Ignorance

[Sorry!]

Was in the shower and I was thinking of this conversation I was having. They were completely ignorant to things as they really are. Instead they took them as how they THINK they are. i.e. science.

I assume he does this so that the concepts can fit to whatever he is arguing for or so that he can argue against them more easily. Is this unethical?

Does being happy with your thoughts take precedent over reality.

I'm not going into issues where semantics will come into play I'm speaking of concepts where CLEAR definitions are laid out such as scientific method. Someone can alter it, or simplify it to the point where it doesn't even make sense any more but it's no longer the same method they just think it is...

[JaredJames]

Look at religion, they are all split into various different groups of believers, they all interpret the 'stories' in various ways. Thats why people of the same religion end up having radically different beliefs. Just look at how many different Christian sects there are.

It's human nature to look only for what you want to see. No matter how many facts you are presented with, you will automatically disregard them until you find something to support your argument, regardless of how extreme/unbelievable. That's something scientists need to work against, they cannot afford to have these biases and require an open mind.

I consider myself a very open minded person, and always consider all facts presented to me equally (providing they are reputable). I seem to find myself constantly altering my own opinions as new information becomes available. It has become clear to me that as long as establishments, particularly the media, keep spewing out so called 'facts' with little or no scientific basis purely to get ratings, there is no chance for the public to form an unbiased and fair opinion (take nuclear energy as an example, people are against because of the news reports on Chernobyl giving 'dodgy' info at best without proper research etc.), and therefore it can be extremely difficult for scientists to educate people on those subjects, as all facts shown are either disregarded or twisted by the anti-(whatever) campaign to suit their cause.

Jared

[arunma]

Was in the shower and I was thinking of this conversation I was having. They were completely ignorant to things as they really are. Instead they took them as how they THINK they are. i.e. science.

I assume he does this so that the concepts can fit to whatever he is arguing for or so that he can argue against them more easily. Is this unethical?

Does being happy with your thoughts take precedent over reality.

I'm not going into issues where semantics will come into play I'm speaking of concepts where CLEAR definitions are laid out such as scientific method. Someone can alter it, or simplify it to the point where it doesn't even make sense any more but it's no longer the same method they just think it is...

Uh, I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Without some context of the conversation you were having, the topic of "ignorance" could be interpreted in quite a few different ways.

[JaredJames]

Uh, I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Without some context of the conversation you were having, the topic of "ignorance" could be interpreted in quite a few different ways.

I do agree there, I believe they are going for something along the lines of:
People have their own beliefs and opinions on various subjects. Some people who have very strong beliefs/opinions can disregard facts/new evidence which disproves them or can even twist/edit them as necessary to provide more evidence for themselves, taking the original statement out of context and making it fit their scenario.

Jared

[Moonbear]

Uh, I'm not really sure what you're talking about. Without some context of the conversation you were having, the topic of "ignorance" could be interpreted in quite a few different ways.

I'm not even sure why he was having a conversation with someone while in the shower. :uhh: Or that's what the description sounded like. Context would really help here.

[Math Is Hard]

The mangled pronouns aren't helping.

[Ivan Seeking]

Was in the shower and I was thinking of this conversation I was having. They were completely ignorant to things as they really are. Instead they took them as how they THINK they are. i.e. science.

I assume he does this so that the concepts can fit to whatever he is arguing for or so that he can argue against them more easily. Is this unethical?

Does being happy with your thoughts take precedent over reality.

I'm not going into issues where semantics will come into play I'm speaking of concepts where CLEAR definitions are laid out such as scientific method. Someone can alter it, or simplify it to the point where it doesn't even make sense any more but it's no longer the same method they just think it is...

You are asking if it is unethical to take scientific principles or facts out of context, or to misstate them, in order to support the beliefs that one already has?

[Pinu7]

Look at religion, they are all split into various different groups of believers, they all interpret the 'stories' in various ways. Thats why people of the same religion end up having radically different beliefs. Just look at how many different Christian sects there are.

It's human nature to look only for what you want to see. No matter how many facts you are presented with, you will automatically disregard them until you find something to support your argument, regardless of how extreme/unbelievable. That's something scientists need to work against, they cannot afford to have these biases and require an open mind.

I consider myself a very open minded person, and always consider all facts presented to me equally (providing they are reputable). I seem to find myself constantly altering my own opinions as new information becomes available. It has become clear to me that as long as establishments, particularly the media, keep spewing out so called 'facts' with little or no scientific basis purely to get ratings, there is no chance for the public to form an unbiased and fair opinion (take nuclear energy as an example, people are against because of the news reports on Chernobyl giving 'dodgy' info at best without proper research etc.), and therefore it can be extremely difficult for scientists to educate people on those subjects, as all facts shown are either disregarded or twisted by the anti-(whatever) campaign to suit their cause.

Jared


I actually disagree with you. I think bias is important(as long as there are several competing ones), especially in intellectual communities.

I mean, if Einstein and Bohr did not have their dogmatic deterministic and probabilistic biased beliefs, we may not have Quantum mechanics.

Also, if we did not have biased political think tanks, no one will be that constant watch dog of the other party in influence.

If we did not have strong theological bias(excluding,of course, any violence stemming out of religious extremism), there would be no need to have a complex theological system and religion would be literally as simple and boring as "cause' the Pope said so."

[Pengwuino]

Was in the shower and I was thinking of this conversation I was having. They were completely ignorant to things as they really are. Instead they took them as how they THINK they are. i.e. science.

I assume he does this so that the concepts can fit to whatever he is arguing for or so that he can argue against them more easily. Is this unethical?

Does being happy with your thoughts take precedent over reality.

I'm not going into issues where semantics will come into play I'm speaking of concepts where CLEAR definitions are laid out such as scientific method. Someone can alter it, or simplify it to the point where it doesn't even make sense any more but it's no longer the same method they just think it is...

What?

Seriously, what on God's green earth are you talking about? Are you talking to yourself in the shower? Is your shampoo an unethical thinker?

[rootX]

:rofl:

Was in the shower and I was thinking of this conversation I was having

I think he was just thinking about the conversation he had earlier that day. Do people not think while they shower?

I assume he does this so that the concepts can fit to whatever he is arguing for or so that he can argue against them more easily. Is this unethical?

No.

Ignorant/fool can only influence another ignorant/fool IMO. I tend to stay away from those kind of people.

[moose]

I knew this guy once. Why would he do this though. Maybe it was so he could get there. But I don't think so.

Wait what.

[lisab]

I knew this guy once. Why would he do this though. Maybe it was so he could get there. But I don't think so.

Wait what.

omg I think I used to date that guy.

[Pengwuino]

I knew this guy once. Why would he do this though. Maybe it was so he could get there. But I don't think so.


Exactly! It's just like how society elevates political leaders to be superhuman. The structure of society needs to take on a more dynamic system where we integrate leaders with those people who choose said leadership.

Wait what.

[Math Is Hard]

Is your shampoo an unethical thinker?

I don't know about its thoughts, but sometimes I think my shampoo just tells me what I want to hear. Is that ethical?

http://www.steinsquared.com/weblog/images/shamp.jpg

[Borg]

I don't know about its thoughts, but sometimes I think my shampoo just tells me what I want to hear. Is that ethical?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Are you saying that the Irish Spring maidens are going to show up either?

[moose]

Exactly! It's just like how society elevates political leaders to be superhuman. The structure of society needs to take on a more dynamic system where we integrate leaders with those people who choose said leadership.

We should not allow ourselves to be crammed into this rat maze. We should not submit to dehumanization. We have got to realize we're being conditioned on a mass scale.

Wait what.

[lisab]

We should not allow ourselves to be crammed into this rat maze. We should not submit to dehumanization. We have got to realize we're being conditioned on a mass scale.

Wait what.

Right. I am not a number, but if I were, I would be a rational number

Wait what.

[JaredJames]

I actually disagree with you. I think bias is important(as long as there are several competing ones), especially in intellectual communities.
I mean, if Einstein and Bohr did not have their dogmatic deterministic and probabilistic biased beliefs, we may not have Quantum mechanics.
Yes bias is good, and it is needed, however what I meant was that it cannot be allowed to prevent progress. As in, just because one scientist has a particular belief, (s)he cannot take that belief and no matter what new research is done and what theories are put forward, they still maintain their belief and disregard all new evidence. Or, even to interpret the facts in a way which supports their theory despite having no relevance on the subject.

Also, if we did not have biased political think tanks, no one will be that constant watch dog of the other party in influence.
Given the current state of our politics (in the UK), what with mp expenses and such. How can you make this statement? The MPs pay and expenses are ultimately controlled by legislation written by the MPs themselves. Self regulation if you like. And as was pointed out recently, there is nothing the public can do about it until an election.

