Register to reply

Rick Santorum's candidacy ...

by ThomasT
Tags: candidacy, rick, santorum
Share this thread:
Ryan_m_b
#19
Jan6-12, 05:31 PM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,404
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
I guess I would have thought "bioethics" was created to deal with moral issues surrounding research because the research itself is amoral.

So whether reseach results in inventions that betters lives or kills people doesn't mean the work contains moral considerations. Scientific discovery is about finding knowledge, regardless of where it might lead. Placing constraints on it for reasons of morality is unscientific at face value.
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
Not necessarily, but an amoral persom might do something a moral person finds immoral because they didn't consider the moral implications. Bioethics was created to keep scientists from crossing that line, for that reason.

You don't spend a lot of time in ethics classes examining cases where people acted ethically.
I'm not sure I understand, the research always contains moral considerations. For example is it ethical to perform experiment X if the cost of it is to subject a number of animals to Y. I don't think it's entirely fair to say that bioethics as a field was created to keep scientists in line if only because that implies that scientists are unable to regulate themselves. Rather I think the field is a formalised/institutionalised version of what happens anyway.
Number Nine
#20
Jan6-12, 05:40 PM
P: 772
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
I think you are making something out of nothing: I think Santorum was talking about the work, not the people and was just being sloppy with the wording.
I doubt that he was thinking that hard about it. Santorum is attempting to court a demographic that by and large distrusts science for ideological reasons, and he saw an opportunity to say something vaguely consistent with those beliefs ("those people you disagree with are bad". There's nothing more to it.
ThomasT
#21
Jan6-12, 11:48 PM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by Number Nine View Post
I doubt that he was thinking that hard about it. Santorum is attempting to court a demographic that by and large distrusts science for ideological reasons, and he saw an opportunity to say something vaguely consistent with those beliefs ("those people you disagree with are bad". There's nothing more to it.
I basically agree with your assessment. But I do, currently anyway, think that Santorum has a real personal aversion to science. Which, for me, is reason number two (2) to not vote for him.
turbo
#22
Jan6-12, 11:55 PM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,363
Quote Quote by NeoDevin View Post
Google "santorum" and read the first result.
Santorum has some people working very hard to keep Savage's definitions out of the #1 slot in Google. It probably costs him a bundle.
Jack21222
#23
Jan6-12, 11:57 PM
P: 772
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
I think you are making something out of nothing: I think Santorum was talking about the work, not the people and was just being sloppy with the wording.
I can only go by what he said. I'm not a mind-reader like you, russ.
Number Nine
#24
Jan6-12, 11:58 PM
P: 772
Quote Quote by ThomasT View Post
I basically agree with your assessment. But I do, currently anyway, think that Santorum has a real personal aversion to science. Which, for me, is reason number two (2) to not vote for him.
I absolutely agree, I just think his aversion is mostly a dogmatic and emotional one; I don't think there's a thoroughly reasoned position behind it, and I don't think he intended to offer one with his statement.
ThomasT
#25
Jan7-12, 12:01 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by NeoDevin View Post
Google "santorum" and read the first result.
I'll just say that that was interesting.
ThomasT
#26
Jan7-12, 12:04 AM
P: 1,414
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum
russ_watters
#27
Jan7-12, 10:03 AM
Mentor
P: 22,239
Quote Quote by Ryan_m_b View Post
I'm not sure I understand, the research always contains moral considerations. For example is it ethical to perform experiment X if the cost of it is to subject a number of animals to Y. I don't think it's entirely fair to say that bioethics as a field was created to keep scientists in line if only because that implies that scientists are unable to regulate themselves. Rather I think the field is a formalised/institutionalised version of what happens anyway.
Why would the field need to be formalized? My engineering company does not employ an engineering ethicist.

