vaxx:
Go thru the thread buda": pls I will like to have this thread informative as possible instead of emotional or disgressing talk. Can you do it for Your guy vaxx""

Of course I can. Here's a good response for the thread.

vaxx:

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.....

Let's see which side you take on this thread.

vaxx:
you only failed to grasp it Buda"", LordReed opens up his mind later on....

Lord, can you please point out where you "opened" your mind to vaxx's "scientist are simply in the pursuit of knowledge" with no consideration of morals and ethics? I'd like to see how you were convinced.

budaatum:

Of course I can. Here's a good response for the thread.


Let's see which side you take on this thread.

i can as well talk on both side's, it is about sharing beneficial information and as well as developing intellectual skills . No absolute right/ wrong anywhere. You choose whatever position you like if you care.....

budaatum:

Lord, can you please point out where you "opened" your mind to vaxx's "scientist are simply in the pursuit of knowledge" with no consideration of morals and ethics? I'd like to see how you were convinced.

Buda don't disgress this thread, rather do it on his thread? I once ask for that favour in advance.

vaxx:
i can as well talk on both side's, it is about sharing beneficial information and as well as developing intellectual skills . No absolute right/ wrong anywhere. You choose whatever position you like if you care.....

There is no problem being on both sides. But one is not on both sides when one argues incessantly against one of the sides. You might want to further develop the intellectual skills so you do it better.

And there is a right or wrong, unless outcomes matter not to you!

Buda"" I will like to make this thread an informative thread. I ask once again.

vaxx:
Buda"" I will like to make this thread an informative thread. I ask once again.

You can ask till the cows come home. I'm here to stay!

budaatum:

Lord, can you please point out where you "opened" your mind to vaxx's "scientist are simply in the pursuit of knowledge" with no consideration of morals and ethics? I'd like to see how you were convinced.

vaxx should explain better cos I am not sure what he is referring to.

LordReed:


vaxx should explain better cos I am not sure what he is referring to.

let's do that on your thread pls.

LordReed:


vaxx should explain better cos I am not sure what he is referring to.

Thanks for promptly responding. I did ask him, but he asked me to go read up without pointing where, so I figured since he said it about you, perhaps you'd be able to help. Personally, I think he's trying one of those tricks he tries when he can't admit he's dug a hole and fallen in. But let me give him another opportunity.

Vaxx, where did "LordReed open up his mind later on" to your, "scientist are simply in the pursuit of knowledge" with no consideration of morals and ethics?

vaxx:
let's do that on your thread pls.

Mention me so I don't miss it now.

vaxx:
Scientists discover principle though you called it weapons due to what you use it to do.

Scientists are just in the pursuit of knowledge. Whatever they discover, they share in the hopes of advancement of humanity. How we use them, is up to us, right? So it is not in the duty of scientist to name one principle ethical or morally wrong or right.....you do that.....for example in Australia progressive society, anything at all can be consider a weapons so far it can add a considerable amount of harm to anyone (meaning my phone may be consider a weapon so far I use it to hit you and it causes damage)I will be treated in the court like someone who use knives or daggar. And in all honestly you and I know phone is not a fighting tools. Therefore it it not the work of scientists to validate if a principle is either ethically or mortally right or wrong. It is you to state that.........

What a mindless show of sophistry. I've always applauded the scientists for the progress so far.
However, the forces man has unleashed should be properly managed, otherwise, man becomes enslaved by them.

KENFERDYOORI:


What a mindless show of sophistry. I've always applauded the scientists for the progress so far.
However, the forces man has unleashed should be properly managed, otherwise, man becomes enslaved by them.

I am not here to decive you bro.....both society and scientists influence each other while science remain neutral. The whole point of science is to be skeptical about its own results, get this fact bro.

Science's own process is to try to obsolete everything it has achieved. So no, that's by definition not enslavement.There's no claim of perfection or absolute authority . It just a promise that tomorrow will be better than today.

Like I wrote in an earlier post, there are several layers to this question.