If we did not have strong theological bias(excluding,of course, any violence stemming out of religious extremism), there would be no need to have a complex theological system and religion would be literally as simple and boring as "cause' the Pope said so."
With regards to this, I wasn't pointing out relgious bias as such, but more the ability of religous people to read the same text and interpret it in their own way. Purely an example of a situation where people can twist and alter facts (not that I consider any religious text as fact), to suit their needs, (see doucmentary by Louis Theroux: The Most Hated Family in America).

Basically, as I pointed out above, people will believe what they want to believe if it supports their cause. I never understand how, regardless of the evidence set in front of them, no matter how strong it may be, a person will stick to what they believe, especially if it is a faith based belief, (aka creationism).

Jared

[Math Is Hard]

Right. I am not a number, but if I were, I would be a rational number

Wait what.

I can see how you would opt for that. Post-modernist deconstructionist reinterpretation theory tells us that we're not really cognizant of any of these toxic innuendos in mathematics that we subconsciously process in our classroom lessons. Even if we vaguely are, we may not fully appreciate the anti-feminist, even racist bias, with rational numbers clearly being labeled as masculine, and irrational numbers as feminine/minority numbers, that erodes our social view of gender and "other", and may take us years of therapy to overcome. This is clearly Freudian penis envy.

Wait what?

[Sorry!]

Well then I can see the majority of the people who replied would rather attempt to make me a fool and redicule. Well done guys. I applaud you, seriously, you got me looking quite stupid over here.

Anyways. Yes as the other people have noticed I was speaking of IGNORANCE being UNETHICAL not my shampoo.

I think that ignorance occurs when people place their happiness above the continued sucess of humanity. This occurs frequently in religion (read Nietzche regarding this) but it also occurs in the general community such as with global warming. Some people will just be ignorant continually and allow global warming to get out of hand.

So I think ignorance in most cases is unethical.

[IwillBeGood]

Well then I can see the majority of the people who replied would rather attempt to make me a fool and redicule. Well done guys. I applaud you, seriously, you got me looking quite stupid over here.

Anyways. Yes as the other people have noticed I was speaking of IGNORANCE being UNETHICAL not my shampoo.

I think that ignorance occurs when people place their happiness above the continued sucess of humanity. This occurs frequently in religion (read Nietzche regarding this) but it also occurs in the general community such as with global warming. Some people will just be ignorant continually and allow global warming to get out of hand.

So I think ignorance in most cases is unethical.
Being stupid is lovelier than being smart
most ignorant people are cute. I love to be friends with them

No one would want to be always in touch with too smart men if s/she is not one of them! :smile:

[Math Is Hard]

Well then I can see the majority of the people who replied would rather attempt to make me a fool and redicule. Well done guys. I applaud you, seriously, you got me looking quite stupid over here.

It's not that. We just seize anything posted in General Discussion as an opportunity for fun and complete derailment of the topic.

We love you - we're just yanking your chain and goofing around. :smile:

[Sorry!]

Why was it even moved lol? This would be a discussion of ethics which I'm certain has philosophical merit.

[Math Is Hard]

Why was it even moved lol? This would be a discussion of ethics which I'm certain has philosophical merit.

hmm.. I didn't know it was moved. I first saw it in GD.

[DaveC426913]

Why was it even moved lol? This would be a discussion of ethics which I'm certain has philosophical merit.It's not a discussion of anything (which is the message to be gleaned from the stream of nonsensical replies).

Why don't you tell us what happened so we can join you?

[Sorry!]

The nonsensical replies came after it got moved from the philosophy section hahahaha. Obviously when you first post something it isn't a discussion YET. In my post just now I said this would be a discussion of ethics.


EDIT:

And I would discuss what I was talking about with this person but it has to do with religion so I decided to leave that out. You can substitute any popular ignorant thought and it would suffice though... For instance earlier I posted about global warming.

[DaveC426913]

In my post just now I said this would be a discussion of ethics.
Great. What is the subject of the discussion? Because so far, it seems to be the threadular equivalent of a sentence fragment without a noun.

[GeorginaS]

Anyways. Yes as the other people have noticed I was speaking of IGNORANCE being UNETHICAL not my shampoo.

So I think ignorance in most cases is unethical.

I can't even begin to make sense of this proposition because I don't think that states of being can inherently be unethical. Saying "ignorance" is unethical is like saying "intelligence" is unethical. That's nonsensical.

The nonsensical replies came after it got moved from the philosophy section hahahaha. Obviously when you first post something it isn't a discussion YET. In my post just now I said this would be a discussion of ethics.


This thread was moved from the first post, not as a result of the responses. The responses just made it very entertaining. :biggrin: There are some clever people around here who have great senses of humour and it wasn't coming at your expense, Sorry!. It's unfortunate you feel that way.

I'm pretty sure you can't simply declare a thread "about" something in particular, especially without stating your proposition really clearly. And, further, discussions go where they will. Ideas flow naturally from each other.

[GeorginaS]

Great. What is the subject of the discussion? Because so far, it seems to be the threadular equivalent of a sentence fragment without a noun.

Oooo that is an excellent bit of imagery. I just may steal that.

[Sorry!]

I can't even begin to make sense of this proposition because I don't think that states of being can inherently be unethical. Saying "ignorance" is unethical is like saying "intelligence" is unethical. That's nonsensical.



This thread was moved from the first post, not as a result of the responses. The responses just made it very entertaining. :biggrin: There are some clever people around here who have great senses of humour and it wasn't coming at your expense, Sorry!. It's unfortunate you feel that way.

I'm pretty sure you can't simply declare a thread "about" something in particular, especially without stating your proposition really clearly. And, further, discussions go where they will. Ideas flow naturally from each other.
Ignorance to me in this sense means the act of being ignorant.
Yes, I know the replies came after it was moved. That was what I said anyways.

It is clear that what I was meaning to discuss was in the OP as the post RIGHT after it was perfectly on topic. People understood what I was saying fine I guess they are just bored and want to have fun?

[DaveC426913]

People understood what I was saying fine I guess they are just bored and want to have fun?Well, I'll take this bullet.

Can you state the point/question again for those of us who missed it the first time? Your first post has no meat to chew on.

[Sorry!]

1)I assume he does this so that the concepts can fit to whatever he is arguing for or so that he can argue against them more easily. Is this unethical?

2)Does being happy with your thoughts take precedent over reality.

3) scientific method. Someone can alter it, or simplify it to the point where it doesn't even make sense any more but it's no longer the same method they just think it is...


4) I think that ignorance occurs when people place their happiness above the continued sucess of humanity. This occurs frequently in religion (read Nietzche regarding this) but it also occurs in the general community such as with global warming. Some people will just be ignorant continually and allow global warming to get out of hand.

5)
And I would discuss what I was talking about with this person but it has to do with religion so I decided to leave that out. You can substitute any popular ignorant thought and it would suffice though... For instance earlier I posted about global warming.

In a nutshell:
Is a person being unethical if they are being ignorant. Choosing their own personal happiness over humanity.

[GeorginaS]

Ignorance to me in this sense means the act of being ignorant.


Okay, then, are you talking about "willful ignorance" as opposed to simply not-knowing-any-better-type-ignorance?

[DaveC426913]

In a nutshell:
Is a person being unethical if they are being ignorant. Choosing their own personal happiness over humanity.
Ah. I see. OK.


No. It is every person's right to pursue their own happiness (absent hurting others).

.. I was going to back that up with more stuff, but I realized it needs no qualification or enhancement. Simply, full stop.

[moose]

The nonsensical replies came after it got moved from the philosophy section hahahaha. Obviously when you first post something it isn't a discussion YET. In my post just now I said this would be a discussion of ethics.


EDIT:

And I would discuss what I was talking about with this person but it has to do with religion so I decided to leave that out. You can substitute any popular ignorant thought and it would suffice though... For instance earlier I posted about global warming.

I initially made a pointless post because this is GD and I had no idea what you were trying to get at. I would have asked for clarification, but I knew that you would end up clarifying yourself anyway (which you have). That's part of what's wonderful about GD. It wasn't poking fun at you, it was poking around at your post more or less. Read your original post and tell me it makes perfect sense.

EDIT: I agree with you in the sense that if someone has a decision to make that affects others, then it's unethical to be ignorant.

[GeorginaS]

I'm having a semantics issue with the word "ignorant(ce)". In the absence of a clear definition, I can't see a clear path to discussing ethics in relation to it.

[JaredJames]

Being stupid is lovelier than being smart
most ignorant people are cute. I love to be friends with them

No one would want to be always in touch with too smart men if s/she is not one of them! :smile:

Or it could just make you feel really intelligent. And in respect to your last sentence, surely that would apply to yourself and a more ignorant person? With you being the 'too smart' side of things in your case.

