LordReed:



The question is not if it is pragmatic, the question is it moral, is it something you would do? Sure you can justify letting the people die as you wanting to collect data but that is an amoral/immoral justification.

If you notice there is no question on the morality of creating the dogs (you can view them as weapons). The question in my view lies in their use. I will answer that more precisely in your thread.

good point made, that is why I raised a philosophical question , how do we determine if it is immoral or moral? Is it base on opinion or pragmatic base? If it is opinion base it can not be justify and we can conclude that the scientist did the right things base on pragmatic ground but if it is otherwise we can say the scientist is actually immoral and it is justifiable..

vaxx:
good point made, that is why I raised a philosophical question , how do we determine if it is immoral or moral? Is it base on opinion or pragmatic base? If it is opinion base it can not be justify and we can conclude that the scientist did the right things base on pragmatic ground but if it is otherwise we can say the scientist is actually immoral and it is justifiable..

Like beauty, it depends on the eye of the beholder, but where others are concerned, they too get to behold, and since we live in societies, everyone beholds. Thankfully, humans that we are, can reason.

I, for instance might think it morally acceptable, pragmatic and justifiable to bash vaxx's head in, but vaxx may consider this intended act of mine immoral and impractical to his head and may argue and convince me of the immorality and unjustifiability of my intended act. But even if he fails to convince me, society has already done the reasoning regarding the morality of bashing vaxx's head in with a rock, so vaxx could ultimately just call on the police to 'reason' with me.

budaatum:

Like beauty, it depends on the eye of the beholder, but where others are concerned, they too get to behold, and since we live in societies, everyone beholds. Thankfully, humans that we are, can reason.

I, for instance might think it morally acceptable, pragmatic and justifiable to bash vaxx's head in, but vaxx may consider this intended act of mine immoral and impractical to his head and may argue and convince me of the immorality and unjustifiability of my intended act. But even if he fails to convince me, society has already done the reasoning regarding the morality of bashing vaxx's head in with a rock, so vaxx could ultimately just call on the police to 'reason' with me.

Well that seems good but wait a moment, you just shoot yourself right in the foot..

Well that sounds good, doesn't it? But wait. Are they not telling you(i.e society)that your morally must be tolerant of other people .

Two things problematic about this

1 Aren't they adopting some universal, absolute view of tolerance that they think applies to all people? What? What happened to letting other people hold their own views, which might include intolerance of other people and moralities?

If we shouldn't try to impose our morality on others, we shouldn't impose tolerance on them either, if that is what our morality holds but their morality doesn't. Or impose tolerance on even those in our society who want to be intolerant toward other people

2 If you are intolerant of other people, you might believe it is okay to wipe them out. Including the tolerant people. Do the tolerant cultures just have to accept that because after all that is part of the other people view? So geopolitically the intolerant people wipe out the tolerant ones. How morally justify is that?

vaxx:
Well that sounds good, doesn't it? But wait. Are they not are telling you(i.e society)that your morally must be tolerant of other people .

All accptable morals must be tolerant of others. You understood this when you claimed the scientist must consider the guinea-pig experimented on by seeking consent. Anyone who doesn't understand this fundamental aspect of ethics better learn quick.

vaxx:
1 Aren't they adopting some universal, absolute view of tolerance that they think applies to all people? What? What happened to letting other people hold their own views, which might include intolerance of other people and moralities?

You may rightly say so, that there is an "universal, absolute view of tolerance" that should "apply to all". The almost universally adopted Human Rights Act 1998 is a clear example. It applies to all people living under its jurisdiction. You may hold whatever views you like in your head but soon as you step out your door and engage with the society at large, you are best advised to quit being an asshole.

vaxx:
If we shouldn't try to impose our morality on others, we shouldn't impose tolerance on them either, if that is what our morality holds but their morality doesn't. Or impose tolerance on even those in our society who want to be intolerant toward other people

Where do you get the idea that "we shouldn't try to impose our morality on others"? Do we not try to impose tolerancy on boko haram? Are you suggesting we should just allow them to be assholes all over the place? I don't subscribe to this view, vaxx.

vaxx:
2 If you are intolerant of other people, you might believe it is okay to wipe them out. Including the tolerant people. Do the tolerant cultures just have to accept that because after all that is part of the other people view? So geopolitically the intolerant people wipe out the tolerant ones. How morally justify is that?