First, the reason or necessity for weapons. In the early dawn of human history, man saw that his environment was filled with all sorts of things that had the potential to kill him and especially with predators it wasn't enough to just run away. The need to defend against predatory attacks is a valid reason to create weapons. Even in todays world where we no longer fear an attack from creatures on the savannah where man evolved from, man has become predator to himself. It is still necessary to create weapons to defend yourself with more so for nations that control large swaths of physical ground containing resources and other things of strategic value. May be one day we'll get to the point were we no longer prey on ourselves but that day isn't here yet.

Second, what level of force is required. So this is where the grey areas begin to show up. Questions like was it necessary to use the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why was such a devastating weapon created in the first place? Well, to some extent I understand the military doctrine that requires you to bring to bear overwhelming force that ensures not just victory but utter prostration of your enemies they loose the will to continue to fight. It is quite a good strategy actually but when it comes to weapons of mass destruction I think at that point logic has been turned on its head. Wholesale slaughter of innocents cannot be justified in my opinion. Combatants are signed up for do or die trying not innocents. Anytime the violence shifts from targeting the military, its resources and capabilities, I think the plot has been lost. In the case of scientists creating such weapons of mass destruction, I think they are misguided folk who allowed their curiousity to be directed immoral pathways. Quite plainly in my view it was unnecessary to create nuclear weapons, weaponised biological agents and chemical substances designed to kill en-mass. While the act of creating itself can be said to be amoral, it is their use that is truly immoral.

Third, outcome, what do we gain by having weapons? As already shown previously there are benefits to creating weapons. This time I want to focus on the psychological aspect more. The sense of security and safety weapons provide cannot be denied. But then again they also distort the way people view how to resolve issues. We can see it in cultures were the proliferation of weapons are relatively indiscriminate. In my view scientists need to work towards aiding society to have a grip psychologically in harnessing weapons. Their ability to create weapons should not be an end in itself, they have to contribute to the wellbeing of society even psychologically.

These are my views on the subject.

LordReed:
Quite plainly in my view it was unnecessary to create nuclear weapons, weaponised biological agents and chemical substances designed to kill en-mass. While the act of creating itself can be said to be amoral, it is their use that is truly immoral.

Totally immoral! Both the creation and use of them. But they justified it. The justification for their making such weapons was the presumed notion that others were making them "so we'd better", which culminated in the "mutually assured destruction" ideology which justified further investment in weapons. As to their use, simply "to show the world our might and power so they no more mess with us".

It was, however, ethical considerations, as in "what would the world, and even our people, think if we ever mass kill people again", and not an improvement of the user's and maker's morality, that has stopped these weapons being used since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

:i appreciate you taking your time to disscuse this issue...this is a sign of intelligence. (

LordReed:
Like I wrote in an earlier post, there are several layers to this question.

First, the reason or necessity for weapons. In the early dawn of human history, man saw that his environment was filled with all sorts of things that had the potential to kill him and especially with predators it wasn't enough to just run away. The need to defend against predatory attacks is a valid reason to create weapons. Even in todays world where we no longer fear an attack from creatures on the savannah where man evolved from, man has become predator to himself. It is still necessary to create weapons to defend yourself with more so for nations that control large swaths of physical ground containing resources and other things of strategic value. May be one day we'll get to the point were we no longer prey on ourselves but that day isn't here yet.

ok let's agree primitive men sees weapons as tools, and humans like tools because they give us an advantage. As you said Hunting rifles give us an advantage over the game that we hunt. Defensive firearms give us an advantage (or at least helps level the playing field) over an attacker. Offensive firearms give us an advantage (or, there again, help even the odds) against an enemy we are trying to conquer. All this shows evidence that man by nature want to dominate. Hence we can say primitive men invent the idea of weaponry simply because he want to dominate....as the world evolve Do men still needs this idea? Why do We steed needs to go choose what We want, because by nature we appear more capable than animal. We are now evolve to the stage that we can live freely among ourselves. With human ability of problem solving . We can easily separate basic problem solving from internal conflict. With problem solving, we are able to consider many paths to a solution, using our imagination, follow them down to what appears to be the best option. I don’t consider this to be “choosing to do what we want”