Jared

[Moonbear]

I'm having a semantics issue with the word "ignorant(ce)". In the absence of a clear definition, I can't see a clear path to discussing ethics in relation to it.

This seems to be the key, and perhaps is the reason we're all ignorant of the discussion Sorry! is attempting to start. It's also likely the reason we found it in GD and not Philosophy, because defining key terms to allow for rational discussion are part of the philosophy forum guidelines.

The trouble I'm having is that it seems the premise of the discussion lies somewhere in the context of a conversation Sorry! had with someone somewhere else, but s/he is reluctant to share any details of that conversation. It's really hard to have a discussion when only one person knows what the context is and none of the key terms have been defined.

[Sorry!]

Ok the conversation I had with this person had to do with religious scripture. In particular the Christian Bible. People believe the bible to be inerrant. That is without errors, no contridictions, all truth. When these people read the bible they go into the situation already KNOWING what they will read is true.

The person I was talking to is attending York University for biophysics. So I assumed they had general ideas about scientific thoughts etc. Since they are being educated at a undergraduate level and I have only completed highschool they must know more than I.

Well he started arguing with me about how dating methods are wrong, about stars not being as far away as science claims, he argued against evolution on the grounds that speciation doesn't occur and he attempted to argue with me that sciences goal is to prove things. (I didn't agree with this I felt that science merely attempts to explain things based upon given evidence.) All this seems blatantly ignorant and in my opinion goes back to him believing the bible to be inerrant. (the list of things he argued against is actually a lot longer than this. I finally gave up talking to him but I don't understand how people can think it is ok to think like this. Just because you have the right to doesn't make it right to abuse that right.)

I sent him to multiple sciam articles many websites to do with evolution and even tried to get at him with common sense. He sent me websites too to attempt to prove his position to me. After investigating the 'scientist' I found that they were FAR in the minority and few in numbers. However, the christian public seems to take their word on things.

Interestingly enough he believes in things such as: noah's flood, all the miracles associated with the bible, gifts such as speaking in tongues or healing, that murder/suicide is caused by demons possessing people... the list goes on.

I remember reading what Nietzche wrote about ethics. I think that people who think in these terms are being unethical and hindering the progress of humanities knowledge.(which I think takes precedent over a group of people being happy.)

Note also that I said hinder not stop.

[JaredJames]

I agree, as my previous posts show. Without re-stating all I said previously, basically, they read the bible, take it literally or as close to and then ignore all scientific evidence.

What I cannot understand is how when given all the evidence available, they can simply turn round and say "it's like that because god wants it like that" or "god skews results". I just can't see any reason why a person can take the religious texts, which all conflict and make certain things (such as murder) not crimes in certain 'stories', simply believe it without there being a shred of evidence to back up any claims made within those texts. Whereas all the evidence that backs up science is dissmissed either as wrong or because god made it that way. This isn't striding forward and an attempt at development, it is an attempt to keep us where we are, if it wasn't for science and everyone remained completely religious, we would have nothing like the technology we have today and would not be having this debate (probably praying instead).

I personnally don't care what a person believes, but I simply do not wish to believe, nor have you try to convince me that the big pixie in the sky exists. I can't say I've ever had a Quantum Physicist pop round on a sunday morning and try to discuss the finer points of Quantum Mechanics with me. If forced, my religion is Jedi and I believe in the great teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars.

Jared

[protonchain]

I'm hindu. Let me just get that out there.

This guy didnt know that i was, and he came up to sell me his copy of the Bhagavad Gita (one of the religious books some hindus consult now and then when we're troubled with life). His copy was a small paper back no bigger than 120 pages - 200 pages. I told him I had one at home that was bigger than the dictionary, with clear cut translations and explanations of all the things Krishna said to Arjuna.

He said mine was wrong, and that I should buy his book.

What
the
hell

[JaredJames]

I'm hindu. Let me just get that out there.

This guy didnt know that i was, and he came up to sell me his copy of the Bhagavad Gita (one of the religious books some hindus consult now and then when we're troubled with life). His copy was a small paper back no bigger than 120 pages - 200 pages. I told him I had one at home that was bigger than the dictionary, with clear cut translations and explanations of all the things Krishna said to Arjuna.

He said mine was wrong, and that I should buy his book.

What
the
hell

Exactly

[Dadface]

I knew this guy once. Why would he do this though. Maybe it was so he could get there. But I don't think so.

Wait what.

omg I think I used to date that guy.

Yes lisab,it brings back fond memories.

[DaveC426913]

I remember reading what Nietzche wrote about ethics. I think that people who think in these terms are being unethical and hindering the progress of humanities knowledge.(which I think takes precedent over a group of people being happy.)
It is still his right to pursue his own happiness. He is not forcing himself on anyone who is not already converted.

Utopia (or some other perfect world) does not mean that everyone has to agree with everyone else.

You can't state categorically and objectively that "his philosophy of life is wrong and should be corrected".

[Sorry!]

This is true assuming people keep their beliefs to themselves. However it is not the case. Everywhere I turn my head I see these people causing troubles. Global warming is a major point for our modern day society. As is creationist arguing that creation should be taught in science class. Or that evolution shouldn't be taught.

Most wars have been fought because of ignorance.

It would of course be a completely fair point to question who is the ignorant one... and to that I would just say that if we were all rational people and critical thinkers we would not even need to question what counts as ignorant.

To claim that say Hitler supported the holocaust with logic or evidence of any sort is to show you also think that it was a rational decision. Was it though? Really? Substitute holocaust and Hitler for other events... Scientific method doesn't wage wars and it's intention is not to spark debate. Merely to find a answer based on evidence. Human ignorance and arrogance is the problem.

[junglebeast]

It's human nature to look only for what you want to see. No matter how many facts you are presented with, you will automatically disregard them until you find something to support your argument, regardless of how extreme/unbelievable. That's something scientists need to work against, they cannot afford to have these biases and require an open mind.

There's an interesting emergent phenomenon that happens when everyone does have biases. People seek out the evidence that fits their beliefs and ignore the rest. But the number of people supporting a particular biased viewpoint is somewhat proportional to the plausibility of the opinion. If we didn't have people with biased viewpoints fighting to find evidence for their claim VS. the commonly accepted viewpoint, it would be much harder to make scientific progress.

The fact is, humans are not capable of actually making "unbiased" decisions. Every thought we have is biased on our past experiences -- as they should be! This allows people to reject hypothesis based on biases they have learned about how the world works, and it allows them to focus their efforts on where they personally think the truth is.

All the major advances in science...evolution, gravity, the solar system, electricity, relativity...all of these ideas came from people who's strongly biased opinions caused them to fight against the commonly held viewpoints.

[Sorry!]

There's an interesting emergent phenomenon that happens when everyone does have biases. People seek out the evidence that fits their beliefs and ignore the rest. But the number of people supporting a particular biased viewpoint is somewhat proportional to the plausibility of the opinion. If we didn't have people with biased viewpoints fighting to find evidence for their claim VS. the commonly accepted viewpoint, it would be much harder to make scientific progress.

The fact is, humans are not capable of actually making "unbiased" decisions. Every thought we have is biased on our past experiences -- as they should be! This allows people to reject hypothesis based on biases they have learned about how the world works, and it allows them to focus their efforts on where they personally think the truth is.

All the major advances in science...evolution, gravity, the solar system, electricity, relativity...all of these ideas came from people who's strongly biased opinions caused them to fight against the commonly held viewpoints.

I would never go to say that people don't hold biases or make decisions based on these biases. Its part of critical thinking though. Just because right now I am biased towards say evolution doesn't mean if a theory comes tomorrow I will not listen to it.

[JaredJames]

There's an interesting emergent phenomenon that happens when everyone does have biases. People seek out the evidence that fits their beliefs and ignore the rest. But the number of people supporting a particular biased viewpoint is somewhat proportional to the plausibility of the opinion. If we didn't have people with biased viewpoints fighting to find evidence for their claim VS. the commonly accepted viewpoint, it would be much harder to make scientific progress.

The fact is, humans are not capable of actually making "unbiased" decisions. Every thought we have is biased on our past experiences -- as they should be! This allows people to reject hypothesis based on biases they have learned about how the world works, and it allows them to focus their efforts on where they personally think the truth is.

All the major advances in science...evolution, gravity, the solar system, electricity, relativity...all of these ideas came from people who's strongly biased opinions caused them to fight against the commonly held viewpoints.

Of course, I would certainly agree there must be some biases. What I was trying to refer to there are extreme biases. I should have made it more clear. People and scientists are most definitely biased and it aids progress as people argue the various hypothesis with their biases playing a part in it. However, there are some arguments so extremem and unplausible that they must not allow them to intervene and circumvent progress. I'm sorry, but any form of religion and its associated laws should play no part in the governing of a country and the beliefs held by religious people are ridiculous at best and so far fetched that to allow them to be part of our scientific understanding of the world is a hinderence. This is not just something that applies to religion, look at global warming, people are ignoring all evidence for it except for that which says we are the cause. All the evidence I have seen points to us simply adding to the problem and not being the sole cause. Because of the way it is portrayed in the media and such people have a very biased view of it and don't want to here anything other than the facts that support themselves.

