Happy Atheist Forum

Community => Social Issues and Causes => Topic started by: billy rubin on February 10, 2021, 03:37:04 AM

Title: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: billy rubin on February 10, 2021, 03:37:04 AM
Quote from: Sandra Craft on February 09, 2021, 12:34:05 AM

The medical stuff I realize is emotionally touchier, but data doesn't have any moral value on its own -- only on how it's gotten and how it's used.  We didn't have any control over how that data was gotten (and frankly, not a lot of moral high ground over the Nazis on things like that either) but it should definitely be analyzed to determine if it has any beneficial use, and if it does, use it.  That strikes me as ironic justice.

i dunno.

what about snuff films. the ones where real people are lured into porno movies and then murdered in front of the camera? some people say they don't really exist, but what if they did?

could a genuinely artistic movie that included a murder be acceptable for release as a money maker?

this separation of works from workers gets pretty murky for me sometimes.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: xSilverPhinx on February 10, 2021, 11:05:12 AM
Quote from: billy rubin on February 10, 2021, 03:37:04 AM
could a genuinely artistic movie that included a murder be acceptable for release as a money maker?

Not according to most people, I'm certain of that.

Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: billy rubin on February 10, 2021, 12:07:44 PM
well then the murkiness continues.

an experiment where a jew is killed by induced hypothermia in an ice water tank generates useful data on hypothermia, but its not very different from a snuff film. one is art and the other is science, but thats the only difference that i can see
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: xSilverPhinx on February 10, 2021, 12:49:42 PM
Quote from: billy rubin on February 10, 2021, 12:07:44 PM
well then the murkiness continues.

an experiment where a jew is killed by induced hypothermia in an ice water tank generates useful data on hypothermia, but its not very different from a snuff film. one is art and the other is science, but thats the only difference that i can see

Is morality and ethics purely logical? I don't think so. :chin: If you try to apply purely logic to a question that isn't logical you're going to get your head in a knot.

Both examples are unacceptable in my mind. It isn't all that murky. Killing a person so that the effects of hypothermia can be studied would never get approved by any ethics committee today. It doesn't even make sense to go that far on a human being. Even killing a rat for science requires a strong scientific basis and justification and when approved, it must be humanely done. Killing someone to make a profitable film is even worse. Heck, even killing an animal for a movie is heinous.

We've come a long way since WW2. When submitting a research project to an ethics committee there is the principal of replacement (from the 3R's: Reuse, Replace and Refine) that must be considered. If you can study a question which is aversive or cause physical harm to subjects using an animal model instead of humans, that is preferable. Likewise, if you can use cells in a petri dish instead of a mammal like a rat, that is also preferable.

That being said, there are a number of past experiments that would not get green lit today but are useful in scientific terms. The Stanford prison experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment), for instance. Or the Little Albert experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Albert_experiment). They were performed and we can't change that now. But they're still important today.

Experiments that wouldn't get an ethical pass today such as the above and especially Nazi experiments should be analysed with scrutiny. Many aren't exactly known for being well designed and with conclusive results. Unfortunately victims of Nazi "scientific" endeavours likely died in vain just to satisfy the curiosity of ubermonsters and are not of much use in serious science. In that sense, it really isn't very different from sadistic people who seek pleasure from watching snuff films (if those truly exist) or even paedophile porn (which certainly does). 
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: Sandra Craft on February 10, 2021, 01:56:05 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on February 10, 2021, 11:05:12 AM
Quote from: billy rubin on February 10, 2021, 03:37:04 AM
could a genuinely artistic movie that included a murder be acceptable for release as a money maker?

Not according to most people, I'm certain of that.

Yeah, I would say there's a big difference between a snuff film and questionable research methods where the researcher was punished but the data used because it lead to a cure for something.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: xSilverPhinx on February 10, 2021, 02:31:31 PM
Quote from: Sandra Craft on February 10, 2021, 01:56:05 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on February 10, 2021, 11:05:12 AM
Quote from: billy rubin on February 10, 2021, 03:37:04 AM
could a genuinely artistic movie that included a murder be acceptable for release as a money maker?

Not according to most people, I'm certain of that.

Yeah, I would say there's a big difference between a snuff film and questionable research methods where the researcher was punished but the data used because it lead to a cure for something.