Second, what level of force is required. So this is where the grey areas begin to show up. Questions like was it necessary to use the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Why was such a devastating weapon created in the first place? Well, to some extent I understand the military doctrine that requires you to bring to bear overwhelming force that ensures not just victory but utter prostration of your enemies they loose the will to continue to fight. It is quite a good strategy actually but when it comes to weapons of mass destruction I think at that point logic has been turned on its head. Wholesale slaughter of innocents cannot be justified in my opinion. Combatants are signed up for do or die trying not innocents. Anytime the violence shifts from targeting the military, its resources and capabilities, I think the plot has been lost. In the case of scientists creating such weapons of mass destruction, I think they are misguided folk who allowed their curiousity to be directed immoral pathways. Quite plainly in my view it was unnecessary to create nuclear weapons, weaponised biological agents and chemical substances designed to kill en-mass. While the act of creating itself can be said to be amoral, it is their use that is truly immoral.

This is the basic of my argument, that scientist are to build principle
Scientists discover principles, Governments develop them into weapons and use them. The few people with power in their hands use them to kill and destroy.
Scientists are just in the pursuit of knowledge. Whatever they discover, they share in the hopes of advancement of humanity. ""How we use them, is up to us"" with open mind, you should understand where I am heading toward.

Third, outcome, what do we gain by having weapons? As already shown previously there are benefits to creating weapons. This time I want to focus on the psychological aspect more. The sense of security and safety weapons provide cannot be denied. But then again they also distort the way people view how to resolve issues. We can see it in cultures were the proliferation of weapons are relatively indiscriminate. In my view scientists need to work towards aiding society to have a grip psychologically in harnessing weapons. Their ability to create weapons should not be an end in itself, they have to contribute to the wellbeing of society even psychologically.

i think with our problem solving skills, we could benefit from less harm phenomenon rather creating weapons, I quite agree weapons creation has its own advantage but other soft approach can be taken. With psychology, it is affective science and not necessary pure or natural science, in this regards it differ from the main theme of natural science which is to discover and explore. Man should begin to see the purpose of a phenomenon and value it rather than focusing too.much toward on the negativity( Even food has its own disadvantage). if any at all, we should have a body that determine what society needs and this should be the neccasry platforms that will serve as a benchmark for the scientist. This body should be democratic in nature, my opinion though.

These are my views on the subject.

As said, your view are brilliant and intelligent.....

budaatum:

Totally immoral! Both the creation and use of them. But they justified it. The justification for their making such weapons was the presumed notion that others were making them "so we'd better", which culminated in the "mutually assured destruction" ideology which justified further investment in weapons. As to their use, simply "to show the world our might and power so they no more mess with us".

It was, however, ethical considerations, as in "what would the world, and even our people, think if we ever mass kill people again", and not an improvement of the user's and maker's morality, that has stopped these weapons being used since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I really don't agree that the act of creating these weapons is immoral in of itself. I rather see it as amoral, being that the weapons themselves do not do anything until they are used but the scientists who create them don't particularly care how the weapons are used.

LordReed:


I really don't agree that the act of creating these weapons is immoral in of itself. I rather see it as amoral, being that the weapons themselves do not do anything until they are used but the scientists who create them don't particularly care how the weapons are used.

thanks for this beautiful reply....

vaxx:
:i appreciate you taking your time to disscuse this issue...this is a sign of intelligence. (ok let's agree primitive men sees weapons as tools, and humans like tools because they give us an advantage. As you said Hunting rifles give us an advantage over the game that we hunt. Defensive firearms give us an advantage (or at least helps level the playing field) over an attacker. Offensive firearms give us an advantage (or, there again, help even the odds) against an enemy we are trying to conquer. All this shows evidence that man by nature want to dominate. Hence we can say primitive men invent the idea of weaponry simply because he want to dominate....as the world evolve Do men still needs this idea? Why do We steed needs go choose what We want, because by nature we appear more capable than animal. We are now evolve to the stage that we can live freely among ourselves. With human ability of problem solving . We can easily separate basic problem solving from internal conflict. With problem solving, we are able to consider many paths to a solution, using our imagination, follow them down to what appears to be the best option. I don’t consider this to be “choosing to do what we want”

Unfortunately, despite our advancement as a species we are not at the point in which we can discard weapons. Too many "bad actors" still remain and are continually being trained by nature and nurture for this to be a reasonable approach. We must continue to safeguard ourselves from irrational uses of force.

