BS: Ethics

Subject: BS: Ethics
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 08:29 PM

This covers a few subjects, at least half a dozen!
but I don't see any point in starting a seperate one for each subject unless there is enough interest just yet.

This is clearly listed as BS: NON Music, if your'e not interested look no further, quit your moaning!

Abortion-Right or wrong?
Capital Punisment " "
Eauthanasia       " "
Experiments on Animals " "
War "   "


Discuss-, I will give my opinions on each subject in 24 hours from now, I'm interested in learning yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Allan C.
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 08:34 PM

I have great hope for the youth in Asia.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 08:36 PM

You're off on a pegleg if you expect to come up with determinations in the abstract. Abortion and war can be profoundly repugnantly wrong or heroically right, depending on the circumstances. So can any other decision.

IMO, the criteria of an ethical decision is the benefit it brings to the futures of those involved. Based entirely on the context in which it is taken.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Bassic
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 08:43 PM

jOhn, its 1.45am I am just about to go to bed, about the only thing I can say about Ethics is that it is somewhere near Thufolk and Thurry and SkipjacK likes to go sailing there! Nite Nite. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 09:02 PM

Oh.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 09:04 PM

Abortion: Until the progeny develops personhood, its needs must be subjugated to that of persons, such as the mother. Therefore, until a fetus has developed to the point where it can be safely removed from the mother without causing her harm, abortion is morally acceptable.

Capital punishment: Acceptable only in cases where BOTH A) a determination of guilt has been made whose probability of error is less than one in ten thousand, and B) rehabilitation is non-feasible.

Euthanasia: It is only acceptable to euthanize a person with their competent consent. No other factors should play a role.

Experiments on animal: As non-persons, their needs are subjugated to that of persons. Thus, medical experimentation for the purpose of genuinely health-related research is acceptable, provided that the subjects are non-sentient; cosmetic research is not.

War: Acceptable only when it is for the purpose of either self-defense or the defense of a nation or population which is threatened with subjugation or extermination AND has requested aid. Commercial or political influence must not be intended aims, nor may they be gained at the expense of any nation except a unilateral aggressor.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 09:12 PM

Thanks Forum Lurker, not sure who you are or where you are but we seem to agree!
Not sure about the capital punisment though, I'm not sure it's ever justifiable, I used to be in favour of it, I changed my mind, I'll explain why tommorow.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 09:20 PM

tommorow never comes!
A friend of mine was tried, and convicted of murder, I don't agree with the death penalty.
If we as a society kill killers, aren't we as bad as them?
If not worse, ie, a killer may kill on the spur of the moment, without thought for his actions, if we as a society have the death penalty in place is that not a pre-meditated killing?

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 09:22 PM

You guys aren't discussing ethics -- you're working up a moral code for your subculture! Velly diffelent!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 09:34 PM

Amos- One needs to state a position before it can be debated. If you would care to share your beliefs, we could begin a discussion. Since no one had posted before I did, I didn't have any groundwork to go on, so I laid it. Feel free to build or not as it pleases you.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 09:34 PM

Ethics 1= A set of principles for right conduct.
2=A theory or system of moral values.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 10:55 PM

There is a world of difference between a principle for right conduct and a culturally introduced arbitrary moral stricture. The former is a matter of rationality, the latter a matter of holding agreements made in the group, such as "don't eat fish on Friday" or "don't eat pork" as a rule which has no application outside its cultural base.

How you sort out "right action' depends on what is genuinely going to bring about the most good for the most parts of any given puzzle.

That is very different from "agreed upon codes" which are moral agreements about how to act, cultural mores. I hope the difference is clear...

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 11:49 PM

ANyway, I didn't mean to snuff your fun, so please carry on!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 12:34 AM

Ah Ethics...

Some years ago, my boss at Telstra, tried to get internal charges laid against me for misusing computer resources. I had written some job apps, using the time sharing system.

However, I was able to prove that at the same time, he was using the same system to wrtie away to America for Books for his personal use on the subject of Ethics in The Workplace... :-)

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: mack/misophist
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 12:58 AM

Abortion should be the woman's decision. Till the 3rd trimester, anyway.

