Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Re: Wrong or impossible

Expand Messages
  • Aija Veldre Beldavs
    ... i agree with what you ve said in your paragraph, except that the cited example behavior is (just) determined by law. even if there were no legal
    Message 1 of 13 , Mar 31, 2005
      > ethics does limit science, or at least it should. it is not ethical
      > to do uninformed or non-consenting experiments on human subjects, for
      > example.why? because you wouldn't want that done to you and you can
      > imagine being in someone else's place. aija

      > This is not the kind of ethical limitation I am referencing here. Your
      > examples are issues determined by law, but then so is the death
      > penalty in Texas. This is not an ethical question at all. In fact one
      > cannot determine if such a proposition would be ethical or not without
      > a fundamental existential ethic, something which we have thus far
      > found very difficult to develop as a species. Trinidad

      i agree with what you've said in your paragraph, except that the cited
      example behavior is (just) determined by law. even if there were no legal
      consequences, significant numbers of people would not want to do
      experiments on non-consenting or uninformed subjects because of other
      values and experiences that have developed in a relationship of empathy &
      tradition. for that matter many wouldn't do harmful experiments even if
      the subjects agreed to it (because they were say psychologically
      unbalanced or otherwise tricked).

      even if there are legal consequences, others find ways around the law if
      it is profitable to them, or just ignore it. they shut out the
      consequences as irrelevant to them (refuse to empathize). sometimes it's
      justified (buyer beware, victim is at fault, etc.) or else not.

      i'm all for working on an existential ethic. otoh i'm rather skeptical
      how quickly or broadly it would spread, given that an "honorable" person
      doesn't need the law to be "honorable," but a "dishonorable" person will
      not be limited by law...


      > We judge according to circumstance, and what little ethical capacity we
      > are possessed of has arisen entirely from our scientific natural view of
      > existence. We have no other information. Even from within the delusion
      > of religion the root ethic is a materialistic or naturalistic view of
      > existence. We are all naturally scientific and it is that basis from
      > which we derive all our other formulations including ethics regardless
      > of how far flung.
      > Trinidad
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.