₦airaland Forum

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....

budaatum:
Oh shut up and admit you are in above your head.

maybe I have to be making a list of Buda tantrum on every thread, this should be in what number?

sinequanon:
The creative aspect is not scientific. You may be thinking that the process of exploiting the science is creative. But, I would even disagree with that.

Our technological modes of communication today, although speedy and accessible, are inherently biased to serving rapid fire lifestyle, with short term thinking. There are many pathological trends associated with it.

Now take, on the other hand, the spiritual guru who says that his most transcendent experience was communing with nature in solitude. How does your "technological gadget" help him, there? What if he is right, and the key to peace and prosperity among mankind is communing with nature (now increasingly impossible in our technological, fast paced rat race)?

If you ride an elephant, it will take you into the forest. If you ride a horse, it will take you to the grassland. Where you arrive is in the nature of your vehicle. The moral of your journey is the realization of the nature of your vehicle -- for humans, the mind, today the scientific mind.



Just about everywhere.

You are quite making some interesting point. Science is not immoral as you claim. Poeple determine that? Not science

Science is a set of self-correcting methods for discovering the truth, plus the information uncovered by science . The same science that produce car that can be use in transporting a sick patient to the hospital is the same car that transport the robbers to steal from the bank.

By law, there is code of conduct that governs the applicability of science, it is based on pragmatical approach.

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

i always ignite the fire that power your emotions, (i only want to force you to reason instead of being to emotive)try defending yourself, instead of throwing tantrum.... anyway i am use it to bro....

budaatum:
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!

When you apply science into what is not meant for, it become pseudoscience, using science as a tools for politics is unscientific and unpragmatic. There is difference between code of conduct and ethics, you like beeping like the continuous error message in about to be damaged computer. Science has an objective methodology and anybody doing science without this principle is not doing science. Wrong science methodology equals to pseudoscience.

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?

science has a lay down foundation that is base on code of conduct that is valid by law and not by ethics. Scientist determined what they anonymously agree upon and not from unprofessional. Just like it is done within the cycle of law. Ethics is differ from law as it differ from code of conduct.

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!

wait a moment do you even understand my argument on this topic, I may be arguing with someone who is having a direct opposite idea to what I present on the topic headline.... Your repetition has no bearing, it just conclude that you are not abreast with the topic of discussion.

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

This proves that you are not abreast with the topic of discussion. AN ANSWER TO THIS SHOULD ENLIGHT YOU ON THE CONCEPT OF KNOWLEDGE.

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?

budaatum:
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.

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.

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!

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

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

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

budaatum:
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.

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.

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

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.

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....

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..

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

i agree with you but Knowledge itself is neutral, it's neither good nor bad, so I believe the level of danger/good applied to knowledge can only come from the people who possess it.

Ethically, society has to ignite what is objectively consider as positive knowledge while discarding what it is not.

Ignorance can be too expensive despite its bliss.

budaatum:
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!

go ahead you are welcome.... nairaland FBI

budaatum:
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!

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""

LordReed you are of the opinion that nothing being pragmatic In the decision of the scientist letting the dog infected rabies 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?

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

you are now a spammer instead of a knowledge seeker

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

maybe over heated i suppose .....

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

let's do that on your thread pls.

budaatum:
This subject was flogged to death in this thread!

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

I am not a pussy dude...

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

budaatum:
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.

Buda don't disgress this thread, rather do it on his thread? I once ask for that favour in advance.

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


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

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.....

budaatum:
Where, 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""

budaatum:
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.

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

That supreme court is over 142 years........

budaatum:
I was going to join the British Army a long time ago. But when I asked myself if I could point a gun at someone and shoot, the answer was no, except if I were trying to save my life. "But saving your life is what you'd be doing in the army", I reasoned. But going somewhere to provoke and be a treat to someone else whereby I have to protect myself by shooting at them is not exactly "saving your life now buda, is it?" And that was army done for me. I just could not find the justification for pointing a gun at another human being and pulling the trigger to shoot people that my presence might provoke, dead! I sat an exam and passed so well that they kept calling and almost begged me to join till I literally told them to fuq off. Then the British Police came asking me to join them!