Yes, I may decide to be an intolerant asshole and intend to wipe everyone else out, but I'd hardly get consent from the society I'm being an asshole to and intending to wipe out now, would I? So no, the cultures I'm being intolerant to should, and would not accept or consent to my intolerance, and would rightly fight back. Not many societies accept the intolerance of suicide bombers, for instance

Being an asshole is not morally justifiable, vaxx, except by an asshole living in a society full of assholes!

budaatum:
]All accptable morals must be tolerant of others. You understood this when you claimed the scientist must consider the guinea-pig experimented on by seeking consent. Anyone who doesn't understand this fundamental aspect of ethics better learn quick

"Tolerance", by it's very nature, cannot be imposed on an individual. It is a character trait that each person chooses to accept as inherently moral, I and of itself. In fact, it is pants-crappingly ironic to attempt to impose a concept of tolerance in an individual, because the the very act of imposing ones will on another is itself an act of intolerance.

You may rightly say so, that there is an "universal, absolute view of tolerance" that should "apply to all". The almost universally adopted Human Rights Act 1998 is a clear example. It applies to all people living under its jurisdiction. You may hold whatever views you like in your head but soon as you step out your door and engage with the society at large, you are best advised to quit being an asshole.

it will make you less moral, because it tends to frequently lead to the same level of dogmatism that the original status quo it combats had. I'd rather fight dogmatism without another form of dogmatism to replace it. All issues should be open-ended, not carved in stone.

Where do you get the idea that "we shouldn't try to impose our morality on others"? Do we not try to impose tolerancy on boko haram? Are you suggesting we should just allow them to be assholes all over the place? I don't subscribe to this view, vaxx.

this intolerance view bro......

Yes, I may decide to be an intolerant asshole and intend to wipe everyone else out, but I'd hardly get consent from the society I'm being an asshole to and intending to wipe out now, would I? So no, the cultures I'm being intolerant to should, and would not accept or consent to my intolerance, and would rightly fight back. Not many societies accept the intolerance of suicide bombers, for instance

So You are advocating for consent here........now apply this to the initial argument I raised and you will see how you are speaking from both side's of the mouth....

Being an asshole is not morally justifiable, vaxx, except by an asshole living in a society full of assholes!

correct.....now go back to initial argument and connect the dot...

It seems you are now rationalizing......kudos....

vaxx:
"Tolerance", by it's very nature, cannot be imposed on an individual. It is a character trait that each person chooses to accept as inherently moral, I and of itself. In fact, it is pants-crappingly ironic to attempt to impose a concept of tolerance in an individual, because the the very act of imposing ones will on another is itself an act of intolerance.

Thankfully, the world does not seem to accept this view of yours, that tolerance cannot be imposed. You just step out your door and be intolerant to others and see what we'd impose on you! The general society seems to accept that it is okay to be intolerant of intolerance.

vaxx:
it will make you less moral, because it tends to frequently lead to the same level of dogmatism that the original status quo it combats had. I'd rather fight dogmatism without another form of dogmatism to replace it. All issues should be open-ended, not carved in stone.

Intolerance is not necessarily immoral. Not many would argue that intolerance of paedophilia is immoral, and the fact that it isn't is "carved in stone", and we are dogmatic about it. Almost all societies generally dogmatically agree that those who do think paedophilia is not immoral have warped minds, and if they are found to be practising paedophilia we will not be "open-ended" about it and will gladly show them how "carved in stone" our dogmatic intolerance of their behaviour we will be!

vaxx:
So You are advocating for consent here........now apply this to initial argument I raised and you will see how you are speaking from both side's of the mouth....

I am simply pointing out to you that ethics is a necessary requirement when engaging with others. Consent happens to be one of the ethical considerations in particular fields like scientific research.

You are free to present your own argument. Meanwhile, do point out this "speaking from both side's of the mouth". We must not allow anyone to get away with such nonsense, and most especially, not buda!

I am pointing error instead of contributing since you failed to see where you shot yourself, I can't be arguing in a blanket.

budaatum:

Thankfully, the world does not seem to accept this view of yours, that tolerance cannot be imposed. You just step out your door and be intolerant to others and see what we'd impose on you! The general society seems to accept that it is okay to be intolerant of intolerance

indirectly you are now advocating for objective morality instead of relative moral which you subscribe to . Double standard.....

