budaatum:

I have not claimed there is anything democratic about ethics! India, today, decriminalised homosexuality but I bet if they had to vote on it, it would still be a crime!

it is not until when you claim it, it is the way you apply it that matter . Your application of ethics is similarly to that of democracy where every principle in decision making is cut across equally or perhaps agree with majority., hence fixed.

To India their cup of coffee........

Sorry vaxx, but you appear to think plenty wordism will get you out of this, while in reality it just shows how muddled your reasoning is on this issue.

Scientific experiments are done in a society. That society cares about its living organisms, be they rats or humans or chickens or goats, so it creates rules about how they shall be treated when experimented on.

Those rules, where they include the welfare of the living organism concerned, whether the experiment is to save their lives or for them to be eaten, are based on our ethical conduct, and hence there are moral principles created by us humans that relate to the concerned activity.

A clear example is that we shall not cause undue distress to the goat we slaughter. Some others, where humans are concerned, are that we shall only perform experiments that have social and clinical value, are scientific valid, with favorable risk-benefit ratio, which shall be Independently reviewed, upon participants fairly selected, and with their Informed consent and whom we shall respect.

Now, these principles are not laws, but moral guidance. We however, as a society, feel so strong about these ethical standards that we have decided that they shall be legal requirements and enforced by the law. And we do this because we are human beings who care about the life of other beings, especially when they are incapable of fighting for themselves. We are in fact so advanced these days that we do not even allow unethical experiments to be performed on the environment and now have environmental ethical guidance on what is acceptable!

Now, I know you are going to throw some accusation like "democratic", "shift the post", "top-downward" or "bottom upward", and "confuse “law” with “morality"” at me, but I hope I've clearly made my point, that the scientist in Lordreed's op is not being fair, is being unethical and committing a criminal offence. And no, I would not behave in such a way that my need to know, or eat meat, would be done unethically even if those I might 'eat' give their consent!

The search for knowledge must be done ethically. We have not always applied moral guidance to experiments done in the past and have seen where it got us. We don't wish to give free rein to egocentric and barbaric nature, hence ethics, at every level that we can impose it.

budaatum:
Sorry vaxx, but you appear to think plenty wordism will get you out of this, while in reality it just shows how muddled your reasoning is on this issue.

Scientific experiments are done in a society. That society cares about its living organisms, be they rats or humans or chickens or goats, so it creates rules about how they shall be treated when experimented on.

Those rules, where they include the welfare of the living organism concerned, whether the experiment is to save their lives or for them to be eaten, are based on our ethical conduct, and hence there are moral principles created by us humans that relate to the concerned activity.

A clear example is that we shall not cause undue distress to the goat we slaughter. Some others, where humans are concerned, are that we shall only perform experiments that have social and clinical value, are scientific valid, with favorable risk-benefit ratio, which shall be Independently reviewed, upon participants fairly selected, and with their Informed consent and whom we shall respect.

Now, these principles are not laws, but moral guidance. We however, as a society, feel so strong about these ethical standards that we have decided that they shall be legal requirements and enforced by the law. And we do this because we are human beings who care about the life of other beings, especially when they are incapable of fighting for themselves. We are in fact so advanced these days that we do not even allow unethical experiments to be performed on the environment and now have environmental ethical guidance on what is acceptable!

Now, I know you are going to throw some accusation like "democratic", "shift the post", "top-downward" or "bottom upward", and "confuse “law” with “morality"” at me, but I hope I've clearly made my point, that the scientist in Lordreed's op is not being fair, is being unethical and committing a criminal offence. And no, I would not behave in such a way that my need to know, or eat meat, would be done unethically even if thos might 'eat' give their consent!