Jared

[junglebeast]

However, there are some arguments so extremem and unplausible that they must not allow them to intervene and circumvent progress. I'm sorry, but any form of religion and its associated laws should play no part in the governing of a country and the beliefs held by religious people are ridiculous at best and so far fetched that to allow them to be part of our scientific understanding of the world is a hinderence. This is not just something that applies to religion, look at global warming, people are ignoring all evidence for it except for that which says we are the cause.

Yeah, some people are not very smart. Unfortunately, the smart people have more intellectually stimulating things to do than diddle with politics -- so it's the dumb people that run things.

[JaredJames]

Yeah, some people are not very smart. Unfortunately, the smart people have more intellectually stimulating things to do than diddle with politics -- so it's the dumb people that run things.

Something we can both agree on there. Although they certainly know how to fiddle the system (expenses etc).

Jared

[arunma]

Ok the conversation I had with this person had to do with religious scripture. In particular the Christian Bible. People believe the bible to be inerrant. That is without errors, no contridictions, all truth. When these people read the bible they go into the situation already KNOWING what they will read is true.

The person I was talking to is attending York University for biophysics. So I assumed they had general ideas about scientific thoughts etc. Since they are being educated at a undergraduate level and I have only completed highschool they must know more than I.

Well he started arguing with me about how dating methods are wrong, about stars not being as far away as science claims, he argued against evolution on the grounds that speciation doesn't occur and he attempted to argue with me that sciences goal is to prove things. (I didn't agree with this I felt that science merely attempts to explain things based upon given evidence.) All this seems blatantly ignorant and in my opinion goes back to him believing the bible to be inerrant. (the list of things he argued against is actually a lot longer than this. I finally gave up talking to him but I don't understand how people can think it is ok to think like this. Just because you have the right to doesn't make it right to abuse that right.)

I sent him to multiple sciam articles many websites to do with evolution and even tried to get at him with common sense. He sent me websites too to attempt to prove his position to me. After investigating the 'scientist' I found that they were FAR in the minority and few in numbers. However, the christian public seems to take their word on things.

Interestingly enough he believes in things such as: noah's flood, all the miracles associated with the bible, gifts such as speaking in tongues or healing, that murder/suicide is caused by demons possessing people... the list goes on.

I remember reading what Nietzche wrote about ethics. I think that people who think in these terms are being unethical and hindering the progress of humanities knowledge.(which I think takes precedent over a group of people being happy.)

Note also that I said hinder not stop.

Ah, I see, another good ol' religion bashing session. So much for science never starting any fights...

Here's my simple solution. If the guy is studying biophysics, then he knows how to think about scientific issues. If he believes that radioisotope dating methods are faulty, explain to him how it works: mention the necessary assumptions, the applicable physical laws, and the logical conclusions. If he believes that the universe is 6,000 years old, explain how cosmological redshift works. If he rejects evolutionary theory...ask someone else, since I'm a physicist. He's obviously intelligent enough to understand these things, and I think the creationist arguments against these scientific truths are weak enough that even he will ultimately be able to see past them. Creation science usually rests on poking holes in accepted scientific theories instead of proposing testable propositions, and if you sit down with this person and explain the facts instead of attacking him, you might get somewhere.

The problem isn't that he believes the Bible is inerrant. The problem is that some guy (possibly this guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind) told him that evolution and cosmology are inherently atheistic and that being faithful to God necessitates opposition to certain scientific truths. Bashing him over the head about how he's just another ignorant/arrogant theist who needs to accept an atheistic worldview is only going to solidify him in that position. Insulting people rarely has any positive effect.

I'm sorry, but any form of religion and its associated laws should play no part in the governing of a country and the beliefs held by religious people are ridiculous at best and so far fetched that to allow them to be part of our scientific understanding of the world is a hinderence. This is not just something that applies to religion, look at global warming, people are ignoring all evidence for it except for that which says we are the cause.

I'll agree right off the bat that if you're talking about creation science not being a part of our scientific understanding, then I agree (at least until those guys can produce a testable theory). However, to say that "religion and its associated laws should play no part in the governing of a country" is, in my opinion, quite irresponsible. As you yourself admitted, everyone has biases, and in a democratic government these biases will enter into people's decisions about how the nation ought to be run. What you are doing is selectively restricting the biases that can inform people's political judgments. You are, in effect, dictating how voters ought to think. Would it be OK for me to say that conservatives shouldn't allow their conservativism to influence their votes (I wouldn't mind this actually, but hopefully you see my point)? Or how about not allowing poor people to be informed by their poverty when they vote?

What meter do you use in determining what biases can and can't affect people's legislative decisions? I hope that meter isn't "stuff I don't like," because then you are locking the nation into a single political mindset, and it is impossible to produce any government besides the one that you desire. The very notion of democracy then becomes meaningless, and one might as well have a dictator whose political views happen to agree with yours. Instead of telling people how to think, it seems like a better idea to use intellectual persuasion to make your political views prevail.

Consider global warming. We all know why the anti-global warming crowd tries to deny an observable effect. It isn't because they doubt the human contribution to global warming, rather it's because they know that efforts to curb global warming require us to enact economic policies that they don't like. They're not really as stupid as you think; they just don't want to foot the bill for environmentally friendly policies. Maybe you think that people shouldn't be allowed to support political platforms that benefit them at the cost of the world's well-being. But again, I think you'll see that this negates an important aspect of democracy.

[JaredJames]

WRT to the 'government' issue. No government should allow religious beliefs to influence them. A government should run a country for the people, all people, regardless of religion, sex, sexual-preference etc. To allow religious beliefs into a debate regarding how a country should be run opens up the possibility of introducing laws which are unethical.

Here's one from a country where religion defines law:

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2009/04/afganistan-president-karzai-signs-new-law-allowing-men-to-rape-their-wives/

http://infidelsarecool.com/2009/04/19/update-new-afghan-law-does-not-permit-rape-but-permits-starvation-of-wives-who-withhold-sex/

I also believe the US constitution states religion and law should remain seperate. Any person in politics should leave their religious beliefs to the side when discussing the running of a country and defining new laws.

Until someone provides evidence that backs up any religious claims, they should be dismissed. I would like to note I hold this view of all things, scientific included. No evidence to show me, no belief from me. Simple.

When I say some biases are needed, I mean so long as they are justifiable and acceptable (. A bias, as someone put earlier of 'the holocaust being right' is certainly not acceptable and should play no part. You say meter, well ok, lets set it shall we, if you can provide clear evidence which backs up your hypothesis/theory etc., then it becomes acceptable to have a bias towards that belief. If however you cannot, which is the way religions and most crackpot ideals are, then they should not be acceptable and influence any decision making that occurs.
Your poverty example is one where people do have evidence to back it up, (poor housing, healthcare and so on), and yes, it should influence their vote for a party who will help them. Where as a person who says "i wont vote for (example) labour because they advocate teaching evolution in schools" is forming that opinion purely on the back of unproven religious beliefs or un conventional beliefs in a far fetched creation idea.

Right, more of a political thing than anything else on global warming here. But lets ignore GW for now and let me give my opinion on democracy, so you can see things (hopefully) as I see them.

I like democracy, everyone gets a say in what goes on. But, to me it's a good concept but not a good solution when it comes to running a country. You see I think only people who actually understand the subject matter at hand very well, and, the people who the proposal will affect should be allowed to vote on them. Lets say, the government wants to build two nuclear reactors in south england. Now, they put it to the vote on the subject. I understand the people around the areas they will be built in getting a say, and I understand the scientists for and against them getting a say. But I dont see why a scottish highlands sheep farmer should get a say in the matter, they don't directly affect him and unless he's hiding his credentials well, he isn't going to have a comprehensive knowledge nuclear power. To me, his vote is not worth anything as it will be purely opinion based. Opinions which may be biased strongly based on false information.

A bias, based on a good, strong, knowledge of the subject matter can certainly be a good thing. A bias based on nothing more than faith, media influence or a very limited knowledge is a bad thing and potentialy dangerous to a country/project.

Jared

[DaveC426913]

To claim that say Hitler supported the holocaust with logic or evidence of any sort is to show you also think that it was a rational decision. Was it though? Really? Substitute holocaust and Hitler for other events... I call Godwin's Law.

"... the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis [or Hitler] has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress."

Thread locked. You lose. :biggrin:

[JaredJames]

I call Godwin's Law.

Ha, I like it. Never heard of that one.

[Sorry!]

