Stats: 3,192,151 members, 7,946,846 topics. Date: Thursday, 12 September 2024 at 08:22 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And (4354 Views)
When They Tell You That Konji Can Kill You / Man Posts Bottle Of Beer And Bible Verse To Justify His Drink (Photo) / What Situation Can Justify You Telling A Lie? (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by budaatum: 9:28am On Sep 10, 2018 |
vaxx:Of course I can. Here's a good response for the thread. vaxx:Let's see which side you take on this thread. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by budaatum: 9:32am On Sep 10, 2018 |
vaxx: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. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by vaxx: 9:37am On Sep 10, 2018 |
budaatum: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..... |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by vaxx: 9:38am On Sep 10, 2018 |
budaatum:Buda don't disgress this thread, rather do it on his thread? I once ask for that favour in advance. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by budaatum: 9:43am On Sep 10, 2018 |
vaxx: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! |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by vaxx: 9:46am On Sep 10, 2018 |
Buda"" I will like to make this thread an informative thread. I ask once again. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by budaatum: 9:48am On Sep 10, 2018 |
vaxx:You can ask till the cows come home. I'm here to stay! |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by LordReed(m): 10:12am On Sep 10, 2018 |
budaatum: vaxx should explain better cos I am not sure what he is referring to. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by vaxx: 10:13am On Sep 10, 2018 |
LordReed:let's do that on your thread pls. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by budaatum: 10:20am On Sep 10, 2018 |
LordReed: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? |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by budaatum: 10:21am On Sep 10, 2018 |
vaxx:Mention me so I don't miss it now. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by KENFERDYOORI(m): 11:43pm On Sep 10, 2018 |
vaxx: 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. 1 Like |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by vaxx: 8:02am On Sep 11, 2018 |
KENFERDYOORI: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. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by LordReed(m): 9:31am On Sep 11, 2018 |
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. 1 Like 2 Shares |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by budaatum: 11:39am On Sep 11, 2018 |
LordReed: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. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by vaxx: 11:42am On Sep 11, 2018 |
:i appreciate you taking your time to disscuse this issue...this is a sign of intelligence. ( LordReed: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..... |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by LordReed(m): 11:57am On Sep 11, 2018 |
budaatum: 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. 1 Like |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by vaxx: 11:58am On Sep 11, 2018 |
LordReed:thanks for this beautiful reply.... |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by LordReed(m): 12:11pm On Sep 11, 2018 |
vaxx: 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.
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.
Well, I think scientists ability to critically look at the data and propose solutions will be the aid as well as some experimental psychology.
Thank you. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by budaatum: 12:16pm On Sep 11, 2018 |
LordReed: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. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by OLAADEGBU(m): 12:24pm On Sep 11, 2018 |
vaxx: That is the consequence of choosing to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. ![]() |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by LordReed(m): 12:37pm On Sep 11, 2018 |
budaatum: I agree, there should be limits and consequences for these actions. 1 Like |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by vaxx: 1:08pm On Sep 11, 2018 |
LordReed:.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 himyour 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 psychologyBeautiful opinion. . Thank you.You are welcome. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by KENFERDYOORI(m): 1:59pm On Sep 11, 2018 |
vaxx: 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. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by vaxx: 2:55pm On Sep 11, 2018 |
KENFERDYOORI: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. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by hopefulLandlord: 3:08pm On Sep 11, 2018 |
vaxx: What? all MAD does is prevent nuclear attacks. I'd even argue that MAD is responsible for invention of more nuclear weapons 1 Like |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by KENFERDYOORI(m): 3:09pm On Sep 11, 2018 |
vaxx: We continue to learn everyday. What I'd advocate for is a "hermeneutical flexibility" between science and religion. 1 Like |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by vaxx: 3:15pm On Sep 11, 2018 |
hopefulLandlord:Good, that is my point. On the second note that should be another argument for another day. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by vaxx: 3:22pm On Sep 11, 2018 |
KENFERDYOORI:I will urge to visit this thread. ...https://www.nairaland.com/4373546/believe-religion-same-time-accept |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by KENFERDYOORI(m): 5:40pm On Sep 11, 2018 |
vaxx: 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. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by vaxx: 6:14pm On Sep 11, 2018 |
KENFERDYOORI: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..... 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by KENFERDYOORI(m): 6:30pm On Sep 11, 2018 |
vaxx: At this point I leave you to broaden your perspective.... 1 Like 1 Share |
Meet Woman Who Was Greater Than Virgin Mary In The Bible / Where In The Quran Did It Say The Bible Has Been Corrupted? / The Founder Of Islam Laid With A Dead Woman
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 93 |