Capital punishment is right in principle. The difficulty is that we can't trust our courts to be right. So, no capital punishment.

Euthanasia should be like all other medical procedures; informed consent should be required. Personally, I'd like the freedom to define my desires in advance, just in case.

War? There are just wars, never doubt it. Pre-emptive first strikes are almost impossible to justify.

The question of experiments with animals is easy to answer but difficult to explain. Pointless or frivolous experiments are anathema.
Cruel experiments are hateful, and probably illegal. If it's the only way to answer a necessary question, then do it. Of course, every one of these adjectives is open to argument. That's the trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 01:29 AM

Right....

Okay.

Abortion-Right or wrong?

Depends on the individual circumstances.

Capital Punisment " "

Probably not necessary or advisable at all during peacetime, but again, it depends on the individual circumstances. In war, one must sometimes resort to drastic measures (in the case of the breakdown of normal civil order, as in looting, etc...)

Eauthanasia       " "

Depends on the individual circumstances...and the consent of the euthanized.

Experiments on Animals " "

Depends on the individual circumstances, and the effect on the animals. Some (few) experiments are actually quite enjoyable for animals, while others may be horrific. I would be inclined not to hurt animals if at all possible, but one has to consider what else is at stake too.

War "   "

When attacked (directly and obviously by a clearly identifiable enemy) one obviously has the right and obligation to fight back effectively and protect oneself. This does not equate to having the right to invade a distant country because some mysterious group of people who might have had some backing from that country and might be located in it apparently did something to your country. That is to say, America had no real moral basis for invading either Afghanistan or Iraq, but they managed to concoct some great dramatic excuses in their fairly transparentearch for Caspian and Iraqui oil reserves. (I'm speaking of America's leaders, not its general public.)

Again, it depends upon the individual circumstances. Politicians decide to go to war over issues of power and resources...they then set about finding spurious moral justification for it, so that their public will support what is essentially a very immoral and crazy form of behaviour. They do not grasp the concept of human unity.

It would be great if reality could be reduced to a simple set of Do and Don't rules...but life is just not that simple...unless you are colossally brave. Only people like Jesus or Gandhi are that courageous, and other people usually end up killing them, which serves to illustrate the point in the most dramatic manner possible...that if you really intend to love humanity and life, then you'd better be prepared to sacrifice yourself on their behalf when it proves necessary.

May I add to the list...

UFO aliens exist...True or False?

Crop circles are not all made be humans...True or False?

God exists...True or False? (Be very careful to accurately define the particular nature of the theoretical God you are talking about...specially if you're setting out to prove that he/she/it doesn't exist! :-)

Polital parties - Right or Wrong?

Myself, I think they are a curse upon humanity, and will be seen a few hundred years from now as a very primitive phase we went through in our political development...just a step or two beyond the primitive concept of hereditary monarchs and "divine right" of same.

Immortal soul/afterlife - true or false?

That oughta keep everyone busy for a bit...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 01:39 AM

I was drifting away from moral questions there, wasn't I? Sorry!

Let's try again.

Violence - right or wrong?

Greed - right or wrong?

Lust - right or wrong?

Laziness - right or wrong?

Envy - right or wrong?

Hatred - right or wrong?

Telling lies - right or wrong?

Cheating - right or wrong?

Masturbation - right or wrong?

Extra-marital sex - right or wrong?

Cannibalism - right or wrong?

Espionage - right or wrong?

Assassination - right or wrong?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 01:42 AM

UFO Aliens: They cannot be proven not to exist, but there is no rational cause for belief in them, as the energy expenditure necessary to reach us from the nearest potentially industrialized planet is sufficient that they should have attempted some form of contact, peaceful or not, as a return on their investment.

Crop circles: It is possible that some are caused by purely natural occurences, such as freak downdrafts, but in general unlikely. There is no rational cause to believe that some intelligent, nonhuman agency would attempt, as its sole method of contact, making circles in someone's crops.

God: The Judeo-Christian deity, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, cannot exist in light of natural (as opposed to moral, humancaused) evil, but insufficent empirical evidence exists either way for a deity lacking one of these properties.

Political Parties: they are polar factions, and a necessary outgrowth of Western polar thought. They are no more and no less evil than the philosophy that spawns them.