Ha, I like it. Never heard of that one.

me neither actually. lol. I dont think the reference to Hitler or holocaust is because the topic is old but because it is easily understood.

[DaveC426913]

me neither actually. lol. I dont think the reference to Hitler or holocaust is because the topic is old but because it is easily understood.What it is is melodramatic.

[DaveC426913]

This is true assuming people keep their beliefs to themselves. However it is not the case. Everywhere I turn my head I see these people causing troubles. Global warming is a major point for our modern day society. As is creationist arguing that creation should be taught in science class. Or that evolution shouldn't be taught.

Most wars have been fought because of ignorance.

It would of course be a completely fair point to question who is the ignorant one... and to that I would just say that if we were all rational people and critical thinkers we would not even need to question what counts as ignorant.



Sorry!, by what yardsticks do you measure
- what things are important not to be ignorant of
- what things help versus hinder the human race

Do you not see that these things are not objective? Do you not see that I (and every other person) could probably list a dozen things each off the top of our heads that you are ignorant of in our opinion?

Why do you think your own personal idea of what's important is somehow superior to anyone else's?

[Sorry!]

Sorry!, by what yardsticks do you measure
- what things are important not to be ignorant of
- what things help versus hinder the human race

Do you not see that these things are not objective? Do you not see that I (and every other person) could probably list a dozen things each off the top of our heads that you are ignorant of in our opinion?

Why do you think your own personal idea of what's important is somehow superior to anyone else's?

I already state that in my other post so clearly I understand that ignorance is subjective. I never once stated that my opinions are of greater value comparative. I made the broad statement that IGNORANCE IS UNETHICAL. Where in this can you point to me that I have stated that my idea is superior? You are making comparative efforts of my beliefs instead of the actually concept of ignorance. You do not understand what it is I'm speaking of in this sense I think... that's not my problem.

Infact jared has already discussed this point:

Until someone provides evidence that backs up any religious claims, they should be dismissed. I would like to note I hold this view of all things, scientific included. No evidence to show me, no belief from me. Simple.

[Proton Soup]

Well then I can see the majority of the people who replied would rather attempt to make me a fool and redicule. Well done guys. I applaud you, seriously, you got me looking quite stupid over here.

Anyways. Yes as the other people have noticed I was speaking of IGNORANCE being UNETHICAL not my shampoo.

I think that ignorance occurs when people place their happiness above the continued sucess of humanity. This occurs frequently in religion (read Nietzche regarding this) but it also occurs in the general community such as with global warming. Some people will just be ignorant continually and allow global warming to get out of hand.

So I think ignorance in most cases is unethical.

do you know what ignorance is ?

[DaveC426913]

I already state that in my other post so clearly I understand that ignorance is subjective. I never once stated that my opinions are of greater value comparative. I made the broad statement that IGNORANCE IS UNETHICAL. Where in this can you point to me that I have stated that my idea is superior? You are making comparative efforts of my beliefs instead of the actually concept of ignorance. You do not understand what it is I'm speaking of in this sense I think... that's not my problem.

If something is subjective, how could it possbily be unethical to do it?

"What you're doing there is wrong in my opinion."
"It is not wrong in my opinion."
"You win. Your logic is inescapable."

[JaredJames]

If something is subjective, how could it possbily be unethical to do it?

"What you're doing there is wrong in my opinion."
"It is not wrong in my opinion."
"You win. Your logic is inescapable."

Well ok, I'm going to go a bit extreme as an example, but here goes:

Murder is subjectively wrong, it has been decided by the MAJORITY of people that it is wrong. However, based on what you are saying, providing I decide it to be ethically right, whether in the case of a doctor and terminal patient or me taking revenge on someone who has wronged me, and accept that as it is only subjectively wrong, does that actually make it ethical, should I be allowed to do it purely because I don't judge it wrong?

Subjective views by the majority, form what we consider ethics. Therefore, if subjective things can be unethical.

Here are two articles I pulled with a quick google search:
http://artistthinker.wordpress.com/2006/02/21/gray-world/

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=819274

They both discuss why murder is wrong, socially and philosphically.

Jared

[JaredJames]

do you know what ignorance is ?

In this case, I believe Sorry! is reffering to ignorance in the sense of a person dismissing facts without justification purely to benefit themselves.

E.g. An oil company making billions of pounds a day selling a product which, not matter how it is used, produces pollution on a massive scale. Is going to be reluctant to accept that its product is a direct cause of global warming:

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/globalwarming.html

In such a case, the company (or I should say directors/upper level staff) will ignore the evidence presented and only accept hypothesis/theories which support their point of view. Maintaining their own happiness and justifying their cause.

I know that is a company not a person, but it is the same principle.

Jared

[JaredJames]

I made the broad statement that IGNORANCE IS UNETHICAL.

Just a quick note here, I will agree with this statement, as I understand it.
For myself, if a person is provided the facts of an argument, what ever it may be, and they actively dismiss them in favour of their own beliefs even if the facts are incontrovertible, then they are being ignorant. This, especially in the context of defining laws can prove to be dangerous.

"Ethics are considered the moral standards by which people judge behavior."

Take abortion as an example. Some people are for, some are against. The against crowd will argue every life is precious and should be given a chance. Ok, but then what if there is eveidence giving a 90% chance that the mother will die during child birth if she continues with the pregnancy? Is it unethical that the against crowd are ignorant to this evidence and danger and want to force her, by passing a law against abortion, to continue the pregnancy, ultimately endangering two lives?
At least with the pro law allowing abortion it becomes the mothers choice.

For people to force a law against abortion based on their own bias, means everyone is affected and could possibly endanger a number of mothers where they have HAD to continue with the pregnancy. You remove the freedom people have over their own bodies and force them to accept a death sentence if anything goes wrong. Whereas, a law allowing abortion gives everyone a choice, allows them to exercise their own bias towards the subject and decide what they want to do. If you are against, don't do it, if you are for, then it' up to you.

Ethics are subjective, for the against crowd it is unethical to kill an unborn. For the pro crowd it is unethical to risk a mothers life/force a baby they cannot provide for. You could argue the against movement are judging a mothers life less worthy than the childs (seems a dull argument given the prolife matter at hand), or that they judge the death of a mother to save an unborn ethical. Also, you can look at it from the other point of view, the pro abortion group are saying the death of an unborn is ethical (depends on when you consider the foetus to be a 'sentient being'). You decide.

In either case and regardless of what you are arguing, ignoring incontrovertible evidence seems ignorant to myself.

Jared

[DaveC426913]

Murder is subjectively wrong, it has been decided by the MAJORITY of people that it is wrong.I put to you that murder is not subjectively wrong.

It is not simply "the majority of people" deciding murder is unethical, it is society that has enacted this as law (the fact that it's a majority vote is not the issue. A law is a law, and is abided by all.)

These laws are agreed to by every citizen of the country. It is this agreement (or the decision to emmigrate) that infers that the person in question has stated that murder is unethical.

[DaveC426913]

Take abortion as an example. Some people are for, some are against. The against crowd will argue every life is precious and should be given a chance. Ok, but then what if there is eveidence giving a 90% chance that the mother will die during child birth if she continues with the pregnancy?As a complete aside, I find it interesting that, in your estimation, the Pro-choice stance has to be artificially exaggerated to a 90% risk in order to be obviously comparable to the pro-life stance, which does not need exaggeration. Not a comment on you, just an observation. :smile:

[JaredJames]

As a complete aside, I find it interesting that, in your estimation, the Pro-choice stance has to be artificially exaggerated to a 90% risk in order to be obviously comparable to the pro-life stance, which does not need exaggeration. Not a comment on you, just an observation. :smile:

Just a quick one for this, I only used 90% as an extreme example, although for you to say artificially exaggerated implies it never occurs when it does. However, the statement made regardless of the risk to a mother stands. I used the figure to make a point, that even when the odds are that a mother will die (loss of life) the pro life people want the pregnancy to go ahead (to create a life). which from a mathematical point of view leaves us with zero gain, plus it completely destroys the pro life argument of every life being valued.

Jared

[JaredJames]

Well firstly you contradict yourself:

It is not simply "the majority of people" deciding murder is unethical,
society[/I] that has enacted this as law (the fact that it's a majority vote

First you say it isn't the majority of people deciding, then you say it is. That alone discredits your own argument from my point of view. But everyone has their off days so I'll allow this, for now.

Firstly, a law isn't agreed to by every person in a country. I was born in the UK, I have been here all my life, I DO NOT agree to every law here and when you consider the fact that many were made before I was born or at voting age, I had no say in them and so by extension you could say that I am currently 'accepting' them for lack of a better alternative, or by lack of ability (I am a student) to move elsewhere.

Another example, the UK immigration laws. I assume you've heard of the BNP? Well they certainly don't agree with them.
The laws made in the European Courts, we have little say in and yet are imposed on us because the majority of people voted for them.