Agreed.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: billy rubin on February 10, 2021, 04:58:39 PM
if the snuff film is a work of art i don't see what the difference would be. both art and science are just different cultural activities of human societies. how should we treat them differently? is there a way to quantify how art and science co5mpare in value?

does a modern symphony have more or less value to society than a archeological journal article?

but anyway, here's the case i remember. the moral issues just aren't clear to me no matter which way i look at it.

Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.


much more here where i got it

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-ethics-of-using-medical-data-from-nazi-experiments

i'm not trying to dwell on nastiness, but the japanese did similar human experimentation in china. they used the results of their experiments to perfet their biological warfare campaign, arguably a moral good, from their point of view:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/unit-731-japans-secret-horrifying-human-experiments-175476
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: xSilverPhinx on February 10, 2021, 06:38:47 PM
A snuff film is a work of art? Really? In what way? I don't think recorded murder should be elevated to such status. 

One thing I forgot to mention is that biomedical journals will not accept a manuscript if it hasn't be approved by an ethics committee. So it makes sense that no serious journal would accept data obtained from Nazi experiments, which were clearly unethical by today's standards.

Ethics is taken very seriously if you want to publish in an academic journal. That's just how things work. "This is the way", as the Mandalorian would say.

Sorry but you are not allowed to view spoiler contents.


Whether it's moral to publish and use such experimental data is another question altogether, and depends on who you ask.   
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: billy rubin on February 11, 2021, 01:48:44 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on February 10, 2021, 06:38:47 PM
A snuff film is a work of art? Really? In what way? I don't think recorded murder should be elevated to such status. 

silver, we glorify causing people harm in media all the time. everything from monty python and the holy grail to el cid. what is or is not art is a completely subjective evaluation, one that i don't pretend to understand. i wouldn't let my kids watch lord of the rings movies until they were older because of the violence, and have similar feelings about harry potter moves. but images of harming people are commonplace in my culture, sadly. look atthe first few minutes of this lady gaga video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2smz_1L2_0

if we're willing to make dramatic art out of simulated harm, where is the artistic difference between that and real harm? i see real people killed in real life on news broadcasts. why not a snuff film? i can imagine a beautiful and artistic work of visual imagery that ends with someone dying or being maimed.

Quote

Whether it's moral to publish and use such experimental data is another question altogether, and depends on who you ask.

that's the important question, to my way of thinking. why should it depend on who you ask? is there no general consensus on what is right and wrong?

i just don't understand this right and wrong stuff. nothing about it is clear to me.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: Sandra Craft on February 11, 2021, 01:58:12 AM
Quote from: billy rubin on February 11, 2021, 01:48:44 AM
if we're willing to make dramatic art out of simulated harm, where is the artistic difference between that and real harm?

Here's the problem then -- if you can't see the difference between real and enacted harm there's no way of explaining it to you.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: billy rubin on February 11, 2021, 02:19:41 AM
Quote from: Sandra Craft on February 11, 2021, 01:58:12 AM
Quote from: billy rubin on February 11, 2021, 01:48:44 AM
if we're willing to make dramatic art out of simulated harm, where is the artistic difference between that and real harm?

Here's the problem then -- if you can't see the difference between real and enacted harm there's no way of explaining it to you.

i guess so. i honestly don't understand how watching simulated harm is acceptable-- entertaining, even--  while real harm is somehow forbidden. what's the difference, to the observer?.

here's one that bothered me. watching people's heads explode while set to artistic music and imagery. it's not a dramatic depitcion, it's a celebration of violent death.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD24VY0YWdQ

i find this very disturbing, and i don't know how to think of it in any other way.


Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: xSilverPhinx on February 11, 2021, 10:39:10 AM
Quote from: Sandra Craft on February 11, 2021, 01:58:12 AM
Quote from: billy rubin on February 11, 2021, 01:48:44 AM
if we're willing to make dramatic art out of simulated harm, where is the artistic difference between that and real harm?

Here's the problem then -- if you can't see the difference between real and enacted harm there's no way of explaining it to you.

