Ethics

What do you guys think of this polar bear inside a mall for display? https://www.facebook.com/NowThisNews/videos/1445255162158239/?pnref=story http://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/video-of-worlds-saddest-polar-bear-in-china-sparks-outrage-1586141 Looking at the polar bear, seems like it gets a beating too every once in a while or maybe it bangs its body on the wall Do you all think this type of slavery will ever end in our society?

Have you all heard Montreal about to pass this law? What's your opinion on this? http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/pets/news/a40652/montreal-pit-bull-ban/

A moral person is a person that understands that the universe does not revolve around their ego. A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or group of people. The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is Economic, legal, and moral phenomena emerge from psychology which emerges from neurobiology in exactly the same way that life is an emergent property of chemistry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

I've posted this question on another forum, but I feel that I can gather some information here as well, so here goes. If you are given the ability to create life, do you think you should do it? Well, I'm not talking about like taking care of an egg and have it grows into a chicken, but like create life as it is. It can be anything from ant to possibly a human being. Personally I think creating life is not the same as killing it, so maybe it should be allowed? What are your guys thoughts on it? I agree that creating life on a computer or sort, many things can go wrong. Creating life and destroying it can be done in the blink of an eye and in vast quantities. So should…

I am a member of a Hepatitis C forum for people who are afflicted with it. I am happy to say that NHS treatment cured me of it and I am in a normal state of health now, luckily. My question is: Is it responsible for the forum administration to be complicit in allowing members to talk to each other about acquiring generic medicines from overseas? I know at least of one or two of them that are treating themselves without medical supervision or, at most, paying privately to have their viral loads tested, and the number is growing. Most GPs won’t agree to help them with the necessary tests to monitor the effects of treatment which can be serious and life-threatening if c…

I will never support killing someone that was good! I dont agree ! I hate someone who kill others ,anyone must not deserve this! they are unscrupulous and unsuccessful who kill someone! and they will never be good in my mind ,look my reasons ; 1) I am a muslim ,in islam I believe very huge amount of knowledge / information is being understood incorrectly by almost all muslims ,look my sentence "I will allways think that I am INTELLIGENT ,but I will never say that I am better than anyone about religion" 2) I intimately did this , "if we do not agree to someones' ideas ,then this does not prove us that we are right/false! or does not prove u…

The 24 January issue of New Scientist has an editorial article about DNA tests on people, using samples taken without their knowledge, and used to demonstrate marital infidelity, or to determine paternity of a child. It is now possible to collect enough DNA in secret from such things as a toothbrush, hat, chewing gum or comb to carry out such tests. They are cheap. Less than $US 300. The question is the ethics of such practices. It is illegal in the UK and in a few USA states. Do people here think that such testing is unethical and should be banned? Personally, I am inclined to the idea that revealing truth should not be considered unethical. If a person …

We follow laws all over the world. I am a secondary school student. In my school, the discipline unit listed a few prohibited items that should not be brought to school. Students should follow them. In the true world, we have international laws and protocols. Laws have their functions. I classify them into clear/obvious and non-obvious. It is very obvious that the international laws and protocols have a obvious meaning of punishing those who are wrong. The non-obvious meaning is teaching us lessons and warning us not to repeat mistakes. However, the school laws are the opposite. For example, prohibited items are mostly dangerous items like knife, guns, weapons and so …

If I can get away with unethical experiments, have no moral compass, and advance my knowledge and understanding of the world, why should I bother with ethical considerations? Furthermore if I proceed and discover new and relevant information are other researchers ethically obliged not to use the knowledge I've obtained unethically? For instance if a bunch of people were tortured and killed in a basement while testing the effects of a drug that could cure cancer and other diseases, is the medical community ethically obligated not to read my findings after my arrest so as to not symbolically condone unethical behaviour? Also this is on a highly irrelevant, …

in many other countries (not the USA) they have mandatory military service policy. my birth country they require military service and a friend of mine and I were talking about that and he thinks that the us should require military service for all men and women, he thought that it will teach people discipline and make people better workers. It really hit home for me and made me really upset, I told him how would you feel if your family member died in a war, and he said he will feel proud because he defended our freedoms. I think that sometimes well most of the time war is not really defending something its more attacking to gain power or freedom.What if your relative wante…

I was listening to the Sam Harris podcast and he had on Jocko Willink and they brought up a really good point that I believe is understated and unoticed often when talking about the effectiveness of war. Sam brought up the point that we have in the past, bombed out ideas out of people. Nazisim was an idea and we bombed them until they gave up. Japan was a unstoppable stubborn force that was not going to be stopped unless we bombed them. Then he made the brief link that radical extremists Muslims are in some sense in the same group of bad ideas. Jacko then said that "How do we stop ISIS without war? Do we invite them to formal debates and rationalize with them?". So in…

15 people killed and 45 others wounded by a knife wielding man in a care facility for disabled people in Japan. In country with rather tough gun laws does this mean that ultimately crazies cannot be controlled by gun control? http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/07/26/national/crime-legal/man-arrested-fatally-stabbing-15-people-wounding-45-kanagawa-facility-disabled-nhk/#.V5amQfkrKM8 I am looking for the good guy with a gun argument to rear up even taller than it already has. Does this act have any relevancy to the gun control argument? Are these acts increasing with frequency or is the current upswing an artifact of reporting?

After many revelations in the last couple of years concerning secret services, military strategies and especially tax fraud like big multinational companies who don't pay taxes we are now facing probably the biggest of all revelations. The "Panama Papers" revealed loads of tax frauds and especially many important politicans involved in it. What do you think about these whistleblowers who are helping to uncover those cases but still pass secret documents to the authorities?