I agree, murder is socially wrong, but only a few hundred years ago, it was not looked at quite as strongly as it is today. A king could simply order someone to be killed and it would be so. However you look at it, its only when a law is enacted that something becomes socially wrong. Then again, it's illegal to speed and yet people find it socially acceptable to do so. You say that you either agree with the laws or emmigrate to another country, ok but what if you are not able to emmigrate (as I stated above)? Or what if for the most part you accept the laws and there is only a few you disagree with?

Jared

[JaredJames]

I would just like to say that this thread has gone way off topic and as such (despite it not being mine) would like to request it either return to original topic or we consider it closed.

Jared

[DaveC426913]

Well firstly you contradict yourself:

First you say it isn't the majority of people deciding, then you say it is. That alone discredits your own argument from my point of view. But everyone has their off days so I'll allow this, for now.
Thanks for "allowing" it. :tongue:

It's not a contradiction.

If 5 out of 9 of people on a team decide that Biff should be in charge, that does not automatically oblige everyone else on the team to defer to Biff as the leader (they will contest the manner in which the leader was picked). If however, everyone on the team agrees beforehand that a vote will decide who is the leader, and then the 5 out of 9 members votes Biff in, that does oblige everyone else to agree.

See the difference?


The original statement was "Murder is subjectively wrong, it has been decided by the MAJORITY of people that it is wrong."

I'm pointing out that it's stronger than simply "the majority" agreeing. Everyone has agreed to the process by which the decision has been made for everyone.

Firstly, a law isn't agreed to by every person in a country.

I was born in the UK, I have been here all my life, I DO NOT agree to every law here and when you consider the fact that many were made before I was born or at voting age, I had no say in them and so by extension you could say that I am currently 'accepting' them for lack of a better alternative, or by lack of ability (I am a student) to move elsewhere.

Tough. Like em or leave. The third option is to try to change em - but that still doesn't mean you get to only abide by the ones you like.

By staying in the country, you are agreeing to abide by its laws.

The fact that you don't want to stay or it is very inconvenient for you to leave does not absolve you from agreeing to abide by em.



I agree, murder is socially wrong, but only a few hundred years ago, it was not looked at quite as strongly as it is today. A king could simply order someone to be killed and it would be so.
It wasn't murder. It was decreed by the king.


Then again, it's illegal to speed and yet people find it socially acceptable to do so. You say that you either agree with the laws or emmigrate to another country, ok but what if you are not able to emmigrate (as I stated above)?
You are able to. It may just be very inconvenient. You have made a decision that abiding by the laws of the UK are less troublesome than hoofing it into a new country with only what you carry on your back. While I grant this is not practical, nobody is literally putting a gun to your head.


Or what if for the most part you accept the laws and there is only a few you disagree with?
So, you only abide by the ones you agree with? Tell that to your local constabulary.

[JaredJames]

"It's not a contradiction.

If 5 out of 9 of people on a team decide that Biff should be in charge, that does not automatically oblige everyone else on the team to defer to Biff as the leader (they will contest the manner in which the leader was picked). If however, everyone on the team agrees beforehand that a vote will decide who is the leader, and then the 5 out of 9 members votes Biff in, that does oblige everyone else to agree.

See the difference?"

So basically, 5 out of 9 say Biff is leader, the other 4 contest it. Ok, but then they all agree to accept the groups decision, 5 out of 9 will still vote Biff in and we're back at square one. Contesting the original decision has simply delayed things (sounds very much like our government). I understand what you mean in that everybody agrees to accept the view of the majority, but it hasn't changed the fact that it is a majority decision. And given we don't live in a perfect world and not everybody chooses to vote, we end up with only the determined ones providing a vote and this can lead to a decision/law/election which is not based on a true majority vote. And if the majority of the people who turn out to vote are extremists, we could end up with an extreme poll result. (Imagine if the BNP got in to parliament because the only people who went out to vote were those truly dedicated to their cause). Did the WHOLE population of the UK (or whichever country) accept that the majority vote would be final? Or did a MAJORITY of the citizens accept that the decision is final?

"It wasn't murder. It was decreed by the king."

And that makes it not murder in what way? Murder is murder, whether it is decreed by a king or committed by a peasant. Just because they claim it isn't doesn't make it so.

At no point did I say I didn't abide by the laws, I do, the point I was trying to make was that since I was born here, and have no where else to go, I don't have a choice and simply agree to the laws as they are.

One last question, given you have to pay for all forms of photo ID out there, how would you go about emigrating? I have no money to pay for a passport or a drivers license (my passport runs out in august and I lost my license last saturday).

Seriously, aside from responding to my last post and the above question, can we please get back to topic or leave it. I do apologise Sorry! but I will only be responding to OP issues from now on.

[DaveC426913]

Seriously, aside from responding to my last post and the above question, can we please get back to topic or leave it. I do apologise Sorry! but I will only be responding to OP issues from now on.
OK, at least skip to the end of this post then where I address this.


So basically, 5 out of 9 say Biff is leader, the other 4 contest it. Ok, but then they all agree to accept the groups decision, 5 out of 9 will still vote Biff in and we're back at square one. Contesting the original decision has simply delayed things (sounds very much like our government). I understand what you mean in that everybody agrees to accept the view of the majority, but it hasn't changed the fact that it is a majority decision.
It's very different.

It's not simply contesting it (that was just an example) it was never condoned. The 4 people have every right to start bashing heads (figuratively speaking). They may feel that drawing lots is more fair. Or they may feel that the vote must be unanimous.

But once they've agreed to a majority vote, then they have no recourse. Any complaint would be met with "You agreed to this. This is your rule as much as mine."


And given we don't live in a perfect world and not everybody chooses to vote, we end up with only the determined ones providing a vote and this can lead to a decision/law/election which is not based on a true majority vote. And if the majority of the people who turn out to vote are extremists, we could end up with an extreme poll result. (Imagine if the BNP got in to parliament because the only people who went out to vote were those truly dedicated to their cause).

All beside the point. We agree, or we change the system, or we leave.




"It wasn't murder. It was decreed by the king."

And that makes it not murder in what way? Murder is murder, whether it is decreed by a king or committed by a peasant. Just because they claim it isn't doesn't make it so.No. Look up "murder".



At no point did I say I didn't abide by the laws, I do, the point I was trying to make was that since I was born here, and have no where else to go, I don't have a choice and simply agree to the laws as they are.
You do have a choice. You choose the (granted, much) lesser of your choices.



One last question, given you have to pay for all forms of photo ID out there, how would you go about emigrating?

I have no money to pay for a passport or a drivers license (my passport runs out in august and I lost my license last saturday).

You do not need ID to leave a country.

Regardless, "I can't afford to leave" doesn't translate into "therefore I don't agree to abide by the laws of this country".
But "I stay" does translate into "I agree to abide by the laws of the country."


Seriously, aside from responding to my last post and the above question, can we please get back to topic or leave it. I do apologise Sorry! but I will only be responding to OP issues from now on.I'm not sure how this is off-topic. We were talking about subjectivity of unethical acts. We can't really move forward without agreeing on the subjectivity of the acts themselves.

I believe I hit the nail on the head OP-wise in post 60: "If something is subjective, how could it possbily be unethical to do it?" and this is what we are currently discussing.

I'm happy to entertain an alternate example of a subjective act though.

[JaredJames]

The post isn't on ethics or subjectivity, it's on ignorance. It sort of diversified into subjective ideas of what ignorance is and ethics. When in the context of ignorance fine, but this to me is just me and you having a bit of barney over something I lost track of a long time ago.

"You do not need ID to leave a country."
Ever tried getting in to another country without it?

[JaredJames]

oh and I did look up murder:

"Intentional homicide (the taking of another person’s life), without legal justification or provocation."

"The unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another; also, any killing done while committing some other felony, as rape or robbery."

Nothing about kings there. Just because he ordered it doesn't make it legally justified or provoked.

[DaveC426913]

The post isn't on ethics or subjectivity, it's on ignorance. It sort of diversified into subjective ideas of what ignorance is and ethics. When in the context of ignorance fine, but this to me is just me and you having a bit of barney over something I lost track of a long time ago.
Fair enough.


"You do not need ID to leave a country."
Ever tried getting in to another country without it?
Granted, but no one said "deciding not to abide by a country's laws" would be a walk in the park. Most of us choose to abide because the options for not abiding are pretty inconvenient.

[JaredJames]

Granted, but no one said "deciding not to abide by a country's laws" would be a walk in the park. Most of us choose to abide because the options for not abiding are pretty inconvenient.

Exactly

[junglebeast]

Take abortion as an example. Some people are for, some are against. The against crowd will argue every life is precious and should be given a chance. Ok, but then what if there is eveidence giving a 90% chance that the mother will die during child birth if she continues with the pregnancy?

