Notices
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Can unethical actions be right from a natural order POV?

  1. #1 Can unethical actions be right from a natural order POV? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    409
    How many examples you knows of unethical actions that are 100% right from a scientific point of view?

    1. I suppose women confined to be household robots during almost all human history are not one.
    2. An schizophrenic bomber killed by 10 hidden shooters before he could activate the bomb seems a valid example. He could be a victim of the health system.
    But if a psychopatic ingredient is involved (highly probable), it couldn't be considered an unethical action.

    3. The only example i know of unethical action but absolutely necesary at the same time, is the industrial consumption of meat (see what i wrote on animal reasoning, etc, in the thread Ovo-lacto-vegetarianism is safe?), not milk or eggs.

    I find fascinant the fact that ethics could not always be compatible with strict rational thinking, and science.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by bezoar View Post
    1. I suppose women confined to be household robots during almost all human history are not one.
    I mean of course not, was a crime.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,922
    Quote Originally Posted by bezoar View Post
    How many examples you knows of unethical actions that are 100% right from a scientific point of view?
    What does science have to do with ethics?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bezoar View Post
    How many examples you knows of unethical actions that are 100% right from a scientific point of view?
    What does science have to do with ethics?
    I referred to a strict rational perspective. Or theoric scientific thought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by bezoar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bezoar View Post
    How many examples you knows of unethical actions that are 100% right from a scientific point of view?
    What does science have to do with ethics?
    I referred to a strict rational perspective. Or theoric scientific thought.
    From a strictly rational perspective, you would become a psychopath and do whatever benefits yourself. You would get away with whatever crimes you are capable of committing without getting caught. Wouldn't you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,922
    Quote Originally Posted by bezoar View Post
    I referred to a strict rational perspective. Or theoric scientific thought.
    That is philosophy (*) not science.

    (*) The acceptable face of philosophy, at that. The thing it is good at.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,922
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    From a strictly rational perspective, you would become a psychopath and do whatever benefits yourself. You would get away with whatever crimes you are capable of committing without getting caught. Wouldn't you?
    Depends what your premises are. And that is why it is philosophy, not science. You can get any result you want from a "purely rational" approach by choosing the right premises.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bezoar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bezoar View Post
    How many examples you knows of unethical actions that are 100% right from a scientific point of view?
    What does science have to do with ethics?
    I referred to a strict rational perspective. Or theoric scientific thought.
    From a strictly rational perspective, you would become a psychopath and do whatever benefits yourself. You would get away with whatever crimes you are capable of committing without getting caught. Wouldn't you?
    Psychopaths are mentally disturbed persons, victims of society and/or of their own biology. Human society is an interrelated ecosystem, psychopaths damage, parasitize that system, they are the exception. It is impossible to conceive a society where 50% of its population are prisonless law violators.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    409
    The point is: to mention real/possible situations where an unethical action is absolutely necesary (at least as conceived by the limited, human rational thinking), ergo ethically right.

    This is one example:

    Ramón Sampedro (5 January 1943 – 12 January 1998) was a Spanish fisherman and writer. Sampedro became a quadriplegic at the age of 25 (23 August 1968), following a diving accident, and fought for his right to an assisted suicide for the next 29 years.
    Ramón Sampedro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    There were other choices apart of assisted suicide? Be a painter using the mouth...but who knows if he had the innate ability, apart of the crushing depression he suffered.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by bezoar View Post
    The point is: to mention real/possible situations where an unethical action is absolutely necesary (at least as conceived by the limited, human rational thinking), ergo ethically right.

    This is one example:

    Ramón Sampedro (5 January 1943 – 12 January 1998) was a Spanish fisherman and writer. Sampedro became a quadriplegic at the age of 25 (23 August 1968), following a diving accident, and fought for his right to an assisted suicide for the next 29 years.
    Ramón Sampedro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    There were other choices apart of assisted suicide? Be a painter using the mouth...but who knows if he had the innate ability, apart of the crushing depression he suffered.
    You can use science to calculate the dose of potassium cyanide needed to kill Ramon Sampedro. I don't know how you would use science to decide if the dose should be administered.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    409
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    You can use science to calculate the dose of potassium cyanide needed to kill Ramon Sampedro. I don't know how you would use science to decide if the dose should be administered.
    Science not, rational thinking yes. He fought for his right to an assisted suicide for the next 29 years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    409
    I apologyse for mention the consumption of meat, know it bothers you. But i dont know more than 2-3 real or possible cases
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by bezoar View Post
    I apologyse for mention the consumption of meat, know it bothers you. But i dont know more than 2-3 real or possible cases
    No, it doesn't bother me. I just used it as an example of how my rational thinking can be used to come to the exact opposite conclusion as your rational thinking - since we do not share the same objective.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3
    Science can explain how we got here and how things will probably proceed in the future. Our meaning of the world and how it is meant to be is up to us.. not science. My ethics are based on suffering. But not solely suffering. Everything must be viewed from a multitude of contexts. Science being a framework for decision. Ethics... now that's a simple way to communicate altruism. Our consideration for others (specifically our genetic family) is how our species has survived. It is in our genes to be driven to help others while and help ourselves of course, we are afterall 100% our own genes. It disturbs me when ethics are only considered for humans.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by evolutionary1 View Post
    It disturbs me when ethics are only considered for humans.
    Do you mean it disturbs you that animals do not have ethics, or that humans are not sufficently altruistic toward animals?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by bezoar View Post
    How many examples you knows of unethical actions that are 100% right from a scientific point of view?
    .
    Your mistake is in thinking that there exists any kind of objective morality. Morality or ethics is exclusively subjective. That means trying to determine the ethic value of happenings outside of our experience is committing a fallacy. Instead of thinking if about the ethics of the "natural order of things", consider that the natural order of things is that there is no objective morality.

    Science is not concerned with ethics. It can be used to inform ethics, but not as a source of ethics. Logically and scientifically, we could put a huge dent in world hunger right now by feeding the dead to the starving. Our subjective sense of ethics tell us (most of us) that that is not an acceptable solution. Similarly, logically and scientifically, we could also solve world hunger by simply sharing around resources. Our subjective sensibilities tell us (most of us) that that is an unacceptable course of action. In both cases our subjective sense of ethics and morality is actively killing people, the antipode of your thread title.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Is Suicide Unethical?
    By pmb in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: December 19th, 2012, 11:44 PM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 30th, 2012, 08:20 PM
  3. Thoughts, Actions, and Consciousness
    By snapcracker in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: August 7th, 2010, 10:37 PM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: May 26th, 2009, 08:26 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •