Ethics

Can there really be any kind of moral absolute about anything? It feels like a moral absolute that murdering children (or anyone for that matter), rape, genocide or some other such horrible act is wrong, but isn't it just a construct. I'm not just talking about a cultural construct. Although different cultures have varying degrees of what is morally permisable, there is still a fairly large consensus on certain extreme behaviours. But could these be no more than an evolved response to maintain stability within a group, and therefore ensure survival? Some animals will eat their young if given the opportunity, or their mates, but we would not describe these animals as i…

Should the US continue its Military exersice after hearing of Nuclear threats from North Korea?

I don't like mosquitoes. Sure, they may act as a food source for some species, but I'm not sure they are the only food source nor major for those particular species. As such, I'm thinking if there is a way to get rid of mosquitoes, then it should be done. They are a nuisance. Is it ethical to get rid of mosquitoes from the world? Honestly, if I knew how, I think I'd do it even if that meant I got rid of 80 species of frogs.

Smoking is a hazardous habit which has adverse effects on the smoker’s health. It affects almost all the parts of the body. Even when the smoker tries to get rid of it, he is not spared. Smoking is a habit which is tough to get rid of. There are a number of Quit smoking side effects . But the side-effects are much trivial than the diseases caused due to continuous smoking. The side-effects of quitting smoking might last only for some time, but the diseases caused might last lifelong. The side-effects can be easily overcome by preparing oneself to face them. There are two different elements of the side-effects while one quits smoking – the physical and the psychologica…

During the war years there were several experiments involving the inmates at Auschwitz, ranging from experiments on twins, toxic gas exposure and hypothermia. While it's quite clear that this is unethical due to the inmates being innocent of any crimes it's also undeniable that these experiments were of value - Most of modern medicines understanding of the effects of and how to treat hypothermia came directly from these experiments. What are peoples views on the experiments conducted there? Would it be anymore acceptable to people if instead of innocent and unwilling captives if people convicted of crimes / sentenced to capital punishment were automatically selec…

A news story the other day raised a good question. Who owns your genetic information? Should large corporations have the right to patent genetic information or should new laws arise surrounding ownership, of exactly who owns the genetic information? Who should have access to personal genetic information, and how will it be used? Who owns and controls genetic information? Who owns genes and other pieces of DNA? Will patenting DNA sequences limit their accessibility and development into useful products? http://7pmproject.com.au/2952.htm American firm Myriad Genetics owns the patent to two mutated genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer. It g…

I've been trying to get into the "Religious forum" and it keeps kicking me out. As I understand, it should be automatic when you reach a specific level? I'm no fanatic and have no axe to grind, but can I legitimately access this forum to express some simple thoughts?

so let's take a look at possible answers; -the religious one was given. -cuz i simply don't want to. i do what i want and don't do what i don't want, you gotta a beef with that? nope, but you shouldn't have a beef with those who have a different taste regarding what "they want". if getting away with it doesn't include people not being aware of it -because most benefits i get from harming people are weighted out by me being rejected by people, and people's acceptance is one of the most valued benefits i have in my life. this is very strong, one may even argue that it's the ONLY driving force of any actions we carry out that aren't necessary for us to stay ali…

I just watched this, and it's really interesting. Sam Harris argues that it's possible to use science to determine which actions cause human suffering and which actions contribute to human well-being (and the well-being of other animals), and that science can, in fact, answer moral questions. For example, there's the question of women wearing veils or burkas. Harris says that we can ask whether mandatory veiling contributes to their well-being, whether it helps them succeed in society, and whether it helps them develop emotionally and individually in society -- and there is a definitive answer to the question. There's no "well, we'll have to respectfully disagree," bu…

Is cheating on single player computer games wrong? Do you consider the following cheating?: 1) Using the game's built in cheat codes? 2) Purposely using a bug in the game to benefit your player? 3) Saving/Loading to avoid losses? 4) Looking at online walkthroughs?

Let's suppose there's a person who's lost the ability to create new memories. Introduce yourself to him, then step out for a few minutes, and he won't recognize you at all when you come back in. So this person won't remember anything, even pain, for more than a few minutes. Is it immoral to cause him temporary pain? If I hit him -- not hard enough to break something, of course, since he'd at least notice that something was broken, even if he didn't remember why -- and caused him pain, he would never remember it. It's like it never happened. He'd not hesitate to meet me again, not knowing that I'm likely to hit him. To him, being hit doesn't matter, because he …

Let us consider that the reason(s) we have not decided to colonize Mars or some other neighboring planet is based on ethical reasons. Would it be ethical to colonize a neighboring planet? I will set forth a hypothesis I have. If a neighboring planet has the potential to be colonized and has microorganisms on it, it will not be colonized. It will not be colonized, because we would be destroying the ecosystem of those life-forms. To destroy its ecosystem would be bad.

Suppose our prosthesis technology advances to the point that any body part can be replaced with an artificial one. If one were to slowly replace organs and limbs until no original organs are left, is the remaining thing(essentially a robot) still that person? Is it even still a person? Should it retain the rights it had as a multicellular organic being? Would it be any different if the brain were replaced in chunks(part by part with each assuming its role prior to the removal of the organic counterpart so that continuity is not disrupted)? I think it would be, as I don't see anything particularly magical about any of our organs. If this thing is not a person…

Suppose there's some intelligence organization that's captured a high-level enemy and needs to extract information to prevent possible attacks on innocent civilians and prevent many deaths. Now, this organization has rules against torture and cruel punishment. So, instead, it subjects the prisoner to surgery (with painkillers and proper treatment) to implant an electrode in his brain, so the interrogators can immediately stimulate it and cause pleasure. Not pain, but pleasure. They have a little dial that can turn up the level of pleasure farther than is imaginable. They press the button a few times to show the prisoner what it can do, and inform him that they'll …

The more I think about it, I think it's probably a good way to go. It's cheaper than most people realize especially if you lock into a plan when you're young. Assuming there's a good chance we'll develop sufficient nanotech/AI/singularity to reboot people, what do you all think?

So, I feel this might make for an interesting discussion if it manages to find traction and attract participants. We are all familiar (whether through our own experience, the experience of those close to us, or through shared stories) with the difficult decisions which must often be made when a loved one becomes very ill. We must weigh many uncertain variables, and we must do so while our logical minds are clouded by strong emotions and deep attachments. How do we decide what to do? Do we pull the plug and let them go? Do we keep them alive at all costs, even if it means the machines and technology are the only thing keeping them here? Can we live with ourselves …

It's midnight, you're walking on a greenbelt path in a residential area that goes under a main street, there's no one else around and you hear a police car siren approaching. As you emerge from the tunnel, you hear a car pass overhead at high speed, and suddenly a hardside suitcase drops from the street level to the path. The car speeds on and the police car also speeds by, sirens on and lights flashing. Neither car's passengers could have seen you down on the path. The case has popped open neatly with nothing falling out. Inside is a bunch of money in denominations ranging from $10 - $100, wrapped crudely with rubber bands. There could conceivably be several ten…

Underlying idea: The clone will start off as a child. Two parts to this thread: 1. Making a general clone of yourself as if having a child 2. Making a clone of yourself with the purpose of making it a prodigy. 1) If you could make a clone of yourself, would you? If yes, why? If not, why? Do you think other people are justified in doing such? What ethics do you consider to surround this issue? 2) Would you make a clone to be a prodigy of yourself? If yes, why? If not, why? Do you think other people are justified in doing such? What ethics do you consider to surround this issue?

This could also go under politics I suppose: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/11/new-york-restaurants-salt-ban What do you guys think about the ethics of this type of Nanny state-ism. My compass tells me it's immoral and the data says it's ineffective. One possible, plausible scenario, restaurant goers wind up adding more salt to their own food in overcompensation. I hope this bill dies.

From: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=49916 I have to disagree. If we agree that it's a government's role to protect rights (and I think that we do) and if we agree that we all have the right to "live and fulfill the requirements necessary for life" how does it follow that the government should provide a job for you? Holding a job (in the modern sense) is not necessary to survive. Humans can survive by foraging and hunting. I disagree that it's government's job to provide or care for anyone (and call this a ''right"). That gives the government too much power, in my opinion. After all, most jobs are still, necessarily, private sector. …

Is there a percentage estimate for safety in which a biotech product, such as a crop, is automatically stopped from going into application? For instance with single nucleotide polymorphisms and biotech crops. Is there a timeline in which the natural occurrence of such would render controls over such a crop impossible to maintain? What about any other variable, such as what do insect populations do if they can no longer feed on a percentage of the crop? I mean crops that used far less water and were far less intensive for pesticides and fertilizers would be great, but are there sure standards to make sure biotech crops themselves do not become massive problems. Mo…

Why do we limit ourselves to ethics? Wouldn't you rather sacrifice yourself or wiling participants for the betterment of society? From what I have read and seen, many scientific endeavors have come to a crashing halt due to ethics, and not necessarily the ethics of the researcher rather ethics imposed by an outside group of people. If we had no ethics to disrupt research would we be better off as a society?

The objective is to build up an intensional definition of "human being" while avoiding the various fallacies of definition. An intensional definition is a form of definition that describes something as belonging to a set by giving the necessary and sufficient conditions for membership. I will assume based on past experience that no one has a complete definition of "human being" that doesn't depend on similarly poorly defined terms. As such, the objective of this thread is to find necessary conditions to be a human being, while occasionally checking whether they are sufficient (or perhaps overly restrictive). Feel free to propose what you believe to be necessary condit…

If a machine believed it were human-if it felt human-should we treat it as a human?

With the recent popularity of zombie movies, I started thinking. At what point in a pandemic is a shotgun an appropriate defense against the disease? How bad would this disease have to be?