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?

I dunno. If we had no ethics, would we care about the betterment of society?

i suppose that would be dependent of the temperament of the individual. for instance, i do not care for the sacrifice of resources in pursuit of technological advance. i view the "ethics" of stem cell research as wrong. i would rather get those cells and try to gain what knowledge i could from them.

Edited March 8, 201015 yr by Zolar V
Consecutive posts merged.

I'd like to be assured that my involvement in my society doesn't end with me being experimented on against my will. Ethical treatment benefits me and others who feel the same way.

To determine between who is selfish and who is caring.

And individuals often want a caring person rather than a selfish person.

 

Do you want to be around a considerably selfish person or a caring person?

Wouldn't you consider a caring person an ethical person?

 

Then again, the American political system and its social realm makes a person wonder about that.

We need a sense of good and bad because otherwise there would be no reason to do anything.

I bet there's a good evo-psych answer out there. Ethics allows us to form a structured society that allows people to cooperate and improve our individual darwinian fitnesses. Evolution has therefore selected for ethical brains that produce ordered societies and, therefore, more 'fit' people.

I bet there's a good evo-psych answer out there. Ethics allows us to form a structured society that allows people to cooperate and improve our individual darwinian fitnesses. Evolution has therefore selected for ethical brains that produce ordered societies and, therefore, more 'fit' people.

 

See The Science of Good and Evil,, by Michael Shermer.

I bet there's a good evo-psych answer out there. Ethics allows us to form a structured society that allows people to cooperate and improve our individual darwinian fitnesses. Evolution has therefore selected for ethical brains that produce ordered societies and, therefore, more 'fit' people.

 

Indeed. Experiments have shown that other primates also have complicated notions of "fairness," and ethics is really just that, but formalized and critically examined. Societies provide great benefit, but require rules.

Indeed. Experiments have shown that other primates also have complicated notions of "fairness," and ethics is really just that, but formalized and critically examined. Societies provide great benefit, but require rules.

 

What would be an interesting experiment to me, is what ethical rules would evolve under what types of environmental conditions?

 

If we could simulate evolution of human-like ethics de novo, could that tell something about human evolution?

^^ that sounds wonderfully interesting!

those types of thought experiments are one of my favorite to experience

I watched a documentary explaining the Prisoner's dilemma. It's a basic simulation on different strategies between entities, who have the chance to either cooperate and/or defect. The results showed that although slightly more risky - to rely on cooperations is a better strategy overall, compared to exploitation of others - parasitism.

^^ that sounds wonderfully interesting!

those types of thought experiments are one of my favorite to experience

 

It could be done reasonable well with programming. See Growing Artificial Societies as a reference point. You could probably implement some kind of evolutionary algorithm to see how group behavior can evolve.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I watched a documentary explaining the Prisoner's dilemma. It's a basic simulation on different strategies between entities, who have the chance to either cooperate and/or defect. The results showed that although slightly more risky - to rely on cooperations is a better strategy overall, compared to exploitation of others - parasitism.

 

Only if there is a sufficiently large cost to parasitism. Otherwise, the benefits of being a cheater grows as more individuals start to cooperate.

I watched a documentary explaining the Prisoner's dilemma. It's a basic simulation on different strategies between entities, who have the chance to either cooperate and/or defect. The results showed that although slightly more risky - to rely on cooperations is a better strategy overall, compared to exploitation of others - parasitism.

 

No, defecting is always, always the best strategy in the Prisoner's Dilemma. That, in fact, is the whole point of that game. However, if you play an iterated prisoner's dilemma, then cooperation becomes the best strategy, with some mechanism to deal with defection.

No, defecting is always, always the best strategy in the Prisoner's Dilemma. That, in fact, is the whole point of that game. However, if you play an iterated prisoner's dilemma, then cooperation becomes the best strategy, with some mechanism to deal with defection.

Basically what I said above. You have to have an inexpensive, non-biasing way to deal with cheaters.