Discussion on Morals

[WITHTEETH]

"We need to balance science and Morals" - Bush

BANG it was a moral issue that everyone was involved in from there on. It sounded great but was it true. Does science have morals. well does algebra have morals? Its the people behind science.

 

Those are my thoughts on the matter. can the intellects add on this or any other tough moral issue.

 

Abortion

Gay Rights

UN

Iraq

Blair

Energy

[Ohma]

Bah, everyone and everthing should be robot; person, tree, cake, chair, ALL would be better as robot, and problem affecting worlds today would be not in existant...but that's just my solution...that wont happen...ever...

[Oerwinde]

"We need to balance science and Morals" - Bush

BANG it was a moral issue that everyone was involved in from there on. It sounded great but was it true. Does science have morals. well does algebra have morals? Its the people behind science.

 

Those are my thoughts on the matter. can the intellects add on this or any other tough moral issue.

 

Abortion

Gay Rights

UN

Iraq

Blair

Energy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The only moral issue when it comes to Gay rights is whether or not we persecute people based on a genetic trait. Personally I see no difference between allowing Jews or Blacks to marry and allowing gays to marry.

 

When it comes to science, the whole moral thing is based on if there is a god. If it goes against "god's will" then its immoral, which is crap. God never said we couldn't genetically engineer things, or clone things, etc. anyway. Morality has already crippled psychological research because they have to inform you exactly what they'll be doing now, which spoils any of the data aquired.

[WITHTEETH]

Bah, everyone and everthing should be robot; person, tree, cake, chair, ALL would be better as robot, and problem affecting worlds today would be not in existant...but that's just my solution...that wont happen...ever...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I suggest reading Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dic k

It gets into what you were just explaining. great story also.

[Cantousent]

None of those issues is a science issue. ...Or, at least, I envision a "science" issue as one in which the question revolves around a factual thesis. For example, I propose that it is possible to abort a fetus before pregnancy comes to term. You argue that it is not possible, and therefore it is a scientific debate as we propose theories, conduct experiments, and finally one side or the other has an argument that creates consensus in the scientific community. Of course, later that might change, but in the meantime, it's more as less taken as fact.

 

A moral issue revolves around actions rather than theories. For instance, having established that it is possible to abort a fetus without killing the mother, then the question is: should we permit abortions? Should we encourage abortions? Should we, due to overpopulation, mandate abortions?

 

Blair is simply not a scientific issue. The war in Iraq is not a scientific issue. Gay rights, the UN, abortion -- none is a scientific issue.

 

Energy is a scientific issue inasmuch as it is a question of finding alternate sources of energy. Inasmuch as it is a question of drilling for oil in Alaska versus investing in windmills in the San Fernando Valley, then it is a policy issue. Inasmuch as the question of drilling in Alaska might be harmful to the wildlife, it is a moral issue.

 

Scientific evidence can be part of the moral argument, but it is not a question of science unless the science is in question.

 

Conversely, the argument regarding evolution is a scientific issue in which moral arguments impact a scientific question.

[Gorth]

Ladies and gentlemen, in the blue corner we present a representative of, erhh... whatever it is Bush presidents are known for:

 

"We need to balance science and Morals" - Bush

And in the red corner we have, magic loving and pointy eared:

 

Scientific evidence can be part of the moral argument, but it is not a question of science unless the science is in question.

One says science and morals need balance, the other says that one can be part of the other but doesn't necessarily make any sense on it's own (If I understood you correctly, feel free to correct me)...

 

Place your bets! :D

 

Now how to we get Mr. Bush to register here so he can participate in the discussion ?

[Cantousent]

LOL! I love it.

 

I think that's an accrute account of my argument. Science is just an attempt to understand the underlying realities of our existence. Morals provide a template for personal conduct. There are any number of quotes regarding the interaction betweens the science and morals of mankind.

[Gromnir]

http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/featur...jul/fritzhaber/

 

science w/o morals... is a recipe for tragedy.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorth]

http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/featur...jul/fritzhaber/

 

science w/o morals... is a recipe for tragedy.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Interesting reading.

 

"In fact, Fritz Haber, for many, personified the parodox of science, with all its potential for good and for evil."