This is the basic of my argument, that scientist are to build principle
Scientists discover principles, Governments develop them into weapons and use them. The few people with power in their hands use them to kill and destroy.
Scientists are just in the pursuit of knowledge. Whatever they discover, they share in the hopes of advancement of humanity. ""How we use them, is up to us"" with open mind, you should understand where I am heading toward.

I am not sure it actually absolves scientists of blame. Being an unwitting tool is not without its consequences. If Wehrner Von Braun ever had had the misfortune of meeting victims of the rockets he helped design, I am sure it would not have gone well for him.

i think with our problem solving skills, we could benefit from less harm phenomenon rather creating weapons, I quite agree weapons creation has its own advantage but other soft approach can be taken. With psychology, it is affective science and not a necessary pure or natural science, in this regards it differ from the main theme of natural science which is to discover and explore. Man should begin to see the purpose of a phenomenon and value it rather than focusing too.much toward on the negativity( Even food has its own disadvantage). if any at all, we should have a body that determine what society needs and this should be the neccasry platforms that will serve as a benchmark for the scientist. This body should be democratic in nature, my opinion though.

Well, I think scientists ability to critically look at the data and propose solutions will be the aid as well as some experimental psychology.

As said, your view are brilliant and intelligent.....

Thank you.

LordReed:


I really don't agree that the act of creating these weapons is immoral in of itself. I rather see it as amoral, being that the weapons themselves do not do anything until they are used but the scientists who create them don't particularly care how the weapons are used.

I understand. It is a view, though not one I share. Some weapons may have dual use, say recreational hunting. And if someone then takes such 'weapons' and shoots someone with it, I wouldn't go so far as claiming the creator of the weapon was immoral. However, a nuclear bomb?

The scientist who creates a nuclear bomb knows what he's creating and its eventual intended use. No one could justify the creation of a nuclear bomb with "I only intended for it to be used to hunt deer"! And if they did, I doubt you wouldn't laugh them out the park.

My point is, they know why they create them and should care. But because they don't or might not care and may act immorally, we, the people who do care, slap a code of ethics on their asses so that when we hold them accountable for their immorality they can't just say, "sorry, but we didn't know, or think it would be used that way", like they have done in the past.

vaxx:


Do you think scientist can ethically and morally justify the inventions of weapons that can kill and harm?


*What do you think*?

Let's exercise a civil and polite debate.....

I think this debate will favour and justify the war fought both in the bible and quran accordingly......since it is base on moral and ethical ground....


LordReed, budaatum and the rest........

That is the consequence of choosing to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

budaatum:

I understand. It is a view, though not one I share. Some weapons may have dual use, say recreational hunting. And if someone then takes such 'weapons' and shoots someone with it, I wouldn't go so far as claiming the creator of the weapon was immoral. However, a nuclear bomb?

The scientist who creates a nuclear bomb knows what he's creating and its eventual intended use. No one could justify the creation of a nuclear bomb with "I only intended for it to be used to hunt deer"! And if they did, I doubt you wouldn't laugh them out the park.

My point is, they know why they create them and should care. But because they don't or might not care and may act immorally, we, the people who do care, slap a code of ethics on their asses so that when we hold them accountable for their immorality they can't just say, "sorry, but we didn't know, or think it would be used that way", like they have done in the past.

I agree, there should be limits and consequences for these actions.