That's a good point which I had never considered. Of course, 90% is not an average, but one could easily imagine certain individuals with other conditions who are informed by their doctors that they personally have a higher than 90% chance of death if they continue with the pregnancy. If abortion were made illegal, then this would be effectively giving a death sentence to those women. One can take this example further -- what if your doctor tells you that you have a 95% chance that both you and your baby will die during childbirth? Would pro-life advocates force you, by law, to murder yourself for only the 5% chance of having a motherless baby?

If you look at the overall average maternity related deaths, the historical level is something like 1% death. Currently in the US, it's only 0.01%. However, that risk is something like 5 times higher for women over 40.

[JaredJames]

Exactly junglebeast, I do understand the prolife argument to some extent. But my problem Firstly is where do you consider a foetus a child/sentient being? and Secondly, if a law does say NO ABORTIONS, you are sentencing these mothers to death.
This is what bugs me, a law saying yes to abortions would give everyone a choice. You decide if you want one or not. Full stop. I cannot stand people who try to force their views one me, which is what a law against it would be. I bash religious types enough about it but in this case it is no different.

These pro-life people are ignorant to the health of the mother (and to some extent the father WRT mental anguish if both child and mother were to die). Simple.

Jared

[Proton Soup]

In this case, I believe Sorry! is reffering to ignorance in the sense of a person dismissing facts without justification purely to benefit themselves.

E.g. An oil company making billions of pounds a day selling a product which, not matter how it is used, produces pollution on a massive scale. Is going to be reluctant to accept that its product is a direct cause of global warming:

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/globalwarming.html

In such a case, the company (or I should say directors/upper level staff) will ignore the evidence presented and only accept hypothesis/theories which support their point of view. Maintaining their own happiness and justifying their cause.

I know that is a company not a person, but it is the same principle.

Jared

this is not a fact, it's a theory. reasonable people disagree and do not accept going along with the Zeitgeist like all the other sheep. Sorry! is calling "ignorant" people who do not follow his own views, which are probably deeply rooted in ignorance themselves. and that is why he has to resort to making an ethical argument on "ignorance", because his real gripe is one of theology.

in actuality, we are all mostly ignorant and know very little. some more little than others. and the less ignorant you become on any one subject, the more your own ignorance becomes apparent to you.

[DaveC426913]

oh and I did look up murder:

"Intentional homicide (the taking of another person’s life), without legal justification or provocation."

"The unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another; also, any killing done while committing some other felony, as rape or robbery."

Nothing about kings there. Just because he ordered it doesn't make it legally justified or provoked.
What??? It most certainly does!!! The king is the law. The king is next only to God and I'm not just talking symbolically.

[JaredJames]

What??? It most certainly does!!! The king is the law. The king is next only to God and I'm not just talking symbolically.

Yes, but its still murder isn't it?

To kill another person is to murder them. Just because you are king and it isn't viewed as murder does not make it so.

[JaredJames]

this is not a fact, it's a theory. reasonable people disagree and do not accept going along with the Zeitgeist like all the other sheep. Sorry! is calling "ignorant" people who do not follow his own views, which are probably deeply rooted in ignorance themselves. and that is why he has to resort to making an ethical argument on "ignorance", because his real gripe is one of theology.

in actuality, we are all mostly ignorant and know very little. some more little than others. and the less ignorant you become on any one subject, the more your own ignorance becomes apparent to you.

This isn't just theology. What I believe Sorry! was talking about is people who despite the incontrovertible evidence will dismiss it and believe some fairytale / completely unplausibile scenario with no evidence to back up their claims. Yes, religion is the biggest of the lot and I believe anyone who can throw off all of science in support of contradicting texts with no evidence behind them are trully ignorant to the real world. This is not purely a theology situation, it occurs in other places and for other subjects as well.

Jared

[DaveC426913]

Yes, but its still murder isn't it?
No. You provided the definitions but you didn't read them. Everyone of them uses the word "unlawful". The King is the law.

To kill another person is to murder them.
You've just redefined murder. Just because you like that definition doesn't make it so.

Just because you are king and it isn't viewed as murder does not make it so.[/QUOTE]What do you mean "isn't viewed as"? Murder is "unlawful killing". The king's decree is lawful. There's really no wiggle room here.

[junglebeast]

No. You provided the definitions but you didn't read them. Everyone of them uses the word "unlawful". The King is the law.

You've just redefined murder. Just because you like that definition doesn't make it so.



I'm no historian but I'm pretty sure that not all monarchies have allowed the king to make laws without any system of checks and balances by other people. Also, even if the king can make a law by himself, that doesn't prevent him from breaking the law before a new one is written...unless there exists explicitly a law that "the king is exempt from all laws" or each law contains an "except for the king" clause, which I doubt is the case. Granted, if the king is the only one that has people to enforce the law, it might turn out that the king can escape with breaking the law without punishment..

[JaredJames]

I'm no historian but I'm pretty sure that not all monarchies have allowed the king to make laws without any system of checks and balances by other people. Also, even if the king can make a law by himself, that doesn't prevent him from breaking the law before a new one is written...unless there exists explicitly a law that "the king is exempt from all laws" or each law contains an "except for the king" clause, which I doubt is the case. Granted, if the king is the only one that has people to enforce the law, it might turn out that the king can escape with breaking the law without punishment..

Thats what I was getting at. I was trying to say, that the king wrote the laws, and until he re-wrote (not just in his head) the law to say he can murder person A, he was breaking the law. There was no recourse to the king breaking them because any person going against the king would find their head on a spike sharing the view with person A.

[Proton Soup]

This isn't just theology. What I believe Sorry! was talking about is people who despite the incontrovertible evidence will dismiss it and believe some fairytale / completely unplausibile scenario with no evidence to back up their claims. Yes, religion is the biggest of the lot and I believe anyone who can throw off all of science in support of contradicting texts with no evidence behind them are trully ignorant to the real world. This is not purely a theology situation, it occurs in other places and for other subjects as well.

Jared

well i don't know what he believes, which is why i asked. maybe he should choose better examples. even then, i'm not sure i'd call it ignorance. i'm not sure i would even classify it as willful ignorance (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/willful_ignorance) if i understand you correctly.

[JaredJames]

Based on your definition for willful ignorance, I would agree. It isn't so much that. It's more about why people choose to ignore such strong evidence and believe something which relies totally in your faith of its existence and has no evidence to help prove it exists.

[Proton Soup]

Based on your definition for willful ignorance, I would agree. It isn't so much that. It's more about why people choose to ignore such strong evidence and believe something which relies totally in your faith of its existence and has no evidence to help prove it exists.

yes, but again, he should use a better example, like say F=m*a. global warming is a socioeconomic, political and religious issue.

[JaredJames]

yes, i do agree there.

[DaveC426913]

Thats what I was getting at. I was trying to say, that the king wrote the laws, and until he re-wrote (not just in his head) the law to say he can murder person A, he was breaking the law.
A King's decree is the change in the law.

There is no "lag between the King commanding something and that something being a law that the King is somehow breaking".

[JaredJames]

OK, I've done some research and here goes:

The definition of murder as I pointed out is -"The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse."
Now I said, "just because a king says it isn't murder, doesn't make it so." And your answer to which was along the lines of "Murder is "unlawful killing". The king's decree is lawful. There's really no wiggle room here.".

Now I would like to point out here that unlawful has a number of definitions, and DOES NOT solely mean against the law. One of the definitions under it is as follows - " not morally right or permissible; ". Thus, just because the king kills someone does not make it lawful, and as such it is murder.

Here is a definition of lawful and legal - "Lawful means conformable to the principle, spirit, or essence of the law, and is applicable to moral as well as juridical law. Legal means conformable to the letter or rules of the law as it is administered in the courts; conformable to juridical law."
As you can see above, lawful applies to both moral AND juridical law. As such you can classify the king killing someone as morally wrong and hence murder. Legal on the other hand specifically applies to juridical law and to say the kings decree to kill is legal would be correct. However, the definition of murder specifically points to unlawful, not legal.

For legal/lawful see useage section:
http://define.com/lawful

For unlawful definitions:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/unlawful
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unlawfully

[Math Is Hard]

So "murder" is the moral judgment of the individual? I may have just committed 400 murders in my kitchen depending on who you ask.

(Hey, I gave those ants a chance to leave. They were warned.)

[JaredJames]

So "murder" is the moral judgment of the individual? I may have just committed 400 murders in my kitchen depending on who you ask.

(Hey, I gave those ants a chance to leave. They were warned.)

