₦airaland Forum

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!

I doubt you know what your position is on this topic vaxx since its apparent that you can't stop tying yourself in knots.

[quote author=vaxx post=71074636][/quote]

Funny enough, this is already done, to a certain extent. You can hardly hire a fundamentalist religious teacher to teach RE in a UK school, and the fact you need to post your curriculum online means parents would be after you if you do and withdraw their child if they wish. This does streamline things though, which is great.

vaxx:
Science - The Method - is neither right nor wrong. It is a tool - like a hammer, or a telescope, or math. It's applicability are objectively the same, to test , experiment and tools to carry out further research..

Science, the method, and a tool, can be wrongly used just like a hammer or telescope or maths can be wrongly used. It would after all be wrong to use a hammer as a screwdriver. But moreso, society has in itself determined what wrong science is (i.e. science with wrong methodology), and it has gone much further by deciding codes that must be followed for proper ethically acceptable scientific research!

I just don't understand your science that is done without consideration of these obvious facts! As I previously asked, is a scientist permitted to perform experiments that have not yet been deemed ethical in the society in which the scientist operates?

vaxx:
I have corrected this ignoratiou elenchi fallacy for a quite number of time now. Science does not determine what is ethical wrong or right, it is the society that sets the benchmark, as for scientist ethically can be pragmatically deduce. And that is is what is happening in scientific incline society... politicians work along with scientist to determine what should be out as ethics to the populace and not base on majority opinion.

And I have repeatedly provided you with evidence to show that you are wrong! In fact, every scientist has a component of their scientific education that specifically addresses what is morally acceptable in the conduct of their research! Here is just one more discourse on the topic! The derivation of research ethics has no bearing on whether it is a consideration! It just happens to be. Any scientist doing research has to bear ethics in mind!

vaxx:
Good, you should be my teacher now ... why do you thinks physical law sometimes break down at the singularity...

And how, pray tell, does this relate to the discussion at hand?

sinequanon:
I have explained in my post.

Science searches for "scientific fact" -- phenomena that do not change in space or time.

The nature of scientific understanding is based on this stasis.

Sorry, but science does not search for "phenomena that do not change in space or time"! Quite a lot of phenomena change in space and time, and science attempts to understand and explain such changes. Simple knowledge of chemical processes would point this out to you, as would a study of velocity which is specifically defined as the change in position (space) divided by the time of travel.

sinequanon:
Science is the study of stasis -- "that which is fixed and does not change" -death.

Really?? Where do you get this from?

vaxx:
The value of knowledge derives from its applicability. The only relation between the experimentation method and the value of the gained knowledge is the experimental rigor. .

No! If the "applicability" is wrong, I'd go as far as claiming your "science is faulty"! The value of knowledge is also dependent on its method of derivation.

vaxx:
In other words, unethical methods can produce good knowledge but flawed methods cannot..

Even if the results are good, the fact that it is unethically derived makes it faulty and questionable knowledge! Lordreed explained this to you but you misunderstood and thought he agreed with your unethical science! The Nazis were unethical in their science and for this very reason quite a lot of the knowledge they derived is shunned!

vaxx:
Before i proceed, do you have any scientific background, I am about to make it physics....and I am asking this question because most of your reply is so related to apply science which is social....

Bachelor of Engineering, Electrical, Electronics & Communications. And Physic and Maths teacher!

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.

sinequanon:
Science is ultimately immoral. So, ultimately, you cannot have science and morality.

How is science "ultimately immoral"? In fact, what do you understand by "science"? Start there if you would please.

rekinomtla:
Cultural moral relativism is the view that a society or culture determines what is right and wrong in that culture.


I don’t claim that societies determines morality, you do.

So, you hold that "cultural relativism determines societies morals", is incorrect and opposed to reality, right?

rekinomtla:
I merely stated what is moral, not what you should do. If society determines what is moral and you disagree then it means your belief is incorrect or in error for it’s the society and not you who determines what is moral. This is all according to cultural relativism of course.

Then what you "merely stated" is very wrong sir!

Consider the following:

A particular 'society' considered slavery was moral, yet some people in that society disagreed and fought against 'society' and 'society' changed its mind.

A 'society' considered the sacrifice of twins was moral, so they took twins to the bottom of the river and bashed their heads against a rock. Some people in the society disagreed and fought against it and the idea was eventually considered to be immoral and unacceptable.

No one would today consider that the fighters in these two examples agreed that their "belief is incorrect", nor did they allow society to be the determinant of their morals or the ethical behaviour their society should adopt. It is therefore not society that determines morality, but the individuals in the society.

Can't say I get what you mean by "cultural relativism"' mind, apart from it meaning a "person's beliefs, values, and practices should be understood based on that person's own culture". But 'understand', in no way implies morally or ethically acceptable. I may understand why some would like to enslave others or bash the heads of twins on a rock at the bottom of a river, but both acts are still immoral and ethically unacceptable.

vaxx:
i agree with you but Knowledge itself is neutral, it's neither good nor bad,

Knowledge is not neutral and is good or bad! One person's knowledge can be termed ignorance by another which in itself indicates subjectivity since it is based on perspective.

Knowledge based on a communist perspective, for instance, while valid to the communist, is not valid to the capitalist. Same occurs in religions where Christians and Muslims consider the other's so called knowledge to be ignorance.

