Viewing 5 reply threads
  • Author
    • #546

      I just wanted to get everyone in perspective before people go nuts on the “Ethics” threads.

      Humans are the only animals that have a sense of “ethics.” When an animal considers performing any action, its only thought is:

      “Will this help me live or reproduce?”

      This simple question is the closest thing to ethics that any non-human organism has. One animal thinks nothing of stealing food from another if it increases the survivability of that animal. Another animal will forcefully procreate with another of its species if that is the only way it is able to reproduce.

      To some extent, this philosophy is applied to humans as well. Follow this bizarre, yet applicable example:

      1. A woman wants to find a man to marry
      2. To find a man to marry, a woman “must” make herself “attractive” to men.
      3. To make herself “attractive,” a woman “must” wear makeup.
      4. To make “better” makeup, testing is done on animals to ensure makeup quality.

      By the logic of “Will this help me live or reproduce?” then cosmetic testing on animals is perfectly ethical.

      Disclaimer: I am not being chauvenist, sexist, or any of the like. The survival/reproduction philosophy IS used in all non-human organisms, and my example was helping to relate the topic of Animal Testing to this.

      The point I am trying to make is that in biology, ethics are left to the People. A biologist…any IDEAL scientist is completely devoid of any emotion toward his or her work. Why don’t biologists do human testing without consent? Because the People/Governments tell them they are not allowed to do that.

      The ideal scientist makes any attempt to learn anything he or she can within the limits of what the People permit them to do.

      Does this happen in real life? Of course not. Any scientist has feelings toward their work. But theoritically, they are not supposed to.


    • #20618

      That last line was exactly what i was goin to post. Even if it was permitted to kill humans in order to find the cure for AIDS, would you do it? Would you kill another man in cold blood? If this were true, serial killers were prime material for research 😀 😀

    • #20624

      Yes, humans are unlike any other species, if we were to have the primary goal as survival of the species, then we wouldn’t worry about the ethics of testing cures on humans. We are the only species that has emotions that overide our primative urges. Surely these emotions are not evolutionary beneficial? Maybe this will lead to our downfall? 🙄

    • #20628

      Andrew: No

      James: No

      I love one word answers 🙂
      But not enough to prevent myself from droning on for another few minutes 😉

      No, I would not kill another human to find the cure for AIDS…mainly because I took a vow of pacifism :). But I DO recognise that my own pacifistic tendancies are NOT what other people believe in. Do I hate war? Yes. Do I think soldiers are bad people for killing people in war? No. Would I do it? No. Would I try to stop others from doing so? Nope 🙂 Pacifism is MY ideal, not theirs…

      No, I don’t think idealism will lead to the humans’ downfall. Basically, emotions that override our primitive urges developed because we dominate our enviornment enough to afford to feel emotion. Emotions and Idealologies are LUXURIES. Not weaknesses. (Yes, there’s probably a million of you who disagree with that last statement…but it’s my opinion, and just an opinion 🙂 ).

    • #20634

      Individuals may choose what they will but humans as a specie cannot decide to cease to exist. If the time comes when we need to kill people to find cures for deadly epidemics, there might not be an ethical choice.

    • #20704

      I think, we are not following all the rules of nature , but some are followed by us eg. willling to be attractive etc. I’m not saying that we should stop following every natural rule we are following as we don’t follow all the natural rules , but some rules, if are bad , shouldn’t we cease following them ? ? ? an example is-
      as we don’t think about other organisms and still use cosmetics then why should we have some moral to ware clothes , will n’t this help to get more attrative ? ? ?Why to
      use atrificial attractiveness ? ? ? this means we don’t follow every natural rule, we have the power to overcome some natural rules, so we must try to overcome natural rules that lead to something bad.

      disclaimer: This is a totally biological and serius statement from my side.

      this is some thing really non-biological
      Ethics’s never been a part of biology, but it is closely related many a times . So, we may discuss those topics atleast in off topic discussion rather than posting statements containing 😉 , 8) , 😈 etc. [- II’ve also, sent some , i’m sorry for those now]] { presence of these emotions in our messages itself tells how much importance do we give to emotions and thus to ethics ]
      Disclaimer : I’ve posted ethics topics doesn’t mean that I am against testing or using cosmetics or killing organisms, what I think is revealed from my opinion-posts and not just from the subject posted.



Viewing 5 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.