The search for knowledge must be done ethically. We have not always applied moral guidance to experiments done in the past and have seen where it got us. We don't wish to give free rein to egocentric and barbaric nature, hence ethics, at every level that we can impose it.

ignoratio elenchi spotted


You accused me of wordism which you yourself is doing.... Buda """": how ethical is this?

vaxx:
ignoratiou elenchi spotted


You accused me of wordism which you yourself is doing.... Buda """": how ethical is this?

Thankfully, other people can form their own opinion regarding wordism having read all that has been written.

I'm going to mention this all the same. It seems you see discussions with me as some sort of competition that needs to be won. I noticed this in our conversations about subjectivity and in the one about the four noble truths, where even in your own words, you argue against yourself! Below is an example of you doing similar on here (provided my understanding is not incorrect).

vaxx:
Yes, they have. They are living beings like us, they share our capacity for emotions, joy, pain and love and therefore they should not be viewed as inferior beings who have no rights. Life is life. Whatever difference it is claimed, it's only for man's egoistical advantage. [s]therefore slaughter ethics do not go in alingment with animal decision....they never want it anyway[/s].

I'm not certain, but in the above where you say that animals, who happen to "share our capacity for emotions, joy, pain and love" and therefore "should not be viewed as inferior beings who have no rights", I understand you to mean that they should be treated with ethical consideration, which they just happen to be as shown by the ethical code I gave a link to (though I can't understand the addition of your "they never want it anyway", tagged onto the end). Yet, the entire premise of your argument on this thread is the removal of those ethical moral guidelines for the advancement of science because, according to you, "Every outcome of an experiment is a knowledge" and "morality and ethics can stop science progress which is very bad to the betterment of every society aiming to develop".

Indeed, every outcome of an experiment may well be knowledge. But not all science is for "the betterment of every society aiming to develop" ! Some experiments can be very bad even if they benefit certain societies and most especially if they are detrimental to other societies. After all, while the experiments of slavery benefitted some society and helped their development, we can't claim slavery should not have been stopped by ethics and moral guidelines. Or would we? Do you prefer a dog eat dog world where only the fittest survive?

I see the conversations we have here as experiments, and that in having them, knowledge is acquired and for the betterment of all. And that means one must go about one's experiment with moral guidelines and the consideration of ethical rules pertaining to the experiment. One should not allow one's blinding egotistical need to appear as a winner be the sole consideration of these experiments. Rather than a win-lose outcome, a win-win one is an option. You, yourself once noticed this in buda when you informed someone that buda, though an atheist, does not necessarily go about insulting and attacking Christians.

Anyway, I just thought I'd mention my observation from the experiments you and I have been performing here. Ethics are there as moral guidelines to temper the "egotistical tendency" of some humans to put their desires and needs above everyone and everything else's. And the more intelligent humans fight for the fairer treatment of everyone and everything by ensuring there are moral guidelines that must be followed. And if it those moral guidelines hold back 'science' or the 'acquisition of knowledge' (and wealth, which is really the underlying goal of the egoist in this context), then so be it. No one is currently legally allowed to sacrifice others for their own (societies) "betterment"!

For anyone interested in an example of a list of foundational ethical moral guidelines that many humans live by, please refer to the ten given here.

budaatum:

Thankfully, other people can form their own opinion regarding wordism having read all that has been written.

I'm going to mention this all the same. It seems you see discussions with me as some sort of competition that needs to be won. I noticed this in our conversations about subjectivity and in the one about the four noble truths, where even in your own words, you argue against yourself! Below is an example of you doing similar on here (provided my understanding is not incorrect).



I'm not certain, but in the above where you say that animals, who happen to "share our capacity for emotions, joy, pain and love" and therefore "should not be viewed as inferior beings who have no rights", I understand you to mean that they should be treated with ethical consideration, which they just happen to be as shown by the ethical code I gave a link to (though I can't understand the addition of your "they never want it anyway", tagged onto the end). Yet, the entire premise of your argument on this thread is the removal of those ethical moral guidelines for the advancement of science because, according to you, "Every outcome of an experiment is a knowledge" and "morality and ethics can stop science progress which is very bad to the betterment of every society aiming to develop".