Intolerance is not necessarily immoral. Not many would argue that intolerance of paedophilia is immoral, and the fact that it isn't is "carved in stone", and we are dogmatic about it. Almost all societies generally dogmatically agree that those who do think paedophilia is not immoral have warped minds, and if they are found to be practising paedophilia we will not be "open-ended" about it and will gladly show them how "carved in stone" our dogmatic intolerance of their behaviour we will be

Buda quote.... intolerance is not neccasry immoral "" using phedophile as an examples.....while rejecting all evidence that state otherwise !

am simply pointing out to you that ethics is a necessary requirement when engaging with others. Consent happens to be one of the ethical considerations in particular fields like scientific research.

consent is the major key in ethical consideration when doing medical science. Buda I am tired of repeating this....it now sound like a poem

[quote]You are free to present your own argument. Meanwhile, do point out this "speaking from both side's of the mouth". We must not allow anyone to get away with such nonsense, and most especially, not buda

!.i am not good with such picking and pointing. It is your duty as part of nairaland fBI to do your investigation.

vaxx:
I am pointing error instead of contributing since you failed to see where you shot yourself, I can't be arguing in a blanket.indirectly you are now advocating for objective morality instead of relative moral which you subscribe to . Double standard.....

I am not advocating anything objectively moral. I've told you many times over that I do not necessarily agree that morality is objective and that linking both words gives a meaning I am ambivalent to! A society may impose certain moral codes on it's people but that does not imply objectivity since they may simply be pandering to sentiment, or even ignorance.

A case in point is the attitude to homosexuality in different societies. Nothing objective about it! Its relativity is obvious in the fact that every nation makes it up as they go along subject to relative time, place and understanding. The fact that some nations accept stem cell research and some don't is another case in point to show relativity!

However, not one single society I know of would accept that any single persons subjective morality is acceptable if such morals go against what is generally accepted! especially where issues like murder, paedophilia and scientific research is concerned. That is why there are ethical codes that apply to these activities! They show the standards that are accepted or you shall not be tolerated!

Let me give you a last punch on this thread while leaving you with your mumbo jumbo.

budaatum:

I am not advocating anything objectively moral. I've told you many times over that I do not necessarily agree that morality is objective and that linking both words gives a meaning I am ambivalent to! A society may impose certain moral codes on it's people but that does not imply objectivity since they may simply be pandering to sentiment, or even ignorance.

This is a result of failure on your part to make perfect critical decision, More intelligent a person is, more he tends to think algorithmically for the solution of a real life problem. But for an undecidable problem, it is impossible to construct an algorithm that always leads to a correct yes-or-no answer. As a scientist that you claim you are , I urge to make perfect use of algrothem. Here or there is an invalid position or better still illogical.

A case in point is the attitude to homosexuality in different societies. Nothing objective about it! Its relativity is obvious in the fact that every nation makes it up as they go along subject to relative time, place and understanding. The fact that some nations accept stem cell research and some don't is another case in point to show relativity!

when you know this , why then are you advocating for universal tolerance? Sometime i wonder why you normally speak from both side's of the mouth.if Saudi Arabia consider that a lady who had her first menstruation cycle (be it at age 12) can go marry while country such as USA consider age 18 as the perequsite norms any lady can get marry, while we USA want to influence his own opinion on Saudi Arabia? IS THAT NOT ACT OF MAKING MY OPINION OBJECTIVE?

However, not one single society I know of would accept that any single persons subjective morality is acceptable if such morals go against what is generally accepted! especially where issues like murder, paedophilia and scientific research is concerned. That is why there are ethical codes that apply to these activities! They show the standards that are accepted or you shall not be tolerated!

They have been scientific reaearch on the study of camel urine in both UAE and saudi arabia and it has been proven to be healthy and medicinal . will country such as Britain or ireland include this urine in one of their health care practice?

morality/law are mostly base on public opinion instead of rational thought. If today 99 percent of men decide to make eating beef immoral ...it will become immoral for any white men to still be eating beef and it will become illegal to do so.

Even American law decide where you have to put your dick...i can't just fuuuck Your wife without your consent though she agree.

vaxx:
morality/law are mostly base on public opinion instead of rational thought. If today 99 percent of men decide to make eating beef immoral ...it will become immoral for any white men to still be eating beef and it will become illegal to do so.

I don't think you can just throw in "morality/law" like you've done up there! Law, is definitely not just based on public opinion, and ........*sigh

Mr intelligent person vaxx, if a country legalises and mandates the enslavement of anyone under 30, and buda refuses to enslave anyone under 30, would you say that:

1. buda broke the law?

Or/and

2. buda acted immorally?

Answer/s to this will seriously help me understand where this heads.