...although along the same lines, my engineering field has a technical society that writes/sets standards. Why would we need a committee to write standards if engineers are capable of regulating themselves? Because we're all human, not all engineers will agree about what good engineering practice is, even if we assume that all engineers will attempt to follow what they believe is good engineering practice. Furthermore, a praciticing engineer does not have the time to spend writing a position paper on every engineering problem they have to solve, justifying why a certain choice is a good one. It is much easier to just follow the standard that the committe spent years researching and justifying. Similar logic, just not about ethics.

Surely you're not suggesting that LAS researchers don't have the same human failings as everyone else - that all LAS researchers always made all the same decisions regarding research ethics prior to formalization of the field? Or even that there has never been a bad apple in the research field?
MarcoD
#28
Jan7-12, 10:39 AM
P: 98
Quote Quote by russ_watters View Post
Why would the field need to be formalized?
I think he's stating that the current formalization (bioethics) is a morality which follows scientific advances. Which would be a bit lousy since 1% of the world's population are sociopaths who wouldn't care about experimenting on children, except for the fact that it may make them look bad. So I guess at the moment we're just following the sociopaths.
Number Nine
#29
Jan7-12, 11:12 AM
P: 772
Quote Quote by MarcoD View Post
I think he's stating that the current formalization (bioethics) is a morality which follows scientific advances. Which would be a bit lousy since 1% of the world's population are sociopaths who wouldn't care about experimenting on children, except for the fact that it may make them look bad. So I guess at the moment we're just following the sociopaths.
We do experiment on children. I ran a 7 year old through an experiment yesterday.
MarcoD
#30
Jan7-12, 12:07 PM
P: 98
Quote Quote by Number Nine View Post
We do experiment on children. I ran a 7 year old through an experiment yesterday.
Yeah, but we normally don't do it without ethical consideration. (At least, the we who are the 99% non-sociopaths.)
Char. Limit
#31
Jan7-12, 11:50 PM
PF Gold
Char. Limit's Avatar
P: 1,941
I'll be honest, here's my views: I can't vote for Santorum. His anti-gay, anti-abortion, rabid evangelical views are sure to turn me off even before I get to the fact that he urges the teaching of creationism in public schools. There is no way I'd ever vote for someone like this.
Jack21222
#32
Jan8-12, 08:36 AM
P: 772
Santorum is acting like a contortionist twisting Obama's words on education.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...e-is-snobbery/

Here is Obama's comment:
Obama has repeatedly said he wants the United States to have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020. Earlier this year, while announcing plans to reform "No Child Left Behind," Obama also said he intends for every student to graduate "career and college ready."
Here is Santorum's response:
"The hubris of this president to think that he knows what's best for you [...] This is the kind of snobbery that we see from those that think they know how to run our lives," the former Pennsylvania senator said in a forum at St. Anselm's New Hampshire Institute of Politics.
It goes on with Santorum claiming that Obama said he wants every child to GO to college. All Obama said is that he wants every child to be READY to go to college if they so choose, or a career if they so choose. In any case, Santorum believes that giving our kids a proper high school education is "snobbery."
Jimmy Snyder
#33
Jan11-12, 04:41 PM
P: 2,179
This is funny. Santorum's family back in the old country are communists.

Not that there's anything wrong with it.
ThomasT
#34
Jan11-12, 10:03 PM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by Jimmy Snyder View Post
This is funny. Santorum's family back in the old country are communists.

Not that there's anything wrong with it.
That is funny ... especially if true.
turbo
#35
Jan11-12, 10:05 PM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,363
Apparently, it is.
ThomasT
#36
Jan12-12, 12:05 AM
P: 1,414
Quote Quote by turbo View Post
Apparently, it is.
Whatever. As far as I'm concerned, Santorum is an extremist religious geek who should be selling hamburgers at McDonalds. (Not that they filter for extremist religious geeks in their hiring practices, but I'm supposing that there's less chance of an extremist religious geek spitting on my hamburger than a wannabe gangsta.)


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Ron Paul's candidacy Current Events 578
Mitt Romney's candidacy Current Events 735
Rick Steves' Europe: Iran Current Events 4
Consider yourself Rick Roll'd General Discussion 20
Vote Rick James! General Discussion 6