:this:

Billy rubin, the difference is that in enacted harm no real harm is done, and that's a big difference. Violent movies, video games, etc., they're not real and mature people in general have no problem distinguishing them from real violence and so don't need to be protected/shielded from it.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: billy rubin on February 11, 2021, 01:25:53 PM
maybe so. i think there is a causal link between acceptance of simulated harm and acceptance of real harm, though. watching something on a screen tends to make it acceptable in real life. thats how advertizing works, after all.

but its a side point. i think the heart transplant metaphor resolvez my difficuties with nazi war data tho. thats the one that imagines a dying person waiting for a transplant. when the heart arrives, it is discovered that it came from a man murdered for his organs. everybody is arrested and taken away, but the heart and the dying man are still there. should the surgeon use the heart to save a life?

this is similar to the nazi data, and i would say yes, use the heart and use the data. both arrived in poor circumstances but are morally neutral in themselves.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: Davin on February 16, 2021, 03:18:13 PM
That's a small picture view though, of one instance. If people see that they can murder people for their organs, then it opens up a path for people to exploit. And it's not going to be the poor people or the common person that will benefit from the exploitation.

If data from unscrupulous experiments is accepted, then that opens up a path for exploitation. And even here in the US we don't have a very good track record for that kind of behavior. See exposing people to nuclear fallout without telling them that it is dangerous. See the Syphilis experimentation on black people in Macon County. Etc.

For the good of all people, especially the more easily exploited, a line needs to be drawn about how we used human organs and data obtained by hurting people without their consent.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: Davin on February 16, 2021, 03:22:41 PM
I would also add, against the point of using of data derived by torturing and killing people, that if the data is so important, then we can plan out less harmful studies to gain the so badly needed data and then use that.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: No one on February 16, 2021, 08:51:01 PM
Who are we sniffing out?

I'd be ok with, and even outwardly celebrate:
Trump
McConnell
Kiddie diddlers
Rapists
Graham
Any member of the kkk, isis, proud boys, or any other group of inbred ass backward fucktards
Cruz
Anyone responsible for the death of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Ronell Foster, Jordan Edwards, the goes on
Trump
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: Ecurb Noselrub on March 01, 2021, 01:22:00 PM
Quote from: No one on February 16, 2021, 08:51:01 PM
Who are we sniffing out?

I'd be ok with, and even outwardly celebrate:
Trump
McConnell
Kiddie diddlers
Rapists
Graham
Any member of the kkk, isis, proud boys, or any other group of inbred ass backward fucktards
Cruz
Anyone responsible for the death of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Ronell Foster, Jordan Edwards, the goes on
Trump

Don't forget Trump.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: Old Seer on March 05, 2021, 10:16:39 PM
Morals is the same as what makes one human. There's morals by intent and immorals by intent. Then there's "static" morals, when a person or society is immoral without realization of it. A society based on morality normally believes their immorality is moral, and very likely passed from a previous generation.  Selective morals is when one is moral but approves immorality upon those they hate, oft times under a guise of it's moral to punish, cause suffering or harm, on those they hate. Then there's the concept of-it's moral to harm those they deem immoral which amounts to morality of convenience. An action cannot be immoral, only a person can, the action originates from the mind and is due to the will or ignorance of a person.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: billy rubin on March 05, 2021, 10:47:41 PM
i don't believe in morals.

what people call morals are generally self-serving excuses for what they would be doing anyway.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: Old Seer on March 06, 2021, 12:03:41 AM
Quote from: billy rubin on March 05, 2021, 10:47:41 PM
i don't believe in morals.

what people call morals are generally self-serving excuses for what they would be doing anyway.
That may be because they're immoral. Morals basically are a relationship regulator. If there were one person in the world there would be no morals. If/when another person enters the world morals come into existence. :-)
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: Icarus on March 06, 2021, 12:14:05 AM
Morals  are what a particular individual or associated group of individuals say that they are.  Sort of subjective one might observe.  Not to suggest that those individuals invariably practice their moral announcements.

Attila the Hun and Joan of Arc had a different set of rules that some might call  moral differences. 

I am amused, sadly amused, that so many outed (mostly not outed and carefully concealed)married fundamentalist preachers  have indulged in carnal knowledge with one of the nice innocent ladies in his congregation, or his teen aged church secretary.   That is the long ago story of how and why, among other experiences, I became an atheist.   

But perhaps this thread intends to be more about socially accepted norms as a measure of morality................

Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: Randy on March 06, 2021, 01:21:43 AM
Quote from: Icarus on March 06, 2021, 12:14:05 AM
Morals  are what a particular individual or associated group of individuals say that they are.  Sort of subjective one might observe.  Not to suggest that those individuals invariably practice their moral announcements.

Attila the Hun and Joan of Arc had a different set of rules that some might call  moral differences. 

