101–108 of 108 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have any interest in how we structure our societal laws and standards? Or do you prefer the laissez fairy approach to morality? Edit: meant to say laissez-faire but I prefer fairy
Not really, in term of morality, I'm more inline to this idea https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll take cows as an example as I don't eat pig... If the meat I buy is from someone who mutilated the cow and optimized for maximum pain in the death of the cow then I would not buy that meat. So there is a spectrum here. Just because we kill animals for food does not mean that it's ethical along the rest of the spectrum of harm.
What if the "mutilated" cow would save your life or just fix a small health issue(i.e backpain)? Would you still accept the procedure? We test on animals so that we don't have to test on us(first). I find using animals for science experiments(even if they are painful) more ethical than killing them for their good taste. If you replace the animals with humans (eating vs experiments) there is no question which one is m…
Now I know you weren't referring to that.
As far as animal experimentation goes, it's pretty much illegal to do torturous experimentation on animals.
Getting IRB approval is difficult for anything besides normal life for an animal. Yes you can inject drugs into it etc., but pain to the animal plays a very large role in if you'll be allowed to do it.
* My wife is a cancer biologist who maintains and works with mouse models.
> If you replace the animals with humans (eating vs experiments) there is no question which one is more wrong.
Consent is the only issue here. What you're talking about isn't really ethics, more disgust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really, in term of morality, I'm more inline to this idea https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism
Are you afraid of having your rights violated? How can you hold this position in a society?
Someone (or a group of person) fought and convinced other that its in their best interests to make a particular law. For example a law against murder, some people think that its in their best interest to punish people for murder, some other don't.
Regardless what the "true" morality is regarding murder, the one who fight and and can either successfully force or convince other to follow, get to decide what the law is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you afraid of having your rights violated? How can you hold this position in a society?
Not really, that's just how it is. Someone (or a group of person) fought and convinced other that its in their best interests to make a particular law. For example a law against murder, some people think that its in their best interest to punish people for murder, some other don't. Regardless what the "true" morality is regarding murder, the one who fight and and can either successfully force or convince other to fol…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, we eat the pigs so doing some science experiments on them should be acceptable considering we have so many food alternatives and still eat pigs. I believe people who eat dogs don't see an issue with dog experiments.
I'll take cows as an example as I don't eat pig... If the meat I buy is from someone who mutilated the cow and optimized for maximum pain in the death of the cow then I would not buy that meat. So there is a spectrum here. Just because we kill animals for food does not mean that it's ethical along the rest of the spectrum of harm.
What if more pain directly correlated with better-tasting meat (or some other tangible advantage, like health benefits or medicinal properties)? I think you'd find many, many people who'd be okay with cows inflicted maximum pain for maximum yum meat, let alone meat that made them healthier than the alternative.
If there's a spectrum here, an instance of that spectrum exists for each individual too. Is it rational to believe we could ever agree on a single universal line on that spectrum for everyone?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure there is, but in your view we couldn't say that those people are evil, because in the end it's just preference of where to draw the line, correct? Nazis chose to draw a line excluding jews, and that was their preference
Evil or not is relative. You can say nazis is evil but to the nazis they might not think its evil. To me evil or not is irrelevant. If you dont like Nazi action, then you have to force them to stop regardless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just keep on piling ever more of the spoils of 'progress' on the 0,1%, while keeping the rest in a dog eat dog 'job hunt' struggle for survival, and you will have no shortage of 'volunteers'.
I totally get the '0.1%' thought here, the idea being that the majority of this scientific progress will only benefit those how can afford it. Personally, I'd be hoping for more universal advancement. I hope society gets to the point where scientific advancements benefit all people, not just the minority that can afford such advancements.
Rather than thinking in terms of "all these crazy improvements will only be for the 0.1%", it's important to think of them on a per-advancement basis. Each one will be expensive at first, and then get cheaper; and as we start seeing cheaper things available, we will also continue to see more advancements that are inevitably targeted at the 0.1% that will also eventually fall in price, and the cycle should continue indefinitely. I don't think we'll ever hit a period where there are no more advancements to be made, which means there will always be previous iterations that are available for cheaper than the cutting edge of anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evil or not is relative. You can say nazis is evil but to the nazis they might not think its evil. To me evil or not is irrelevant. If you dont like Nazi action, then you have to force them to stop regardless.
By that same logic, is it fair to say that Nazis who don't like anti-Nazi action should be forced to stop those trying to stop Nazi actions?