 

Sums him up pretty well, although he's not alone in that particular club of scientists.

[Cantousent]

It seems that science describes what we can do. Morals describe what we should do.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Well I can say this; religion must NEVER be allowed to interfere with science. And neither shall "morale" founded in religious dogma.

[metadigital]

... God never said we couldn't genetically engineer things, or clone things, etc. anyway. ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Precisely. Ever since humans have grown crops they have been genetically engineering organisms, just not with the precision of actual gene therapy.

 

Mendell's laws were all about predicting genetic traits.

 

Think about sweet corn, for example. That is a genetically modified type of maize. (It has an altered genome that creates extra sugar in the flesh.) It was bred that way of many years, well before the furore over genetically modified crops took flight.

 

Sure we ought to be careful about the process, and understand the ramifications of what we do before charging headlong onwards. But there is no moral issue whatsoever involved with it. Even if we do give rabbits a bright green luminescence (hello, Alba).

[WITHTEETH]

Blair is simply not a scientific issue.  The war in Iraq is not a scientific issue.  Gay rights, the UN, abortion -- none is a scientific issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Jeezy chreezy Eldar, relax. the topic is morals remember? i was just trying to jump start it with other examples of where it could fly off.

 

Speaking of abortion, thats a tough issue to draw the line depending where your standing. am i crazy for thinking of everything as electricity? I beleive science to just explain the world around us. there is 3 parts of the brain developed by the 8th week. brain stem, mid brain, and forebrain. so in my own reality i see a fetus that as something without a mind yet. it might have a partial nervous system but its the womens body still and she should be able to decide whatever she wants. . it is sad too see any chance of life go i know, but if its to make a better life for a women in a overpopulated world then why not?

I know this is a very sensitive subject. i just wanted to state my own belief that women should have the right to choose. its a harsh reality but if you don't want an abortion dont have one. it has been around for longer then many can imagine. If you take another persons right to have one then young girls will be going to back ally doctors getting slaughtered.

[WITHTEETH]

Another link to the history

 

Another

 

A little history that was copied form the web if you would like to see.

 

In primitive tribal societies, abortions were induced by using poisonous herbs, sharp sticks, or by sheer pressure on the abdomen until vaginal bleeding occurred. Abortion techniques are described in the oldest known medical texts.2 The ancient Chinese and Egyptians had their methods and recipes to cause abortion, and Greek and Roman civilizations considered abortion an integral part of maintaining a stable population. Ancient instruments, such as the ones found at Pompeii and Herculaneum, were much like modern surgical instruments. The Greeks and Romans also had various poisons administered in various ways, including through tampons.

 

Socrates,4 Plato and Aristotle2 were all known to suggest abortion. Even Hippocrates, who spoke against abortion because he feared injury to the woman, recommended it on occasion by prescribing violent exercises.2 Roman morality placed no social stigma on abortion.

 

Early Christians condemned abortion, but did not view the termination of a pregnancy to be an abortion before "ensoulment", the definition of when life began in the womb. Up to 400 AD., as the relatively few Christians were widely scattered geographically, the actual practice of abortion among Christians probably varied considerably and was influenced by regional customs and practices.5

[Cantousent]

Well I can say this; religion must NEVER be allowed to interfere with science. And neither shall "morale" founded in religious dogma.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Science is man made just as much as morals. Oh, I can hear the howls right now... morals come from fairy tales and science comes from reality! Science is a man made device that interprets the nature of his environment. The world existed before man "created" science, and all the rules by which the universe works were all in place as well. Mankind's "Science" has taken for granted things in one age that were shown false or incomplete in another age. ...And there are things we take for granted today that the science of tomorrow will show false. That's the nature of trying to understand the nature of our universe.

 

...But science is a neutral tool. It doesn't describe actions. It merely identifies reality as best as humanly possible. So, no, religion must never be allowed to interfere with science since the function of science is meant to describe the nature of our surroundings.

 

Once the nature of our surroundings is ascertained, the hard task of deciding what we should do or how we should act. The abortion argument is an excellent example of this. I'll keep my innermost thoughts to myself for the time being on that issue, but I have strong feelings nonetheless. It would take much longer than I can spare right now to write them out adequately.