I am amused, sadly amused, that so many outed (mostly not outed and carefully concealed)married fundamentalist preachers  have indulged in carnal knowledge with one of the nice innocent ladies in his congregation, or his teen aged church secretary.   That is the long ago story of how and why, among other experiences, I became an atheist.   

But perhaps this thread intends to be more about socially accepted norms as a measure of morality................
And even then it depends on the mass of people who think a certain way is moral despite the rest of the world. I think morality is highly subjective.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: billy rubin on March 06, 2021, 02:25:58 AM
Quote from: Old Seer on March 06, 2021, 12:03:41 AM
That may be because they're immoral. Morals basically are a relationship regulator. If there were one person in the world there would be no morals. If/when another person enters the world morals come into existence. :-)

its  deceit that comes into existence with two people in the world.

not morals.

morals exist with one person in the world.

if morals exist.

IMHO
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: Old Seer on March 06, 2021, 04:31:57 AM
Deceit would be immoral. Honesty would be moral. There must be more then one person for there to be morals + or -. There must be more then one person to be human. Morals maintains one's humanity. Immorals makes enemy, inhumanity. 
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: Old Seer on March 06, 2021, 03:28:25 PM
Quote from: Old Seer on March 06, 2021, 04:31:57 AM
Deceit would be immoral. Honesty would be moral. There must be more then one person for there to be morals + or -. There must be more then one person to be human. Morals maintains one's humanity. Immorals makes enemy, inhumanity.
Back to the main side of the topic. What it amounts to is, should we do immoral things to bring about benefits of the immorality, or should the benefits of an immoral undertaking be used. Universal law dictates there is no choice. If someone is in danger of great harm it would be immoral "not" to use what was learned from immoral conduct to alleviate the situation for that person. Morals must work along with knowledge gained. No one can readjust how the universe is constructed so we're trapped by existing within it and subject to it.

What civilization do is attempt the adjust nature (universal law) to make things work that the way they want, but it always fails. Normally it will develop into a quest for immortality which also always fails. One of the themes of the Nazis was the search for immortality. The far easterners tried eating raw fish before the cells died thinking the life force would be taken up by the body and crate immortality. We can see that it failed as all that thought so have died since. That's where eating raw fish developed by becoming an acquired taste. The Nazis were big in the search for immortality. Immoral processes were undertaken in the search. Inhumane mentality had to be in use to do such things. The first requirement then to do such things was to be inhuman/immoral. So, should we use knowledge acquired by immoral processes--I say yes, because the knowledge has been gained. Knowledge gained becomes a liability while ignorance cannot be libel. There's a point where one must accept universal law and not tamper in inhumane conduct.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: Randy on March 06, 2021, 04:42:20 PM
Speaking of Nazis -- I wonder if those who ran the concentration camps and exterminated Jews felt it was their moral obligation? The same thing with slavery here in the US. The majority of the world sees these acts as immoral now but years ago many thought nothing of it.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: xSilverPhinx on March 06, 2021, 07:34:35 PM
Quote from: Randy on March 06, 2021, 04:42:20 PM
Speaking of Nazis -- I wonder if those who ran the concentration camps and exterminated Jews felt it was their moral obligation? The same thing with slavery here in the US. The majority of the world sees these acts as immoral now but years ago many thought nothing of it.

I think they dehumanised those groups of people to such an extent that moral obligation didn't even factor in. They did it because those groups were seen as less than human, and being less than human, could be treated as if they were roaches.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: Randy on March 07, 2021, 01:13:34 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 06, 2021, 07:34:35 PM
Quote from: Randy on March 06, 2021, 04:42:20 PM
Speaking of Nazis -- I wonder if those who ran the concentration camps and exterminated Jews felt it was their moral obligation? The same thing with slavery here in the US. The majority of the world sees these acts as immoral now but years ago many thought nothing of it.

I think they dehumanised those groups of people to such an extent that moral obligation didn't even factor in. They did it because those groups were seen as less than human, and being less than human, could be treated as if they were roaches.
A mass brain washing perhaps. I think it's kind of like the siege on Capitol Hill. Did their morals change about breaking and entering? Were they simply a part of mob mentality? Does any of that excuse the morality, or lack thereof, of their actions?
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: xSilverPhinx on March 07, 2021, 01:33:19 AM
Quote from: Randy on March 07, 2021, 01:13:34 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 06, 2021, 07:34:35 PM
Quote from: Randy on March 06, 2021, 04:42:20 PM
Speaking of Nazis -- I wonder if those who ran the concentration camps and exterminated Jews felt it was their moral obligation? The same thing with slavery here in the US. The majority of the world sees these acts as immoral now but years ago many thought nothing of it.