I would assume anyone would morally and ethically justify weapons. One just need listen to the arguments the NRA come up with when anyone says anything close to banning guns. NRA members who can't continue justifying gun ownership would get rid of them, but its very easy to avoid information that would stop them feeling the need to own guns. And there's always the fear of what may happen if one does not have a gun which the news reinforces daily. I'm very certain that wither n a few months of being in the army, my brain would have been so washed that I too might have been justifying shooting people. But knowing me, such acts would eventually be followed by very deep depression once I seriously and honestly think about what I'd done. I'd probably commit suicide.

People can justify anything if they want to. Whether what is justified is objectively justifiable is another thing entirely, but that's not the question posed in this thread so I wouldn't start. Subjectively, however, anything can be justified. Murderers do it everyday.

instead of the wordism, why not simply answer the question raised @ the op....you are too good at it. I know. This is a serious goal post shifting buda""

MuttleyLaff:
Yes they can, based on the circumstances that brought the reason for the invention up.

To some extent I agree, even thieves can justify their robbery business( The issue of Rob rich Peter pay poor Paul come to memmory). But on the other hand, Science is an understanding of Nature, and what exists. It is not a sentient being that needs approval from society. It is valid whether you believe in it or do not believe in it or when there no longer any humans to even debate about it. Albert Einstein's (notable scientist)is behind the physics that was essential in the development of atomic weapons. Was he “involved”? Can he be blamed for making a discovery that enables a weapon?

What about non-lethal weapons, like tasers? Or improved safety features on handguns?

Wait"" even a shovel good for farming can kills..... scientist are simply in the pursuit of knowledge and anything you use it to do is up to you.

budaatum:
MuttleyLaff, are you pointing out my response to vaxx because he is blind and cannot see it himself?

buda"" why the Negative remark "" somebody can't play with you.....is your guy vaxx now....

budaatum:
Some people have gotten on my nerves with their ignorance this weekend but I'm sure my mood would improve soon.

YOu are too emotional......try being a man instead of a pussy......

KENFERDYOORI:
The question is "are all these inventions worth the lives and properties they've claimed?"

Scientists discover principle though you called it weapons due to what you use it to do.

Scientists are just in the pursuit of knowledge. Whatever they discover, they share in the hopes of advancement of humanity. How we use them, is up to us, right? So it is not in the duty of scientist to name one principle ethical or morally wrong or right.....you do that.....for example in Australia progressive society, anything at all can be consider a weapons so far it can add a considerable amount of harm to anyone (meaning my phone may be consider a weapon so far I use it to hit you and it causes damage)I will be treated in the court like someone who use knives or daggar. And in all honestly you and I know phone is not a fighting tools. Therefore it it not the work of scientists to validate if a principle is either ethically or mortally right or wrong. It is you to state that.........

MuttleyLaff:
vaxx, do you consider, it ethical and morally OK to swat a mosquito that's landed on your hand and sucking your blood

plurium interrogationum fallacy( I sometime commit this too)well, have you heard ""He who kill the killer do not commit a sin""

A mosquito sucks my blood because it has to live while I am killing it in order to prevent it from transmitting live threatening diseases like dengue and malaria. I think it is base on the struggle of existence that both of us are fighting for. So yes This is will not be consider a question as to whether it is morally correct to kill a mosquito or not but rather a question as to whether who wins this age old battle against my lethal 'enemy'.

Before you argue not all mosquito are dangerous, the one I fought last night is a criminal .....lol...

Can you now answer the question @op

MuttleyLaff:
Vaxx, have you familiar with the names Kamran Loghman, J. Robert Oppenheimer+Albert Einstein and/or Mikhail Kalashnikov
and how/why they felt remorse about their inventions?

Honestly, this names sound unfamiliar apart from Albert Einstein which I so much admire. But it was unfortunate to hear they felt remorse for their invention , but it is normal for human to feel remorse on anything at all. I just felt remorse for disloging some important issue with my friend today. I felt i should not have said it . But will that be base on moral ground?

Have you heard of Arnold Sommerfeld, the German physicist who was responsible for introducing the azimuthal & spin quantum numbers. He was nominated 84 times for noble laurel but never won, his doctorate student and two of his post graduate students won the price but he never won. Anytime I read or come across his work either in the journal or library, I do feel remorse for him as well.

Will you consider this as ethical and moral principle ? This are just side question, yet to answer the main topic.

orisa37:
.


Read The Bible again and Pray while doing so.

LOl. Ok sir.

orisa37:
Yes. They are using The Light of God in them.

The light of God to build mass weapons of destruction. Can you elucidate pls?