Indeed, every outcome of an experiment may well be knowledge. But not all science is for "the betterment of every society aiming to develop" ! Some experiments can be very bad even if they benefit certain societies and most especially if they are detrimental to other societies. After all, while the experiments of slavery benefitted some society and helped their development, we can't claim slavery should not have been stopped by ethics and moral guidelines. Or would we? Do you prefer a dog eat dog world where only the fittest survive?

I see the conversations we have here as experiments, and that in having them, knowledge is acquired and for the betterment of all. And that means one must go about one's experiment with moral guidelines and the consideration of ethical rules pertaining to the experiment. One should not allow one's blinding egotistical need to appear as a winner be the sole consideration of these experiments. Rather than a win-lose outcome, a win-win one is an option. You, yourself once noticed this in buda when you informed someone that buda, though an atheist, does not necessarily go about insulting and attacking Christians.

Anyway, I just thought I'd mention my observation from the experiments you and I have been performing here. Ethics are there as moral guidelines to temper the "egotistical tendency" of some humans to put their desires and needs above everyone and everything else's. And the more intelligent humans fight for the fairer treatment of everyone and everything by ensuring there are moral guidelines that must be followed. And if it those moral guidelines hold back 'science' or the 'acquisition of knowledge' (and wealth, which is really the underlying goal of the egoist in this context), then so be it. No one is currently legally allowed to sacrifice others for their own (societies) "betterment"!

For anyone interested in an example of a list of foundational ethical moral guidelines that many humans live by, please refer to the ten given here.

ignoratio elenchi fallacy...

LordReed:


That is an unethical and immoral scientist that will allow disease and vector to run unchecked in a human population just to see what happens.

We better keep our ethical eyes and moral guidance on them to stop them sacrificing the weak for their own advantage!

budaatum:

We better keep our ethical eyes and moral guidance on them to stop them sacrificing the weak for their own advantage!

Very true.

JeromeBlack:



I've always seen you and butterflyl1on as people with psychopathic tendencies.

With this your logic, we should be using babies as test subjects.

No morality, no sense

Please be fair. According to the person you responded to, if the babies give consent they can be used as test subjects!

budaatum:

Please be fair. According to the person you responded to, if the babies give consent they can be used as test subjects!

Before you begin to commit further fallacy.....have you heard of institutional reveiw board ? A goggle search should enlight you.

Thankfully, we don't wait for consent from the earth before we use our own brains to decide that we had better be ethical towards it, at least in most instances. There is hope for you yet!

LordReed:


What is pragmatic about withholding the cure and stopping the disease vector from being destroyed?

.


Nothing. It's just atheistic, wicked and insane.

vaxx:
what if holding the cure will lead to a new discovery and unlock a new key to establishment of something much more beneficial. Scientists are much more pragmatic in thinking and not what about what society thinks at times.

.


This is nonsense and dog(matic).

vaxx:
therefore morality and ethics can stop science progress which is very bad to the betterment of every society aiming to developed.....

.


No. God is not Dog. He is an Artist, a Scientist, a Spirit and The Morality stuffed in every Conscience.

vaxx:
Every outcome of an experiment is a knowledge . Destroying the life's in this sense may be consider part of the experiment.therefore is is not a waste.science is about seeking to advance knowledge.

.


Release The Cure first before you start wasting our precious Lives with your selfish lifestyle.

vaxx:
in every scientific experiment, there is always tendency of negative implications at least what society will consider as such. But the negative implication is not absurd to science as it unluck a new doors to a new knowledge, yes to community at large it might be dangerous but to scientists, it is a new knowledge.


Emphasis on the knowledge, the main bone of scientific experiment.

.