I think they dehumanised those groups of people to such an extent that moral obligation didn't even factor in. They did it because those groups were seen as less than human, and being less than human, could be treated as if they were roaches.
A mass brain washing perhaps. I think it's kind of like the siege on Capitol Hill. Did their morals change about breaking and entering? Were they simply a part of mob mentality? Does any of that excuse the morality, or lack thereof, of their actions?

Yes I think so. There could also be other factors at play, such as  the Bystander Effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect). There's something about mob mentality and large groups of people moving in one direction that really seem to result in each individual in the group being a total idiot.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: billy rubin on March 07, 2021, 01:35:34 AM
i read teh capture and trial of adalf eichmann as a child. still available

https://www.amazon.com/Capture-Trial-Adolf-Eichmann/dp/B0000CM1UR

but this is more germane

QuoteBanality of evil is a phrase coined by Hannah Arendt in the title of her 1963 work Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.[1] Her thesis is that the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths, but by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal.

Explaining this phenomenon, Edward S. Herman has emphasized the importance of "normalizing the unthinkable." According to him, "doing terrible things in an organized and systematic way rests on 'normalization.' This is the process whereby ugly, degrading, murderous, and unspeakable acts become routine and are accepted as 'the way things are done.'"[2]

the thing about eichmann that she emphasized was that he went about th ebusiness of exteminating jews with the dispassion of a storeclerk. there was no drama or emotion, it was just the same as counting change or sweeping the sidewalk.

eitchmann personally killed only one jew-- a small boy he caught in his garden stealing apples from his tree. he beat the boy to deatyh with a walking stick. all the rest of the stuff was totally separate frpom any emotional involvemebt.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: Old Seer on March 07, 2021, 03:54:24 PM
Quote from: Icarus on March 06, 2021, 12:14:05 AM
Morals  are what a particular individual or associated group of individuals say that they are.  Sort of subjective one might observe.  Not to suggest that those individuals invariably practice their moral announcements.

Attila the Hun and Joan of Arc had a different set of rules that some might call  moral differences. 

I am amused, sadly amused, that so many outed (mostly not outed and carefully concealed)married fundamentalist preachers  have indulged in carnal knowledge with one of the nice innocent ladies in his congregation, or his teen aged church secretary.   That is the long ago story of how and why, among other experiences, I became an atheist.   

But perhaps this thread intends to be more about socially accepted norms as a measure of morality................
I'd say you are correct under the present circumstances of societies. Every one has their standard of morals, but morals must be a constant and have a base meaning or it's not morals. If morals can be anyone's description then there's no such thing as morals, when it can be seen that there are. The application of morals is what burdens people place upon another. A moral person is reluctant to place others in harm of one's own doings. Civilizations depend on the harm of each other in order for it to function, meaning that its an immoral social structure by default. The rulership over each other for gain is steeped in immorality. All wish to be free persons and live their own life according to their own determinations.

This is something we learnt.

It's an immoral process to infringe upon another's right for of self existence for one's own purposes. Immorality is anything one does that's harmful to another person in any manner for any purpose. It is an intrusion and an attempt to overtake the freedoms of another. Any such attempt would constitute immorality, as all are entitled to their personal natural freedoms on a natural equal basis. Civilization intrudes on one's freedoms to serve a central cause, producing a static immorality where the meaning of morals becomes lost in the concept and becomes a normal process and necessity for a civilization to exist.

Source of information.

