Ethics

I must choose an example for the question , so it will have to be this . Companies routinely advertise their latest hair colouring products on television as giving beautiful shine and colour . Their dramatisations show models who move their hair side to side after using the product in question and all looks wonderful . But , because the ' colour and shine ' are from one perspective a function of the television settings that a person has chosen , shouldn't these advertisements be banned because of what they really are , false ! ?

Imagine you have 20 people, of which 10 have a great deal of surplus money to invest. Now consider if 5 of the wealth lend money to 5 of the poor. Before, you had 10 poor people living meagerly because that was all they could afford. Now you have 5 living on borrowed money, raising the bar for the material standard of living. This in turn puts social pressure on the other 5 poor people to take loans from the other 5 rich people. If the rich ones don't see the value in increasing the material consumption of the poor, they'll be blamed for keeping the 5 poor ones poor, when in fact it was collusion between the other 5 rich and 5 poor ones to create a material standard …

What are the ethics of dealing with income deficiency? Does it harm people to lend them money and thus lure them into debt obligations so that they may avoid losing possessions and privileges during periods of reduced income? Does lending facilitate spending, which sustains income for many people thus promoting the idea that unemployment is a choice? What would happen if governments prohibited money-lending and/or any other forms of income to unemployed people? Would economies crash completely, with all jobs and businesses being lost or would certain businesses and workers be able to maintain income? What would everyone else do to "pull themselves up by their bootstr…

With the recent government budget-cuts targeting planned parenthood and other abortion-related institutions, the question is whether abortion is the ultimate target or is the bottom line sexual freedom? If sexual freedom is a target for government intervention, are there ethics to constraining the sexual freedom of others or must sexual control be left to individuals and their doctors privately? Are there potential benefits to individuals in restricting their sexuality against their will?

I believe in a lot of things but I can admit that some of my beliefs are probably false, the problem is I don't know which beliefs so I still hold onto my beliefs but most I avoid holding certainty in it. In my opinion 100% of the world is the same. We all have various beliefs mixed based on what theories and movements tell us, like science, religion, philosophy and of course we all have our own general original opinions. But let's be honest many of those beliefs are probably false.

Why is polygamy illegal in so many countries? What's wrong with polygamy? Do you think it should be illegal? And why is homosexual marriages illegal in so many countries as well? What exactly are their arguments on both sides? Do you think it will ever be legal? I am also aware that there is a lot that we don't currently know about homosexuality, for example, what causes it. If homosexuality is caused by genes would it be legalised? In what cases, do you think it would be legalised?

Reading mooeypoo's article about the confirmation bias involved in locating an Australopithecine skeleton, the suggested 'Missing Link' of human ancestry (mooeypoo ) inspired me to think of examples where scientists had cheated to get ahead. Certainly, I had witnesses one or two 'dodgy' goings on as a research scientist over twenty years ago (I quit research 20 years ago) and I wondered how much of an issue it had become. I found two reasonably relevant articles: Nature Article Saudi Journal But I have to admit that everything is not black and white here, and that my idealism as a young man to do the ethically correct thing has now given way …

There is a big illusion that mankind currently drown in. the illusion of officialism. We people feel the so-called "officialism" of our society and our societies methods. On New years eve we can feel the exhilaration of that rare transition. It really feels as if the whole world is changing. But in truth relative to nature, the laws of physics and the true officialism if you may it is just another random event. Although this is enjoyable and I don't criticize people enjoying the illusion of societal officialism, I think this is the reason for many major ethical problems. We sometimes ask what is the best thing a person can do? what is the best way to live our lives? w…

What is the purpose of whaling? (e.g. by the Japanese) Is it a relatively new development? Did people used to go whaling in the 'olden days'? Should it be stopped? Do we have enough whales to continue allowing people to kill whales? Why does the news of whaling make so many people upset?

Or as extensively as we used to? Is it an accurate term to use in scientific papers?

What defines a truly great or right individual? Is it professionalism? or Is it Joy? Many would easily just being professional and not doing things for fun is the right thing. Taking everything serious. Yet this often results in an individual whom is critical of others in her/his efforts to enforce professionalism in other individuals. So if one tries to enforce this onto others even though they believe it is right, it is only expanding anger & sorrow in the world as people receive criticism. So not even being absolutely professional is correct. Yet being completely joyous and just having fun and not really caring about what really matters is also …

This is an issue that's pretty important to me, as a 23andme subscriber. However, groups like the AMA are trying to convince the government that people don't have the requisite skills to understand the implications of genetic information (understanding disease risk factors and so forth). While this is true for most people, I don't think I'd be remiss to say that, as a PhD student in biomedical science, I don't need a doctor to teach me about genetics. Especially considering, AFAIK, genetics is not covered all that well in medical schools. In fact, I imagine that most people who are interested in their own genes probably know how to find the resources to learn about a…