You talk about Knowledge. God is an Instructor of Wisdom, a Director of Knowledge and a Discernment of Understanding. But this Doggish Scientist is foolish, silly and ignorant. He is satanic.

vaxx:
what do you mean by human? You mean homo sapiens? What if the purpose of the knowledge is done for the benefit of aquatic or reptiles? Even our natural habitat

.


Nonsense tongue.

budaatum:

Not to the detriment of ethics, vaxx. Science in Germany during the second world war is a great lesson on this particular point.

_{Sorry for low-blowing.}

.


Hitler was Satan Incarnate.

orisa37:
Hitler was Satan Incarnate.

Hitler was a tool
and a pair of idle hands in the devil's workshop

orisa37:
.


Hitler was Satan Incarnate.

MuttleyLaff:
Hitler was a tool
and a pair of idle hands in the devil's workshop

Hitler was also a Christian

orisa37:
.


Nothing. It's just atheistic, wicked and insane.

Why is it atheistic?

JeromeBlack:
Hitler was also a Christian

Was he now
Touche. "Ọrọ pari".

LordReed:


Why is it atheistic?

.


He is insurbodinate to God's Instruction. Like unto Noah building The Ark and Michael Faraday and Electricity, God is The Creator and General Instructor and Light of humans. God instructed the Scientist to find the Cure but not to hide it. So hiding the Cure was disobedient to God's Instruction. Atheists don't know that God is in Control of all human affairs.

JeromeBlack:




Hitler was also a Christian

.


Ok. He backslided into witchery and atheism..

JeromeBlack:




Hitler was also a Christian

.


Ok. But he had no water baptism.

orisa37:
.



Ok. He backslided into witchery and atheism..

orisa37:
.



Ok. But he had no water baptism.

LoL, are you just making up excuses?

LordReed:

LoL, are you just making up excuses?

.


Hitler was a Dreamer. He was selfish and wicked and Satan perished him.

vaxx:
ignoratio elenchi fallacy...

I asked you a question, seems you missed it

hopefulLandlord:
I asked you a question, seems you missed it

ooh my bad, I will respond asap.

orisa37:
.



Hitler was a Dreamer. He was selfish and wicked and Satan perished him.

So you mean you don't see the parallels in this scenario with your religion?

LordReed you are of the opinion that nothing being pragmatic In the decision of the scientist letting the dog infected rabies killing the people while holding the cure to the medicine.

You further clarify in my recent thread that is much more similar to yours that ( i put in quote )""Hmmm, this is a tough one with a lot of layers it will require some thought to adequately do justice"".

I say in essence you must have open up your mind to this similar event for you to have come up with this conclusion.

Hope you now understand?

LordReed you are of the opinion that nothing being pragmatic In the decision of the scientist killing the people while holding the cure to the medicine, you further clarify in my recent thread that is much more similar to yours that ( i put in quote )Hmmm, this is a tough one with a lot of layers it will require some thought to adequately do justice.

I say in essence you must have open up your mind to this similar event for you to have come up with this conclusion.

Hope you now understand?

Lordreed, please accept my sincere apology for requesting that you tutor me a little but can you help me understand this please. I do not understand!

vaxx:
LordReed you are of the opinion that nothing being pragmatic In the decision of the scientist letting the dog infected rabies killing the people while holding the cure to the medicine.

You further clarify in my recent thread that is much more similar to yours that ( i put in quote )""Hmmm, this is a tough one with a lot of layers it will require some thought to adequately do justice"".

I say in essence you must have open up your mind to this similar event for you to have come up with this conclusion.

Hope you now understand?

budaatum:

Lordreed, please accept my sincere apology for requesting that you tutor me a little but can you help me understand this please. I do not understand!

The question is not if it is pragmatic, the question is, is it moral, is it something you would do? Sure you can justify letting the people die as you wanting to collect data but that is an amoral/immoral justification.

If you notice there is no question on the morality of creating the dogs (you can view them as weapons). The question in my view lies in their use. I will answer that more precisely in your thread.