PastorAIO:
What about the ethical position that knowledge is good and should be striven for and ignorance obliterated at all costs?

At absolutely "all costs'? Like bashing knowledge into unwilling heads? I'd love to say it is ethically positive to do so, but, who would be the determinant of 'knowledge'? And how far should one be ethically willing to go? Should one stop when the need to eliminate the ignorant arises so they don't corrupt the already knowledgeable?

Muslim minority in China's Xinjiang face 'political indoctrination' is an ongoing example of the question you've posed.

Primesky:
Oh Lord!, look at at what I'm saying again. See how you've twisted the passage you quoted above.

Primesky my friend, I see buda is not the only one who twists the Bible, according to you. Seems you are the only one who has the untwisted version.

I'm worried about you.

vaxx:
go ahead you are welcome.... nairaland FBI

The pleasure is all mine but thanks all the same.

vaxx:
spamming means giving unsolicited message or response(and this is clearly what you are doing).....in this topic, there is no information I had raised or given that require evidence like what you are asking for?

Buda stop spamming my thread""

Your thread! Listen to your supposedly unemotive self.

Vaxx, let me inform you that I am now going to specifically follow you so that I don't miss any post you make. I hope you clearly understand the implications of this!

LordReed you are of the opinion that nothing being pragmatic In the decision of the scientist killing the people while holding the cure to the medicine, you further clarify in my recent thread that is much more similar to yours that ( i put in quote )Hmmm, this is a tough one with a lot of layers it will require some thought to adequately do justice.

I say in essence you must have open up your mind to this similar event for you to have come up with this conclusion.

Hope you now understand?

Lordreed, please accept my sincere apology for requesting that you tutor me a little but can you help me understand this please. I do not understand!

vaxx:
you are now a spammer instead of knowledge seeker

Asking you to provide evidence for a claim you made is spamming now, and not "knowledge seeking"? I guess it must be so, according to vaxx' logic which states that buda is emotional, a pussy, and a spammer. Thankfully, buda lives regardless of what you might think.

Provide the evidence requested please. I want to know!

vaxx:
maybe over heated i suppose .....

Just provide the evidence requested instead of hiding behind emotives, please!

vaxx:
let's do that on your thread pls.

Mention me so I don't miss it now.

LordReed:
vaxx should explain better cos I am not sure what he is referring to.

Thanks for promptly responding. I did ask him, but he asked me to go read up without pointing where, so I figured since he said it about you, perhaps you'd be able to help. Personally, I think he's trying one of those tricks he tries when he can't admit he's dug a hole and fallen in. But let me give him another opportunity.

Vaxx, where did "LordReed open up his mind later on" to your, "scientist are simply in the pursuit of knowledge" with no consideration of morals and ethics?

vaxx:
ok.....if that will relax the spark in your over boiling emotions

I am not a pussy dude...

Lol! My emotions aren't boiling vaxx. But you just go on believing what you will if it makes you feel good.

vaxx:
I have a debate on this topic with my girlfriend. She raised some impressive counter response to support it. But not quite satisfy . What do you think? Pls I need some thought provoking point......either against or in support of it.

Let's begin........

This subject was flogged to death in this thread!

vaxx:
Buda"" I will like to make this thread an informative thread. I ask once again.

You can ask till the cows come home. I'm here to stay!

vaxx:
i can as well talk on both side's, it is about sharing beneficial information and as well as developing intellectual skills . No absolute right/ wrong anywhere. You choose whatever position you like if you care.....

There is no problem being on both sides. But one is not on both sides when one argues incessantly against one of the sides. You might want to further develop the intellectual skills so you do it better.

And there is a right or wrong, unless outcomes matter not to you!

vaxx:
you only failed to grasp it Buda"", LordReed opens up his mind later on....

Lord, can you please point out where you "opened" your mind to vaxx's "scientist are simply in the pursuit of knowledge" with no consideration of morals and ethics? I'd like to see how you were convinced.

vaxx:
Go thru the thread buda": pls I will like to have this thread informative as possible instead of emotional or disgressing talk. Can you do it for Your guy vaxx""

Of course I can. Here's a good response for the thread.

vaxx:
Ethics is all about making decision on what is wrong or right.for the scientist,ethical and moral consideration should be extremely important . If they were never consider in the process of doing science. science could well decide to cheat , fake an experiment result or outcome. And this will be a stopping block to the progress of science.

Am against it on this thread while am supporting it on your thread....lol let's see how it will work.....

Let's see which side you take on this thread.

vaxx:
you only failed to grasp it Buda"", LordReed opens up his mind later on....

Where, vaxx?

alBHAGDADI:
I'm sorry, I don't discuss with Satan worshipers.

You don't? How do you tell a person worships satan?

Muttley, sorry for asking why you pointed mine out to him. I now know that even if you stick it to his eyelids he will only see what he wants.

vaxx:
scientist are simply in the pursuit of knowledge and anything you use it to do is up to you.

Didn't you try this crap in Lordreed thread where it didn't fly?

Ogbeni, jawo l'apo ti ko yo!, it does you no credit.

MuttleyLaff:
My better half, always says: "Dont let them steal your joy"

They get nowhere near my joy. I'm just saddened by the ignorance. It pains me so much.