Every hour about 1,000,000 animals are slaughtered for human consumption in the United States alone. We call ourselves a civilization but we kill animals in their masses all the time! Most people see animals as just another resource, just something else to satisfy humanity’s greed’s. In my opinion it is completely wrong to kill animals. It is genocide! Think about it, 16,000 animals are slaughtered every minute. For most of humans its normal. But then again it was normal to kill and torture African and American slaves in the 15th century, it was normal to burn anyone to the stake whom spoke against the church in the 16th century, it was normal for humans to be slaug…

Which one of the following neutrality would you consider the better one to exist: Nothing or something and the opposite of that something for e.g. nothing or matter & anti-matter or if you may neutral emotions or joy & sorrow In my opinion joy & sorrow is better because it may hold some downsides with the sorrow but its worth it because any sorrow will just empathize joy. What do y'all think?

If two people are married and have children, is it ethical for them to have sex with each other in front of your their kids? And, what if the kids are too young to understand what sex is? What do you think as an SFN forum member? What's the scientific/atheistic viewpoint regarding this matter?

In a lot of ways, mice and rats are invasive. For some odd reason, we still have ethics committees about those guys. Should we have strict ethics about doing biological research with invasive species? What about bunnies? Should there be ethics involved with bunnies? I'm talking about Australian bunnies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbits_in_Australia Australia is supposedly filled with a lot of these bunnies. Let alone, people have attempted to generate viruses in the past to get rid of the bunnies: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11553459 Personally, I think creation of the viruses was seriously unethical. Secondly, why destroy a useful resource…

Does everyone think that it's wrong to try to convert people to a particular religion? For example, by going door-to-door and telling others of your religion, handing pamphlets and telling them how to convert etc. Generally in Western society, do people try to convert other people into their religions? Does this happen often in our current day and age? Also, is it more ethical to try to convert an atheist/agnostic into your religion than someone who has already adopted their own religion? What does everbody think?

It was 4 days before my ninth birthday, I was in the 4th grade and that old AM radio of ours didn't get very good reception down in the holler where we lived in Mammoth, W.Va., But between the static and sketchy patches of news we received, Dad told me the Japanese had bombed our Navy at Pearl Harbor, in Hawaii, and war had broken out between our two countries. WAR?!, and I had no idea where Hawaii even was? The day: Sunday, December 7, 1941. After all this time, is it necessary to remember such a day? I think so.

At what age is the best time for two people to get married? Does it differ between men and women and should it? I've heard of people getting married for the first time from the ages of 19 to as old as 27. But in everybody's opinion what's the best age? In the olden days women used to get married at really young ages however as time passes everyone seems to be marrying when they are older. I think 24-25 years is the best age as you would have undertaken a few years of university by this time and hence would probably be able to sustain a reasonable works pay to look after family, find a house to live in etc while possibly continuing or finishing off university. Also, in…

If you are married, is it immoral to perve and to stare at the bodies of people of the opposite sex? Does this depend on whether the person undertaking this activity enjoys doing this or not? And generally, do people do this frequently in our modern society? I know a lot of old people are often portrayed in movies/TV shows/cartoons to be perverts who love taking walks along beaches for "sight-seeing" (particularly the men). Do you "check people out"? ...And is this immoral?

How would history be different if written by the other side of various conflicts? Take, for instance, Pokemon: http://imgur.com/gallery/wVGGX

Why is it that children don't have the right to drive, the right to free speech, the right to work, the right to watch pornography (Essentially suppressing free speech), and anything else. Isn't this a violation of equal protection. If black people generally have a lower IQ, could we restrict them from driving cars? If a kid manages by some miracle to pass a driving test, shouldn't that child be able to drive? There are many stupid adults out there. Isn't it discrimination that a person is judged on an ASSUMPTION that they aren't as or more intelligent?

Today, Dutch newspapers (link in Dutch) mention a case of a youth with a mental disorder (a whole bunch of mental disorders actually: ADHD, a form of autism, fear of bonding, very limited emotional skills, and a couple more). The doctors sort of gave up on the boy. The boy (age 17 now) has essentially been chained to a wall with less than 2 meters of space to move in - essentially little or no freedom of movement. The reason seems to be that the boy is completely unmanageable. He breaks stuff all the time (voices in his head that tell him to). He is so violent that the nurses are afraid. But he is no criminal. The reason probably is that he never got the chance to do re…

What is morality?

I was watching a thread in the Religion forum which touched on this and thought I'd start a new thread on the topic. Do theists and atheists fight fair with each other? (I use the terms theist and atheist loosely.) When I first started visiting the Science forums it seemed as if the theists often played loose with the scientific facts when it came to religion. I attributed this to the fact that it's hard to find a lot of science backing God, the bible, etc. And the atheists would be very precise and supply volumes of empirical evidence supporting their positions. Then I started to notice that in the Religion forum, it seemed as if some of the atheists who were so…