I would like to talk about the killing of animals and consumption of meat. This is generally unethical by itself, and the way the animals are treated today is EXTREMELY unethical, using very cruel methods. Man can survive without meat, and this way all the animals will be spared. Every kind of meat food can be copied in a vegeterian version, and it being even similarly as tasty. There are professionals in this field that can do this, it is not necessarily a common and obtainable thing. I think killing of animals should be against the law. And then tasty vegeterian food will be created massively and be obtainable. Making our society much more ethical and humane.

Lately i get the notion that scientist " somehow" do not believe in love. The reason for this is because: They don't believe in God. They don't believe in the human soul. They appear to have no connection linked with anything that deals with " emotional connections." And yet I hear and even see marine biologist desperately searching for methods to restore coral reef, sea life and etc. The cure for breast cancer is another perfect example, in where doctors " passionately" use science as a means for cures. Another example are doctors I know that have stated the reason why they became a neural surgeon was because someone in their family passed away due …

In the recent news, once again, the choice to conduct embryos for stem cell research has been highly debated due to scientist increasing the push to increase length of time an embryo can be grown for. This was all initiated due to a study whereby they managed to grow an embryo as long as they could before it became lawful. Here is a link to the research paper http://www.nature.com/articles/ncb3347. So, I just wanted to know what peoples thoughts were on this subject, and if they believe embryo should be used for stem cell research and if they do how long should the cells be allowed to research. I have wrote an article on this subject if you need to do some cat…

hello dear scientists ; I have created some (interdisciplinary of mathematics-sociology) article's subjects and mainly one's subject and also main body of its is ready. but the journals require fee to see/read articles/manuscripts. I am mathematician I would read at least around 100 articles (both ssci or sci indexed relevant articles.) before sendind my article. I need to see them could you help ,how can I do? I continue to study interdisciplinary now and you can see about another my interdisciplinary study (this is project) on this link:http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/94893-is-it-meaning-of-taken-rejection/#entry919265 --->> http…

Shame for us and suffering for them; I was once proud of my country but that ended when we turned our backs on the Syrian refugees. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34131911 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/03/refugee-crisis-hungary-sends-troops-border-160309134453267.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-crisis-eu-turkey-big-question-if-not-europe-then-where-a6919136.html Edit/ To add, This question isn’t confined to the migrant crisis, BTW, but to any consequence of our fears. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jean_de_La_Fontaine

What do you guys think of 'being awesome' in society?

I received this article today on the efforts to shutdown the internet portal Sci-Hub, which provides free access to over 47 million academic papers. This article describes how accessing such articles have become increasingly costly through academic publishers. It describes how the portal access these papers through universities that provide online access to its students. The creator of Sci-Hub, Alexandria Elbakyan, cites what inspired her initial efforts and three essential problems with the current publishing model according to the article: Paywalls Keep publicly funded research out of public reach. Publishers profit without paying royalties to the research authors.…

1% of the world wakes up every morning to rollicking wealth. The other 99%-5 billion people- die a bit more every day as they struggle on with life. Tow pretty straightforward solutions here: 1.carpet Bomb the poor and the unhappy off the face of the earth, send them all to la la land, with the objective of not only finally helping them out of the dreary cycles of their unfruitful lives, but also open up vast new space and resources for the Deserving Remnant one percent. 2.Share all around, even up the wealth gap a bit. A world full of ONLY RICH PEOPLE- PARADISE? When you think about it, casting aside all morals for a moment, does that not seem like …

i read an article actually, many articles on science experiments that harm people that catch people off guard and plays with their emotion, even if you get consent to create the experiment the people dont really know what they are consenting to. One guy pretends to be homeless to see how much money he can get for science. this is giving false pretenses is'nt this against the law or is it protected. There is a different experiment that a person pretends to get a heart attack to see how many people will react and help him., i do think its wrong to test things on animals but it is justified because its better then testing it on humans but i think playing with peoples emotio…

My basic question boils down how far ahead of a death of a planet must be to be morally correct in colonization. For instance if you had a perfect earth like planet but you know that one million years from now the star will go nova or an other wise disastrous cataclysm a certain period of time how far away would the disaster have to be before you would live there or recommend living there to another person? Let's say in 50,000 years a super volcano will erupt and wipe out complex life on the planet, do you go there to live have children, build cities, knowing they are going definitely going to be destroyed 50,000 years from now?

One of the most interesting and perhaps disturbing issues I'm aware of is that of online behavior. I've witnessed and experienced firsthand a lot of bullying. I can honestly say that I make an effort to discuss issues sensibly and courteously both online and offline. I discuss and debate online because it gives me an opportunity to intelligently exchange ideas with other like-minded people and with those who may disagree, or at least that's what I hope to do. Allow me to post an example of a recent effort on my part. On a "science" forum (not this one) another member started a thread about the nature of mathematics. Is it invented or discovered? I take the stance that…

I was reading an opinion piece on de-extinction1 and it started me thinking about the ethics of wildlife conservation and, in particular, the de-extinction of species. It seems that we are a lot futher along in our ability to create extant animals based on the DNA of extinct species2. But, as several of these commentators have asked, should we? Surely we have some obligation to repair damage to the eco-system that we, as an intelligent species have caused. To that end, it could be argued that we have some obligation to see species like the eastern elk and the passenger pigeon, both hunted to extinction by humans, largely for sport. But how far back do we go? …