I have a debate on this topic with my girlfriend. She raised some impressive counter response to support it. But not quite satisfy . What do you think? Pls I need some thought provoking point......either against or in support of it.

Let's begin........

vaxx:
I have a debate on this topic with my girlfriend. She raised some impressive counter response to support it. But not quite satisfy . What do you think? Pls I need some thought provoking point......either against or in support of it.

Let's begin........

Yes they are but that may not be such a bad thing. In the case of human test subjects, it would be very hard to treat human beings like the contents of a test tube given that humans are conscious, feeling beings. Most scientific studies would need to be conducted without recourse to emotion, a very hard thing to control for with live human test subjects.

A lot of the ethics issues may be solved if lab cultured human tissue and organs (and possibly entire bodily systems) are viable alternatives.

LordReed:
Yes they are but that may not be such a bad thing. In the case of human test subjects, it would be very hard to treat human beings like the contents of a test tube given that humans are conscious, feeling beings. Most scientific studies would need to be conducted without recourse to emotion, a very hard thing to control for with live human test subjects.

No I think, deciding that ethical issue should not even be consider is also an ethical decision. In orther words, there are no human endeavour that can exist outside the realm of ethics because morality is an instrict quality of being human.

A lot of the ethics issues may be solved if lab cultured human tissue and organs (and possibly entire bodily systems) are viable alternatives.

Ethics is all about making decision on what is wrong or right.for the scientist,ethical and moral consideration should be extremely important . If they were never consider in the process of doing science. science could well decide to cheat , fake an experiment result or outcome.And this will be a stopping block to the progress of science.


Am against it on this thread while am supporting it on your thread....lol let's see how it will work.....

vaxx:
No I think, deciding that ethical issue should not even be consider is also an ethical decision. In orther words, there are no human endeavour that can exist outside the realm of ethics because morality is an instrict quality of being human.

I was listening to Sean Carroll today and learnt something that I agree with. Human morality and ethics are not inherent but emergent, that is, it is a fruit of our evolution both biologically and socially. Meaning both nature and nurture has formed our morality and our ethics, we give value to the consciousness and feelings of our fellow human being. If you value the consciousness of your fellows why would you want to inflict upon him processes that will completely ignore or devalue that value you place on his consciousness?

Ethics is all about making decision on what is wrong or right.for the scientist,ethical and moral consideration should be extremely important . If they were never consider in the process of doing science. science could well decide to cheat , fake an experiment result or outcome.And this will be a stopping block to the progress of science.


Am against it on this thread while am supporting it on your thread....lol let's see how it will work.....

As I already expressed, likely alternatives are being developed that will bypass some of these ethical questions entirely. It is something that greatly pleases me because I can see science take another gigantic leap if it works out. May be immortality drugs will be developed? I keep my fingers crossed.

EDIT: Changed Steve to Sean

LordReed:


I was listening to Steve Carroll today and learnt something that I agree with. Human morality and ethics are not inherent but emergent, that is, it is a fruit of our evolution both biologically and socially. Meaning both nature and nurture has formed our morality and our ethics, we give value to the consciousness and feelings of our fellow human being. If you value the consciousness of your fellows why would you want to inflict upon him processes that will completely ignore or devalue that value you place on his consciousness?

morality is inherent but does not stop it from evolving. It modify when society decide to evolve along.and when it does, human by nature adjust because it is natural to do so.

As I already expressed, likely alternatives are being developed that will bypass some of these ethical questions entirely. It is something that great pleases me because I can see science take another gigantic leap if it works out. May be immortality drugs will be developed? I keep my fingers crossed.

I suppose there's a sense in which it's trivially true, but only in a sense so hypothetical as to be meaningless. Scientists are human beings; human beings have ethics (or at least, a predisposition onto which particular ethical codes are laid). These are as much a part of being human as the curiosity which is the root of science.

Consider it this way: why do scientists want to do medical research? Because they want to help people. To magically remove their sense of ethics without removing their desire to help is nonsensical.

There are a few rare cases where the desires to know and to help conflict with what many other see as ethical. These are badly exaggerated and not nearly fundamental. As exceptions there's no real meaningful way to discuss them. Ethics is always going to be a murky process, but you won't extract it from human beings in the scientific community.

When we have robots capable of scientific thought, we might have a situation where it will design experiments no human being would permit. But when we've reached that point, I suspect we'll have no difficulty finding alternatives to those experiments that are both good enough for the work and ethical enough to satisfy the humans, because we'll have much better models of the things we want to experiment on than we have now.


Well, I await the alternative that could remove ethics from sciencetific experiment.

Waiting to read more view on this subject

Bumb

Question has some ambiguity.
Ethics and morality is holding scientists back NOT science.

DeSepiero:
Question has some ambiguity.
Ethics and morality is holding scientists back NOT science.

can you elucidate?

vaxx:
can you elucidate?