LordReed:


Unfortunately, despite our advancement as a species we are not at the point in which we can discard weapons. Too many "bad actors" still remain and are continually being trained by nature and nurture for this to be a reasonable approach. We must continue to safeguard ourselves from irrational uses of force

.Have you heard of Mutual assured destruction?
(Google up)is one of the critical way human have use to limit the invention of more nuclear weapons, I am not a pacifist so I do not totally subscribe to the idea of weapon anihilation. But I believe we can get there and we are evolving at a speedy rate. More pragmatic decision are being taken to avoid what We will have turn up to a global war. Check out how north Korea was able to balance just about to be busted war between them and USA. Interesting right?

I am not sure it actually absolves scientists of blame. Being an unwitting tool is not without its consequences. If Wehrner Von Braun ever had had the misfortune of meeting victims of the rockets he helped design, I am sure it would not have gone well for him

your argument is similar to a culprit who is sentenced to life jail, who will he blame? The constitution, the lawyer that adjudicate over his case or the crime he comited ? Rationally I don't think the rockets engineer will be blame rather those people who use what the engineer built negatively on them. If you are to hit by a car on a highway, do you blame the car manufacturer or the driver of the car?

Well, I think scientists ability to critically look at the data and propose solutions will be the aid as well as some experimental psychology

Beautiful opinion. .

Thank you.

You are welcome.

vaxx:
I am not here to decive you bro.....both society and scientists influence each other while science remain neutral. The whole point of science is to be skeptical about its own results, get this fact bro.

Science's own process is to try to obsolete everything it has achieved. So no, that's by definition not enslavement.There's no claim of perfection or absolute authority . It just a promise that tomorrow will be better than today.

I don't know the extent to which you're scientifically inclined, but I don't think even Max Planck(The father of quantum physics) would speak this way. I don't want to be too critical of your writing... there's still much to know about science bro.

KENFERDYOORI:



I don't know the extent to which you're scientifically inclined, but I don't think even Max Planck(The father of quantum physics) would speak this way. I don't want to be too critical of your writing... there's still much to know about science bro.

science itself is knolwedge, the more you try to know, the more you become scienctifc incline.....

And I urge you to be critical, I want to learn from you.

vaxx:
.Have you heard of Mutual assured destruction?
(Google up)is one of the critical way human have use to limit the invention of more nuclear weapons,

What? all MAD does is prevent nuclear attacks. I'd even argue that MAD is responsible for invention of more nuclear weapons

vaxx:
science itself is knolwedge, the more you try to know, the more you become scienctifc incline.....

And I urge to be critical, I want to learn from you.

We continue to learn everyday. What I'd advocate for is a "hermeneutical flexibility" between science and religion.

hopefulLandlord:


What? all MAD does is prevent nuclear attacks. I'd even argue that MAD is responsible for invention of more nuclear weapons

Good, that is my point. On the second note that should be another argument for another day.

KENFERDYOORI:





We continue to learn everyday. What I'd advocate for is a "hermeneutical flexibility" between science and religion.

I will urge to visit this
thread.

...https://www.nairaland.com/4373546/believe-religion-same-time-accept

vaxx:
I will urge to visit this
thread.

...https://www.nairaland.com/4373546/believe-religion-same-time-accept

Having acknowledged that both of them are great minds, I must say that they both spoke from their respective perspectives.
Reality is both/and; science and religion are just aspects/approaches to this reality. Non of them is absolute. That's where "hermeneutical flexibility" and if you like "epistemic humility" come in.

KENFERDYOORI:



Having acknowledged that both of them are great minds, I must say that they both spoke from their respective perspectives.
Reality is both/and; science and religion are just aspects/approaches to this reality. Non of them is absolute. That's where "hermeneutical flexibility" and if you like "epistemic humility" come in.

Brilliant observation? As you can see none of them claim superiority over what they describe, And both of them were simply expressing their God given wisdom which can be accumulated to the position of knowing (epistemic). And as well both of their veiw are expression of humility (because they are aware of this implication).believe and opinion are the foundation of wisdom bro.....

vaxx:
Brilliant observation? As you can see none of them claim superiority over what they describe, And both of them were simply expressing their God given wisdom which can be accumulated to the position of knowing (epistemic). And as well both of them are expression of humility (because they are aware of this implication).believe and opinion are the foundation of wisdom bro.....

At this point I leave you to broaden your perspective....