Yes, any person who strongly supports animal (or in your case bug) rights would say that. Under the original common law definition of murder you could certainly apply it. According to those definitions, unlawful can extend so far as to be defined as going against moral convention. Morally, killing is wrong, they knew that even in the days of Britains propper kings. And so by extension you could say that as it was socially unacceptable and morally wrong to kill, then it is unlawful and so the king is murdering someone.

Hey, I'm only going by what I've read here. The definition is open to interpretation like a lot of things, to me, that is how it reads. You cannot deny my logic, however you have to look at other situations and consider how you apply the definition to those before making a defninitive answer here.

[JaredJames]

Just a thought here, by looking at all possible definitions and aquiring as much information regarding this particular phase of the discussion you could say I have obsereved the available facts and drawn, whether you accept it or not, a plausible and valid conclusion based on what I have in front of me. Whereas for everyone to shoot it down based on their own (possibly) limited understandings of the discussion without any form of evidence or making a joke of it (yes you maths is hard) are being quite ignorant. And thus providing support for the original the point of discussion for this thread.

Jared

[Math Is Hard]

Don't get me wrong, Jared. I'm not busting your chops - I just want to see if we can get down to business on the definitions.

So we have 1) "murder" in the legal sense, and 2) "murder" in the moral sense? I think if we agree that these are separate definitions of murder, it clears up some things in this discussion. Although, I'm not entirely sure they are so easily separable, because the legal definitions of murder have everything to do with the majority of a society's moral definitions of murder. It's murky territory.

[JaredJames]

Thats what I've been trying to say regarding murder and moral acceptability. Personally I want to get back to the discussion on ignorance, if theres anything left of it. As I stated earlier, I lost track of this a long time ago and just want to get back to the matter the OP was about.

[GeorginaS]

Thats what I've been trying to say regarding murder and moral acceptability. Personally I want to get back to the discussion on ignorance, if theres anything left of it. As I stated earlier, I lost track of this a long time ago and just want to get back to the matter the OP was about.

And again, we have yet to receive, from Sorry!, his/her definition of "ignorance" as it pertains to their postulations here. We have a couple of guesses at what Sorry! means(t) when they use that word, but no direct explanation from them in order that we may better address the supposed ethical issue attaching to the proffered "ignorance".

The king and murder discussion has been interesting.

[Sorry!]

Yeah, I was thinking ignorance in the sense that jared had posted. Sorry took me so long to post on here I have been pretty busy. Definitions of words aside I don't think it's a problem of language...

You can't argue that murder is wrong, it comes with the definition of the word... but is killing? I think it is completely situational and as long as people think rationally about the situation they will get the proper answer. Not counting mentally unstable people (people who stray from the norm don't bother arguing semantics it's annoying.)

But yes my word choice labelling as 'ignorance' is probably a bad choice.

[DaveC426913]

Yeah, I was thinking ignorance in the sense that jared had posted. Let's list it explicitly so that we can move forward from here.

Willful ignorance is the act of...people who, despite the incontrovertible evidence, will dismiss it and believe some fairytale / completely implausibile scenario with no evidence to back up their claims.

And the question is:

Is this unethical behaviour?

[JaredJames]

Nicely put dave. Let us move forward from here and look at this question:

"Is this unethical behaviour?"

(At least when I get back from lunch anyhow)

[GeorginaS]

Let's list it explicitly so that we can move forward from here.

Willful ignorance is the act of...

people who, despite the incontrovertible evidence, will dismiss it and believe some fairytale / completely implausibile scenario with no evidence to back up their claims.

And the question is:

Is this unethical behaviour?

And the question is:

Is this unethical behaviour?

Okay. If that is our working definition of ignorance for the purposes of this discussion, then we're suggesting that willful ignorance is self-delusion. Lying to one's self, even. We're saying it's someone's personal beliefs defying all evidence to the contrary.

I would ask, then, is being untrue to one's self unethical? Does an individual have a duty to tell one's self the truth? As far as I'm concerned, if lying to myself gives me comfort in some situations, I see no harm or unethical behaviour taking place.

Ethics relates to conduct, does it not? So if I'm merely self-deluded and my self-delusion doesn't affect anyone else, I can't see my way clear to calling "ignorance" unethical. It's not until one inflicts or insinuates one's deliberately unsubstantiated beliefs on other individuals that the question of ethics comes into play.

[Sorry!]

It's not until one inflicts or insinuates one's deliberately unsubstantiated beliefs on other individuals that the question of ethics comes into play.

That's what I am thinking about.

[GeorginaS]

That doesn't fit with our working definition of the word "ignorance" though. Given that that's the title of thread, perhaps we need a different word to describe what you're talking about.

As for pressing those idea on other people, we'd have to consider whether the people being pressed are possessed of free will and/or critical thinking skills. One need not accept ideas presented to you.

Is it unethical, though, to press those ideas in the first place? That leads me to asking yet another question. What is their motive for willfully disbelieving proven information? Or agenda? Do they have one? If so, then ethics could be questioned. If not, if they are guileless in their intent, do their actions continue to be unethical or at least questionable? Does motive matter when it pertains to the question of ethical behaviour?

[JaredJames]

Given that ethics are derived from a person/peoples morals. You have to look at it in two ways:
1. From the point of view of a scientist (or any person holding hard facts on the subject at hand), yes it is unethical as they are spreading misinformation which could have serious implications. Take a patient with cancer which has a 80% mortality rate, providing the patient undergoes a specific (and possibly uncomfortable) set of treatments without which the 20% chance of survival is not possible (effectively making it terminal). To a doctor, a homeopathy advisor telling that patient with cancer (s)he has an alternative cure/therapy, that is unethical. Obviously it is up to the patient to decide on using said treatment, but at best it is giving false hope to a patient and could lead them into giving up the proven treatment in favour of some promised 'miracle cure' which apparantly has no side effects or pain associated with it and will cure him/her, despite there being no scientific data to substantiate any of the claims made. It could be viewed that the homeopathy advisor is being ignorant to scientific fact on the products (s)he is selling, and also ignorance to scientific fact on the part of the patient. Given the stress and uncertainty the patient is undergoing during their regular hospital treatment, it would be unethical for such a person to approach them at such a vulnerable time and effectively convince them they have the answer to all their problems, even if under the cover of 'giving advice'.

2. However, from the point of view of the homeopathy advisor, it certainly isn't unethical. To them the doctors are being ignorant to their ways (despite scientific fact). They would view what they do as advising patients of alternative therapies that are available and as such in the patients best interest. They would consider a doctor unethical to advise against the alternative therapies.

It all comes down to a point of view. I personally have a strong dislike for homeopathy as it bring false hope to people in extremely vulnerable positions, and relies on a populations misunderstandings in order to sell its products. From the evidence presented to me, I have come to a reasonable conclusion that homeopathy medicines have little more than the placebo effect. I find it unethical to sell a product which quite literally does nothing but fool you.

I think under this circumstance, you must allow people to make their own decisions based on hard facts. It most certainly is unethical to give a person a load of BS and convince them that it is fact, thereby skewing their view of a subject and causing them to become ignorant of said subject. By presenting the hard evidence to them, in this case that these products do not work, they must make their own decision on the matter. If they choose to ignore the facts in front of them, that's their choice, but as far as I'm concerned for a person to view the facts on a subject such as this and disregard them (I accept a terminal patient or seriously ill person is going to be in a vulnerable position and willing to try anything), is pure ignorance.

Ignore: "to refrain from noticing or recognizing".
Ignorance: "lack of knowledge, education, or awareness ".
Ignorant: "lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned".

Those are the definitions, and they apply here and in many other places. A lot of people believe only what is said in the media (particularly the hype and misinformation) simply because they have a lack of understanding of the subject matter.
Is it unethical to mislead someone whether a seriously ill person or an entire public, I would say yes. It is the misinformation given by these people (media, homeopathy advisors etc.), whether initially or over a period of time that causes people to want to ignore the actual facts of a matter and only accept what supports their cause.

[DaveC426913]

Ethics relates to conduct, does it not? So if I'm merely self-deluded and my self-delusion doesn't affect anyone else, I can't see my way clear to calling "ignorance" unethical. It's not until one inflicts or insinuates one's deliberately unsubstantiated beliefs on other individuals that the question of ethics comes into play.
I agree. There is no such thing as the Thought Police and hopefully there never will be. Crimes are committed when one takes action.

[JaredJames]

Ignorance can only be considered unethical under certain circumstances. I have no problem with people who are 'self-deluded' by themselves. The people who bug me are those who attempt to convince/brainwash myself or others into their beliefs with no facts to back them up. IGNORING the scientific facts which disprove their self-delusion and try to force it on to others. I only find that unethical when these people provide false information with false facts, especially to those who have no understanding of the subject or those who are easily mislead and then convince them that their beliefs are right and fact. That is immoral. Deliberately misleading a person. Say what you like, but no body can tell me it is acceptable to do that.

The problem is it happens every day.