. Dude I DO NOT BELIEVE IN OBJECTIVE MORALITY. Is that clear enough for you? You need Igbo or Yoruba translation?