Example: As it has been said, As Nimrod a mighty hunter before the lord. Nimrod instituted civilization for a certain region in the middle east saying to build his city to above the heights of the heavens. Nimrod gathers the people to his central cause recreating the people to an artificial person from natural person. A civilized person is not a natural person, made according to the mandates of people rather than remaining under the powers of being natural. The people were duped into becoming like Nimrod the predator (Capitalists) and set to the mandates of Nimrod. Today this is still the mandates of civilization, to subdue each other for profit in a predator prey system of life, where-under each seeks to dominant and use others for self gain. Laws are created to regulate the harm/immorality. The waters above the firmament in creation denote the the immoral (animalistic) (above the heights of the heavens) mental characteristics of person, creating an immoral contract between the rulers and the ruled, because it is immoral to seek powers over others which is an attempt to interfere in the personal freedom of another for one's own gains.
One can then understand why civilizations all end, as immorality is the cause of the undoing of the contract, and no civilization can be without failure as civilization is a division of powers that cannot be sustained, as all participants are friend and foe alike.
People of ancient times understood quite a bit more then given credit for.
(as per our psychologists)
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: Randy on March 07, 2021, 09:02:46 PM
Something just occurred to me. Abortion. Is it moral? The country is heavily divided on that topic. It all depends on one's point of view I suppose. But here, morality is subjective.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: billy rubin on March 07, 2021, 11:17:27 PM
that all depends on the premises going in. whether an abortion is moral or not is an easy decision once you decide which criteria should be used to evaluate th eaction.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: Davin on March 09, 2021, 05:30:16 PM
Like a lot of moral "problems" there is a better solution that works out for almost everyone. As mentioned before, the knowledge gained from research derived from exploiting people can be obtained in a way that doesn't exploit people. We can do good research while causing the least amount of harm. But people are still here acting like the only two choices are to use or not use the research.

Oh great, yet another abortion moral argument. Like we haven't had a few hundred of those already. I swear this is like Godwin's Law. How many posts does it take in a discussion of morality before abortion is brought up?
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: Recusant on March 09, 2021, 06:54:33 PM
Rape seems to give heavy competition to abortion in that sweepstakes. I ranted about that (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=2765.msg76354#msg76354) here over ten years ago.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: xSilverPhinx on March 09, 2021, 07:10:52 PM
Quote from: Recusant on March 09, 2021, 06:54:33 PM
...over ten years ago.

Impressive memory! I can barely remember what I ranted about yesterday.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: Old Seer on March 09, 2021, 09:06:36 PM
Quote from: Randy on March 07, 2021, 09:02:46 PM
Something just occurred to me. Abortion. Is it moral? The country is heavily divided on that topic. It all depends on one's point of view I suppose. But here, morality is subjective.
One question is, what justifies it? If for one it's immoral and to another not it's then a question of morals entering into the works. You may find the answer in the beginning question.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: Bad Penny II on March 10, 2021, 11:05:37 AM
Quote from: Davin on March 09, 2021, 05:30:16 PM
Like a lot of moral "problems" there is a better solution that works out for almost everyone. As mentioned before, the knowledge gained from research derived from exploiting people can be obtained in a way that doesn't exploit people. We can do good research while causing the least amount of harm. But people are still here acting like the only two choices are to use or not use the research.

Oh great, yet another abortion moral argument. Like we haven't had a few hundred of those already. I swear this is like Godwin's Law. How many posts does it take in a discussion of morality before abortion is brought up?

I don't know, how many?
It is an extreme  thing, is it surprising it keeps coming up? it is an interesting issue.
I'm OK with a woman aborting a foetus.
If a mother is hurting her three month old I'd probably be OK with retribution
If a mother kills her three month old I'm not in a hurry to punish, she probably had issues.
I'm OK with leaving unwanted children in the woods and letting the gods decide their fate.
In my judgment there are too many people and society doesn't have a good record of looking after by-blows.
China's one child policy, ye great, although I had two...
India's efforts, cruel as they may seem I quietly applaud.
Yet I  accept the moral principle that people shouldn't kill people, but it's only a guideline really.
I feel someone shouldn't be able force another to go through a pregnancy for the usual liberal reasons.
If I had a vial that on release would limit, force all woman to have no more than two children, I'd release it.
Thou shalt not kill, is it rule one?
Let's argue the definition, it's not really a person yet.
It's not a bad approach but as I've said, I'm an extremophile, if you don't think you can/don't want to nurture a child as Patsy says, "ABORT".



extremophile: (biology) an organism that lives under extreme conditions of temperature, salinity, acidity, etc.

Shut up Green, I'm expanding the definition.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: Bad Penny II on March 10, 2021, 11:39:22 AM
Quote from: Recusant on March 09, 2021, 06:54:33 PM
Rape seems to give heavy competition to abortion in that sweepstakes. I ranted about that (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=2765.msg76354#msg76354) here over ten years ago.

I enjoyed reading the beginning of that thread, I think the forum has slipped a bit since 2008.



