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

  • Thread starter Thread starter quddusaliquddus
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the ethical implications of controversial scientific experiments, particularly genetic and nuclear experiments on humans. Participants debate whether such experiments can be justified, emphasizing that each situation should be evaluated independently rather than generalizing moral stances. The conversation highlights the tension between fear and love in decision-making, particularly when individuals feel powerless to stop technological advancements they oppose. There is a distinction made between changing one’s beliefs to align with popular opinion versus adapting to a situation to mitigate potential negative outcomes. The dialogue reflects a struggle with moral dilemmas in the face of advancing science, suggesting a nuanced approach to ethics in experimental practices.
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
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top