[FaramirK]

Morals? On an idividual level or for society as a whole? It's hard, because I would never want my personal moral standard imposed on anyone. However, it gives me a natural bias in some areas.

 

As far as science is concerned, I sort of lump it in with knowledge. You can't claim all knowledge, it just "is", but your bias will judge how you interpret the data.

 

Abortion

 

Personally, I believe that abortion involves killing a living human. Professionally, I advise against, Politically I oppose abortion on demand.

 

Gay Rights

 

Well, again, morality and liberty diverge...there is evidence to suggest that biology and choice plays a part in homosexual tendences. I don't believe that the state has the right to dictate or even comment on personal sexual preference between consenting adults. I personally disagree with the idea of "gay marriage" and gay couples adopting children.

 

UN

 

I don't think thats a moral issue...just an organization trying to keep us from destroying each other.

 

Iraq

 

Hmm...guilty until proven innocent? I'd like America to limit they're military excercises to coming to the aid of attacked nations, like the first Iraq war.

 

Blair

 

Ask a Brit...

 

Energy

 

Environmentally friendly, please. If you want to see calculated environmental destruction an industrial scale, come over here...

[Reveilled]

Righty. Here goes:

 

Abortion

I have no problem with abortion. It's the woman's body, and she should have a right to do what she wishes with it. That said, it's the woman's body, so if she wants something expensive done to it, she has to pay for it. I'm opposed to state-funding of abortions.

 

Gay Rights

It is none of the state's business what two consenting adults do, whether they are of the same or opposite sexes. This means that neither gays nor heterosexuals should have a "right" to marry, because marriage is outside of the scope of government. A marriage is between the two partners and (if they wish) God/dess. Many of the benefits granted to married couples should not be benefits at all, and the rest should be available to all citizens.

 

UN

A nice forum for debate, but I wouldn't trust an organisation filled with mass-murderers on things such as human rights any further than I could throw them. but that's a consequence of it being open to everyone.

 

Iraq

I had my own reasons for supporting the war, as we were removing a genocidal dictator. No matter how powerful, killers should be brought to justice wherever possible.

 

Blair

That said, I believe Mr. Blair lied about the existence of WMD in Iraq, and I have very dissimilar political beliefs. As such, I don't like the guy. Ken Clarke should be PM. He's a nice guy, and the British politician I trust the most. The Conservative's biggest mistake since Blair came to power has been to pass over him repeatedly, as I think if the British public had a choice between him and Blair, they'd pick Clark.

 

Energy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know enough about this whole Global Warming shindig to be suggesting policy on it, but Rosbjerg once presented me with some interesting evidence suggesting that carbon emissions weren't be biggest environmental problem we were facing. As such, I'd cautiously suggest that we look at ways of making fossil feuls safer (better oil spill safeguards, better refining techniques to remove non-carbon polluters from the feuls, at least until renewable methods become efficient and cost-effective enough to replace fossil feuls with a minimum of problems.

[FaramirK]

I have no problem with abortion.  It's the woman's body, and she should have a right to do what she wishes with it.

 

And what of the infants life? I think Abortion on demand cheapens the value of life.

[draakh_kimera]

Morals huh? Well, if you REALLY want to know what I would like to think, go read I. Kant's Groundworks to the Metaphysics of Morals and after that The Metaphysics of Morals. As for the morals of science and math, I highly doubt both the existence of such and the need for it.

 

Abortion

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The problem with abortion is that some people consider it "murder," while others do not. So what do morals say about it? Well, the argument can be tossed back and forth without end. I'm personally for abortion.

 

Gay Rights

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, they should be the same as "normal" rights. Gay marriage doesn't exactly bother me. What does bother me is their constant whining about having the right to adopt. That I AM against. I'd rather that kid's have a normal childhood.

 

UN

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The UN is politics, so applying morals isn't really a possibility.

 

Iraq

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Again, the war in Iraq is completely distanced from morality to begin with, so trying to apply "morals" becomes very subjective.

 

Energy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Um, safe, efficient, and not too environmentally dangerous. That being said, nuclear power is the way to go, as it fits those requirements better than anything else.