Afterlife: By definition, the afterlife is beyond our current existence; most beliefs regarding it indicate that living humans cannot, in fact, see or otherwise perceive the afterlife in any way. Thus, it is an untestable proposition.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 01:44 AM

All of those things mentioned in Little Hawk's second post are not categorically wrong, save laziness; most are usually wrong, excepting lust, masturbation, and cannibalism, which are perfectly natural and in and of themselves lack any moral significance.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 06:38 AM

Too many issues here I feel. That means not much chance of a continuous discussion on the issues involved, if we talk about them.

I think Amos's if to get it down beneath the specifucas to the underlying question is teh right way to go - and the underlying question is how do we distinguish between rules that are essentially a metter of particular cultures, and rules which apply regardless of cultures.

Very often people will take as if there is no distinction - as if a cultural rule that you have a duty to kill your daughter or son in certain circumstances if no different from a rule that you should take your hat off in church.

What appears to be the case is that all cultures have rules which outlaw killing of other human beings except in certain circumstances - the circumstances vary according to culture, but they generally seem to centre round the idea of defence against some kind of threat.

So far as I am concerned I would wish to live in a culture in which the circumstances in whch killing was allowed was restruicted as narrowly as possible, whch essentially means to cases where it is the unintended consequences of preventing greater harm being done to other people.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 09:42 AM

The answer to all your questions is yes, little hawk.

Kevin, I was distinguishing between moral agreements which are born as cultural constrsaints, such as hats in chuirch or killing your first born on Friday if there are too many locusts this year, versus rationasl choices made for the highest good stemming from the situiation at hand. One of them is a bunch of arbitrary and oftenauthoritarian agreements that make up moral codes. The other is rationality and analysis being applied to the question of right action. Occasionally the two intersect. Not often,t hough!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: mack/misophist
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 11:05 AM

Forum Lurker was almost dead on with his comments on Little Hawks question. With the exception of cheating, I think a positive case can be made for each of those actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: GUEST,Skipjack K8
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 11:13 AM

Thanks, Gord, I am orf to Ethics right now, for a weekends sailing, interspersed with those salty dogs the Slingbacks, who are making people feel seasick in Heybridge Basin.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: GUEST,Martin Gibson
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 12:24 PM

Does anyone here listen to the Grand Ole Opry?

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 12:25 PM

Ha! Ha! Ha! Brilliant answer, Amos! I think you may be on the verge of enlightenment... :-)

Forum Lurker - The best evidence in support of UFO aliens is actual cases of people seeing them, photographing them, etc. Once that has happened one sets about wondering about all the various other questions you raised, rather than just automatically assuming "it ain't possible". But...until a significant majority of people are agreed that they do exist...or until the government officially says they do...such personal testimonials will be discounted by most people, and photographic evidence will be discounted also (as a fake or a misinterpretation), and physical evidence will be discounted or locked away in a lab somewhere and forgotten. That's the way it goes.

Conventional thinking has a way of perpetuating itself by sheer repetition and inertia.

Ditto for crop circles.

Political parties are "no more and no less evil than the philosophy that spawns them." Agreed! But the word I would use for that philosophy is "primitive" rather than "evil", although it has produced certain rather evil effects.

God - If God is in fact infinite, thus beginning nowhere, being everywhere, and ending nowhere...then ALL empirical evidence can be taken as evidence of the existence of God. It just depends on what concept you have of God, that's all, and how you interpret the evidence. If, of course, you believe in a God that is somehow separate from "us", then you've got a real problem and no, it doesn't really make sense under the existing circumstances.

Let me draw an analogy. Suppose a jellyfish, made of millions of cells, and very much alive was the whole cosmos, the whole of existence. Suppose that each one of its living cells was a separate thinking being and they started talking among themselves about a "supreme being", their idea of God. That supreme being would be the whole jellyfish. Now if the little cells started looking around for this God, they wouldn't find him, would they? They would find each other. Hmmmm. What would really be tragic would be if some of those cells disagreed with others about what God was actually like, and started fighting wars over it. That would be kind of like cancer breaking out in the jellyfish. That's rather like what people do on this planet a good deal of the time.