So Britney was raped in parliament house.
Our prime minister's wife Jenny explained to him why he should be concerned, think of your daughters.

Assumedly he has never had a sister, or a mother or a female friend, not much regard for females in general unless Jenny explains why he should.

A woman started action against the federal Solicitor General last year for an alleged rape that happened years ago when she was sixteen and he was seventeen.  Covid and things got in the way an she killed herself, probably.
She's dead, The Solicitor General is off the hook says Prime Minister Morrison, the law, the sacred law says so, I don't know what Jenny had to say.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: Bad Penny II on March 10, 2021, 02:09:43 PM
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: Randy on March 11, 2021, 05:18:51 AM
Quote from: Davin on March 09, 2021, 05:30:16 PM
Like a lot of moral "problems" there is a better solution that works out for almost everyone. As mentioned before, the knowledge gained from research derived from exploiting people can be obtained in a way that doesn't exploit people. We can do good research while causing the least amount of harm. But people are still here acting like the only two choices are to use or not use the research.

Oh great, yet another abortion moral argument. Like we haven't had a few hundred of those already. I swear this is like Godwin's Law. How many posts does it take in a discussion of morality before abortion is brought up?
It wasn't my intention to talk about abortion. I wanted to introduce a grey area where half the US is for it while the other half is not. Is morality subjective was my point.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: No one on March 11, 2021, 03:15:12 PM
My thoughts on abortion:
If you are not the pregnant woman, you have no lines in that play.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: Davin on March 11, 2021, 03:37:34 PM
Quote from: Randy on March 11, 2021, 05:18:51 AM
Quote from: Davin on March 09, 2021, 05:30:16 PM
Like a lot of moral "problems" there is a better solution that works out for almost everyone. As mentioned before, the knowledge gained from research derived from exploiting people can be obtained in a way that doesn't exploit people. We can do good research while causing the least amount of harm. But people are still here acting like the only two choices are to use or not use the research.

Oh great, yet another abortion moral argument. Like we haven't had a few hundred of those already. I swear this is like Godwin's Law. How many posts does it take in a discussion of morality before abortion is brought up?
It wasn't my intention to talk about abortion. I wanted to introduce a grey area where half the US is for it while the other half is not. Is morality subjective was my point.
Introducing a "moral grey area" does not demonstrate that morality is subjective. It's not uncommon to find a large portion of a sample to be wrong about something. See the [Monty Hall Problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem)] for example. Even though it can be mathematically proven and objectively demonstrated that switching increases your odds for success, people still incorrectly think that there is no difference between switching or sticking with the original. You wanted to introduce a grey area to show that morality is subjective, but maybe you're simply exposing the difference between people who accept facts, science, and reality and people who don't.

I don't think that morality is wholly subjective. Harm can very often be objectively demonstrated, as can benefits.
Title: Re: Ethics, Science, Art - where do we draw the line? (Split from Shermer rape allegations thread)
Post by: Randy on March 11, 2021, 07:03:10 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 11, 2021, 03:37:34 PM
Quote from: Randy on March 11, 2021, 05:18:51 AM
Quote from: Davin on March 09, 2021, 05:30:16 PM
Like a lot of moral "problems" there is a better solution that works out for almost everyone. As mentioned before, the knowledge gained from research derived from exploiting people can be obtained in a way that doesn't exploit people. We can do good research while causing the least amount of harm. But people are still here acting like the only two choices are to use or not use the research.

Oh great, yet another abortion moral argument. Like we haven't had a few hundred of those already. I swear this is like Godwin's Law. How many posts does it take in a discussion of morality before abortion is brought up?
It wasn't my intention to talk about abortion. I wanted to introduce a grey area where half the US is for it while the other half is not. Is morality subjective was my point.
Introducing a "moral grey area" does not demonstrate that morality is subjective. It's not uncommon to find a large portion of a sample to be wrong about something. See the [Monty Hall Problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem)] for example. Even though it can be mathematically proven and objectively demonstrated that switching increases your odds for success, people still incorrectly think that there is no difference between switching or sticking with the original. You wanted to introduce a grey area to show that morality is subjective, but maybe you're simply exposing the difference between people who accept facts, science, and reality and people who don't.

I don't think that morality is wholly subjective. Harm can very often be objectively demonstrated, as can benefits.
That makes sense. I never thought to look at it that way. Thanks!