[draakh_kimera]

And what of the infants life? I think Abortion on demand cheapens the value of life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What if the woman was raped? Should she have to go through the ordeal of carrying around an infant for 9 months, give birth to it, and then most probably give it up for adoption because of the acts of some sick man?

 

Or, what if the woman in question is 14 years old? Should she have to go through pregnancy and then put it up for adoption or keep it and most probably suffer a lack of higher education cause she has a kid to take care of?

 

BTW, what do you mean with abortion on demand?

[FaramirK]

And what of the infants life? I think Abortion on demand cheapens the value of life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What if the woman was raped?

 

Lets make a clear distinction here. Pregnancy due to forced intercourse (A) and pregnancy due to consenting intercourse (B).

 

Should she have to go through the ordeal of carrying around an infant for 9 months, give birth to it, and then most probably give it up for adoption because of the acts of some sick man?

 

This is category A. Because I hold life to be sacred, I would advise that she put the baby up for adoption. However, due to the severe psychological stresses involved, I believe it is best in rape cases to leave the final choice up to the woman. That said, living with an abortion can also cause deep psychological distress. It is a very sensitive subject, and we can voice our opinion, but each case must be taken individually, and left up to the woman, in my opinion.

 

Or, what if the woman in question is 14 years old?  Should she have to go through pregnancy and then put it up for adoption or keep it and most probably suffer a lack of higher education cause she has a kid to take care of?

 

I am assuming this example is dealing with category B. Actions have consequences. Pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex. I would place the life of the child above her right to a good education, which she herself risked. I've always seen category B abortion as a liscence to tear up a bill instead of paying for it. People need to realise that the responsibility rests with them, and some responsibilities cannot be simply gotten rid of at a clinic. If you meant forced intercourse, see above.

 

BTW, what do you mean with abortion on demand?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Free and unregulated rights to abortion.

[Reveilled]

There are plenty of occasions on which we place a person's right to security of their body above somoene else's life. It is illegal to torture somoene, even if it would save someone else's life, even if the person we wish to torture was the one putting the person's life in jeopardy. Forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term is a cruel and unusual punishment.

 

It is the woman's body, and its her right to decide what to do with it. If that means that a clump of cells in her womb have to have their lives snuffed out, that's a shame, but so be it.

[FaramirK]

Forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term is a cruel and unusual punishment.

 

In the case of rape, fair enough. But otherwise, I don't see how pregnancy is "cruel and unusual punishment". People should accept their responsibility, not kill someone to cover it up. Life is sacred. What to you is "a bunch of cells" is to another a human life.

 

It is the woman's body, and its her right to decide what to do with it. 

 

Agreed, but I am still against Abotion in principle. And I agree with you that it shouldn't be paid for by the government.

[Reveilled]

Forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term is a cruel and unusual punishment.

 

In the case of rape, fair enough. But otherwise, I don't see how pregnancy is "cruel and unusual punishment". People should accept their responsibility, not kill someone to cover it up. Life is sacred. What to you is "a bunch of cells" is to another a human life.

 

Forcing someone to grow a parasite inside their body certainly stikes me as cruel and unusual. It requires them to change their lifestyle, causes sickness, and ends in several hours of excruciating pain. The extreme physical pain alone certainly makes it a coropal punishment, and we usually consider things like beatings and floggins cruel and unusual, so why not Labour?

[FaramirK]

Forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term is a cruel and unusual punishment.

 

In the case of rape, fair enough. But otherwise, I don't see how pregnancy is "cruel and unusual punishment". People should accept their responsibility, not kill someone to cover it up. Life is sacred. What to you is "a bunch of cells" is to another a human life.

 

Forcing someone to grow a parasite inside their body certainly stikes me as cruel and unusual. It requires them to change their lifestyle, causes sickness, and ends in several hours of excruciating pain. The extreme physical pain alone certainly makes it a coropal punishment, and we usually consider things like beatings and floggins cruel and unusual, so why not Labour?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To be blunt: It's not the babies fault the mother didn't know how to properly use birth control...she should take responsibility. Her rights do not extend to killing an inconvienient child.