Fortunately, the jellyfish has a strong enough immune system that it can handle this sort of thing, but the little cells don't always do so well on a local basis.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 12:47 PM

Suppose a jellyfish, made of millions of cells, and very much alive was the whole cosmos, the whole of existence.

Talk about being on the "verge of enlightenment" (wherever that is), this man has the whole enchilada in a siongle jellyfish!!! Like, Wow, man!!

Little Hawk gives new defintiion to the whole concept of "far out".

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 12:51 PM

Been up all night, Amos? Or are you just excited?

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 01:31 PM

Of course jellyfishes aren't self sufficient - they still have to eat, and float about in the ocean.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 01:59 PM

Little Hawk:

When you come up with Jellyfish Cosmologies and their ilk, I have to jump up and down to keep myself from swooning.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: AliUK
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 03:33 PM

I live in a jellyfish...eeurgh!! What a revoltin´ idea. I always felt that the universe was a beautiful cloud that sometimes gets a little top heavy and has to storm now and again. Ethically I think that clouds are better cosmological analogies than jellyfish. Maybe Even a gobstopper (jawbreaker to you American people) is a good analogy as well, as it´s spherical and lasts a long time just like the universe might possibly be.

         Rainbow Flowerchild

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 03:59 PM

Little Hawk, I think you ought to listen to Rainbow Flowerchild -- maybe even make a pilgrimage to her place.

It would enable you to take the big plunge rather than hovering on the verge!!

And, y'know, sphericality has its merits, too...

LOL!!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 04:10 PM

Please, no prejudice here against our fellow creatures. Here's a picture of a beautiful jellyfish.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 07:53 PM

OK -- so I should adapt a Jellyfish Cosmology and commit gross disrespect to elephants, turtles, lions, hawks, sea-slugs and sea-urchins?

This is a very difficult decision -- whom should I say the Cosmos is most like? Oh, dear, oh dear!! It is so difficult to be fair!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 09:18 PM

Amos-The problem is that reason alone does not provide any motive at all, as described by Hume. There must be some underlying desire that drives you. There is nothing in the idea of "rational" which dictates whether one should be altruistic, selfish, or any balance between the two, because reason alone doesn't induce any action, only show what actions will result in which ends.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 11:10 PM

Altruism is a marvelous thing. I think a cloud is an excellent analogy for the universal field of being, and some people would probably like it better than a jellyfish.

Remember, it's just an analogy, nothing more. The cosmic jellyfish I was speaking of was not swimming around in a larger ocean, it was the whole shebang, ocean included.

I have already taken the "big plunge" several times, Amos, so I don't really need to go on a pilgrimage to visit Rainbow Flowerchild. (and I was making an oblique reference to your somewhat chaotic spelling in that one post when I suggest you were overtired or excited...)

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: mack/misophist
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 11:20 PM

Dear Forum Lurker:

A completely rational person is altruistic, on occasion, because it's the right thing to do, because it feels good, and because a completely rational person can still do whatever they feel like doing. Some researchers say that our dna predisposes us to sacrifice for our blood kin. Coming from a small family and hating children as I do, that means all you bastards out there are my family. That's why we should all try to make the world a better place than it was when we got here.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 09:42 AM

FL:

Sure -- but reason without goals is an abstract and synthetic thing anyway. Real reason as found in life   also seeks the accomplishment of long term good for some area. Rationality strives for a good which in the final analysis is that which brings about optimum futures for self and symbiotes and the forms associated therewith.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 12:28 PM

"Some researchers say that our dna predisposes us to sacrifice for our blood kin."

God! How brilliant they must be to reach that conclusion! (sarcasm) After all, squirrels, birds, cats, and most other animals are generally predisposed to sacrifice for their blood kin, so why on earth wouldn't humans be?

They do research to find out things like this? DNA is simply part of the whole pattern, and the pattern is formed by purposeful consciousness. The DNA is like a fingerprint of that consciousness.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 02:00 PM

Can't let your DNA walk all,over you. Being able when needs be to overcome that kind of call of the blood is part of what being human is about.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: mack/misophist
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 06:29 PM

Little Hawk:

Even though the answers to some questions seem obvious, proof is still needed. That;s why Harry Harlow is in every Intro to Psyche book on the planet.

