Does it justify doing something in order to stop someone else doing it first?

  • Thread starter Thread starter quddusaliquddus
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the ethical implications of engaging in controversial scientific experiments, such as genetic and nuclear experiments, particularly in the context of preemptively participating to counteract others who may do so. Participants explore whether such justifications are morally acceptable and how different situations may require independent judgment.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that each situation involving controversial science should be judged independently, avoiding generalizations about morality.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the morality of preemptive actions, referencing the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right" while also considering protective instincts.
  • Another participant questions whether engaging in a technology one opposes is justified if they feel helpless to stop its progress, indicating that the decision may depend on the context.
  • There is a distinction made between changing one's position due to unpopularity, which is viewed as unjustified, and making the best of a bad situation, which is seen as justified.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the ethical implications of preemptive participation in controversial experiments. Multiple competing views remain regarding the justification of such actions and the moral dilemmas involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying degrees of uncertainty and personal opinion regarding the moral implications of their positions, indicating that the discussion is complex and nuanced.

quddusaliquddus
Messages
353
Reaction score
3
E.g. genetic experiemnets eith humans or sumthing

nuclear experiemnets :surprise:

etc ... etc ...

Does it make it right? This type of justification comes up a lot in new and controversial science experiemtns/applications...but is it right?

Maybe each situation is different and should be judged independently i.e. avoid generalising too much with morality.

(human + ram = :devil: )
(human + chameleon = )
(human + ball + drugs = :smile: )
(human + hose = :cry: )
(human + tomato= :mad: )
(human + obergine= :frown: )
(human + orange= )
(human + potato = :shy: )
(human + fly= :bugeye: )
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thanks. I'll check it out. What's your opinion?
 
Oh, I deleted the post- somehow I missed that you already mentioned nuclear experiments.

My opinion- It's hard to argue with fear, and harder to argue with love.
I don't know what I would do. The saying "Two wrongs don't make a right" comes to mind, but so does the image of a mother protecting her young. This is actually something I'm in the process of debating.
 
No-no...what you're talking about is universally polarised (did i jus say those long words ?...). What I mean is for example genetic experiemnts - should they be carried out on the stance that 'We don't like it and think it immoral. But, some other person is going to od it anyway and we'll have to join in anyway so we might as well get a head start'
 
What you're saying is a big pickle - not one anyone can deal with properly to my knowledge (IMHO). I mean a slightly different moral dilemma
 
Okay, I see. I was thinking of the fight or flight decision, in the most general terms.

If a person is opposed to a new technology, but believes they're helpless to halt it's progress, should they take part in it?
Depends. Should they change their position and embrace it? I don't think so.
Should they try to make the best of what they consider a bad situation? Sure.
Is that what you meant?
 
yeah. Sory about the misunderstanding ...
 
Oh, it's not your fault- takes two to tango, as they say :smile:

What do you think?

BTW the reason I restated the question is that I think the first case (changing your position because it isn't popular) is not justified. However, the second case (making the best of things) is justified.

Happy thoughts
Rachel
 
I get it :D