Response is clear enough for the question though.

DeSepiero:


Response is clear enough for the question though.

I can't pick up anything meaningful in what you are trying to convey or dismiss in the headline....and I need you to further clarify it. If you can not go ahead . No qualms.

vaxx:
I can't pick up anything meaningful in ...

Sorry for your inability.

DeSepiero:


Sorry for your inability.

while I am also sorry for your incapacity to proceed ....

vaxx:
while I am also sorry for your incapacity to proceed ....

No need, I wasn't obliged.

vaxx:
I have a debate on this topic with my girlfriend. She raised some impressive counter response to support it. But not quite satisfy . What do you think? Pls I need some thought provoking point......either against or in support of it.

Let's begin........

This subject was flogged to death in this thread!

budaatum:

This subject was flogged to death in this thread!

ok.....if that will relax the spark in your over boiling emotions

I am not a pussy dude...

vaxx:
ok.....if that will relax the spark in your over boiling emotions

I am not a pussy dude...

Lol! My emotions aren't boiling vaxx. But you just go on believing what you will if it makes you feel good.

budaatum:

Lol! My emotions aren't boiling vaxx. But you just go on believing what you will if it makes you feel good.

maybe over heated i suppose .....

vaxx:
maybe over heated i suppose .....

Just provide the evidence requested instead of hiding behind emotives, please!

budaatum:

Just provide the evidence requested instead of hiding behind emotives, please!

you are now a spammer instead of a knowledge seeker

vaxx:
you are now a spammer instead of knowledge seeker

Asking you to provide evidence for a claim you made is spamming now, and not "knowledge seeking"? I guess it must be so, according to vaxx' logic which states that buda is emotional, a pussy, and a spammer. Thankfully, buda lives regardless of what you might think.

Provide the evidence requested please. I want to know!

budaatum:

Asking you to provide evidence for a claim you made is spamming now, and not "knowledge seeking"? I guess it must be so, according to vaxx' logic which states that buda is emotional, a pussy, and a spammer. Thankfully, buda lives regardless of what you might think.

Provide the evidence requested please. I want to know!

spamming means giving unsolicited message or response(and this is clearly what you are doing).....in this topic, there is no information I had raised or given that require evidence like what you are asking for?

Buda stop spamming my thread""

vaxx:
spamming means giving unsolicited message or response(and this is clearly what you are doing).....in this topic, there is no information I had raised or given that require evidence like what you are asking for?

Buda stop spamming my thread""

Your thread! Listen to your supposedly unemotive self.

Vaxx, let me inform you that I am now going to specifically follow you so that I don't miss any post you make. I hope you clearly understand the implications of this!

budaatum:

Your thread! Listen to your supposedly unemotive self.

Vaxx, let me inform you that I am now going to specifically follow you so that I don't miss any post you make. I hope you clearly understand the implications of this!

go ahead you are welcome.... nairaland FBI

vaxx:
go ahead you are welcome.... nairaland FBI

The pleasure is all mine but thanks all the same.

What about the ethical position that knowledge is good and should be striven for and ignorance obliterated at all costs?

PastorAIO:
What about the ethical position that knowledge is good and should be striven for and ignorance obliterated at all costs?

i agree with you but Knowledge itself is neutral, it's neither good nor bad, so I believe the level of danger/good applied to knowledge can only come from the people who possess it.

Ethically, society has to ignite what is objectively consider as positive knowledge while discarding what it is not.

Ignorance can be too expensive despite its bliss.

PastorAIO:
What about the ethical position that knowledge is good and should be striven for and ignorance obliterated at all costs?

At absolutely "all costs'? Like bashing knowledge into unwilling heads? I'd love to say it is ethically positive to do so, but, who would be the determinant of 'knowledge'? And how far should one be ethically willing to go? Should one stop when the need to eliminate the ignorant arises so they don't corrupt the already knowledgeable?

Muslim minority in China's Xinjiang face 'political indoctrination' is an ongoing example of the question you've posed.

PastorAIO:
What about the ethical position that knowledge is good and should be striven for and ignorance obliterated at all costs?

It's a hard question when it washes up against the effects of denigrating the dignity of conscious being.

vaxx:
i agree with you but Knowledge itself is neutral, it's neither good nor bad,

Knowledge is not neutral and is good or bad! One person's knowledge can be termed ignorance by another which in itself indicates subjectivity since it is based on perspective.

Knowledge based on a communist perspective, for instance, while valid to the communist, is not valid to the capitalist. Same occurs in religions where Christians and Muslims consider the other's so called knowledge to be ignorance.

Science is ultimately immoral. So, ultimately, you cannot have science and morality.

sinequanon:
Science is ultimately immoral. So, ultimately, you cannot have science and morality.

How is science "ultimately immoral"? In fact, what do you understand by "science"? Start there if you would please.