PS. Squirrels, birds, cats, and most other animals don't give a shit about their blood kin once they've grown. Bears tend to think they're tasty.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 08:07 PM

So, there's more good evidence that we are a bit more advanced spiritually than our animal cousins. We often continue caring even after our kin are grown.

Now if someone would just go about proving scientifically how and why water is wet...we could all rest easier.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 08:22 PM

Or more advanced gastronomically...

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 09:50 PM

/thread drift/
i wonder if humans are the worst behaved species of animals?
You never see rabbits or hedgehogs etc forming armies, and invading and killing etc, they just seem to live piecefully.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 10:23 PM

Well, chimpanzees do engage in rape, infanticide, and genocide. Then again, they are considered to be our closest genetic relatives.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 10:34 PM

Chimpanzees engage in genocide?

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 11:21 PM

You could make a very good case for humans being both better and worse behaved than animals. That's because humans have a greater measure of free will and independent thought, which makes them score higher at both ends of the moral divide, if you could call it that. They are, like gods, capable of extraordinary creativity and extraordinary destructiveness. Such are the burdens of higher intelligence.

Rabbits aren't entirely peaceful by any means. The males fight a lot over mating and territory, but their fights do not usually do much physical damage. I'm not too sure about hedgehogs.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 05 Oct 03 - 02:57 AM

John from Hull-Yes, chimpanzees have been known on occasion to completely wipe out other troops, to the last ape. This differs from human genocide only in that chimpanzee social groups are much smaller than ours.

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Oct 03 - 01:56 PM

Talking of which there's always Dubya...

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Mark Clark
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 02:23 AM

As folks have pointed out, jOhn’s questions are really moral in nature rather than ethical. But even as moral questions, the answers are highly dependent on the social and religious climate in which they are asked. If divine codes of behavior are eliminated, a society is free to answer these questions in any way that pleases its members.

• Abortion-Right or wrong?
     Different answers for different people. If you are a Christian, you believe it is wrong. Does that mean it should be outlawed? No! Not everyone is a Christian and God has already instructed Christians to leave the judgement stuff to Him. No need to pass laws based purely on a religious belief. Believers will act acording to their own faiths and non-believers will either be punished for all eternity or suffer no consequence whatever, depending on ones belief system.
  
• Capital Punisment " "
     There are very few societies in which capital punishment is considered acceptable, the primary ones being the U.S. and China. Again the answer depends on the moral or religious code to which the responder subscribes. If one is a Christian, capital punishment is not to be supported.
  
• Euthanasia       " "
     Again the answer depends on who is being asked. Killing is outlawed because it isn't practical, in a civilized society, to have folks killing each other all the time. Where the killing of a person is inconsequential (e.g., abortion and capital punishment) civil laws may permit killing. Euthanasia is another form of killing that has no negative civil consequences. Religious prohibitions against euthanasia are tied more to the afterlife than to temporal practicality. In cases where death is the only possible outcome, prolonged suffering has value only for the spiritual well-being of people who believe it has value. Again, judgement is a divine responsibility not one we need to implement here.
  
• Experiments on Animals " "
     Same answer. Many religions, Christianity included, hold that mankind is charged with looking after all creatures and may not put them to such uses. For the most part, those religions do not permit their adherents to enforce their points of view outside the religious group. Penalties for violating religious codes vary with the religion. Religious groups may hold that non-belivers are also subject to divine judgement but from a purely civil point of view, experiments on animals can offer signigicant benefits to society.
  
• War "   "
     The arguments are much the same. Is there any point to human existance? If not, war is just another strategy for dominance. Does life have value? How is the value of a single life balanced against the value of the group. Christianity is interesting because Christians are told that their personal choices are more important to God than what happens to them as individuals or as members of a group.
  

There has never been, nor is there likely to be, any general agreement on these issues but our fascenation with them has been the subject of most human dialog throughout history.

But then again, perhaps this thread will finally resolve these issues.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Ethics
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 03 - 12:32 PM

I've never been able to imagine an exterior entitiy whosae scope was all Creation, but whose interest was fixated on what I did or did not do with one of my many body parts. It made absolutely no sense. Still doesn't.

A