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

  • Thread starter quddusaliquddus
  • Start date
In summary, genetic experiments with humans are controversial, but making the best of a bad situation is justified.
  • #1
quddusaliquddus
354
2
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 = :yuck: )
(human + ball + drugs = :rofl: )
(human + hose = :cry: )
(human + tomato= :mad: )
(human + obergine= :frown: )
(human + orange= :grumpy: )
(human + potato = :shy: )
(human + fly= :bugeye: )
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Thanks. I'll check it out. What's your opinion?
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
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'
 
  • #5
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
 
  • #6
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?
 
  • #7
yeah. Sory about the misunderstanding ...
 
  • #8
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
 
  • #9
I get it :D
 

1. What is the justification for stopping someone else from doing something first?

The justification for stopping someone else from doing something first can vary depending on the situation. It could be to prevent harm or damage, to protect one's own interests, or to maintain fairness and equality.

2. Is it ever necessary to do something in order to stop someone else from doing it first?

Yes, it can be necessary to do something in order to stop someone else from doing it first. For example, if someone is about to commit a crime, it may be necessary for law enforcement to intervene and stop them from doing so.

3. Can stopping someone else from doing something first be considered ethical?

It depends on the circumstances. In some cases, it may be considered ethical to prevent harm or protect one's own interests. However, it is important to consider the potential consequences of one's actions and whether they align with ethical principles.

4. Are there any potential consequences for stopping someone else from doing something first?

Yes, there can be potential consequences for stopping someone else from doing something first. These consequences could include legal repercussions, conflict or backlash from the person being stopped, or ethical implications.

5. How can one determine if it is justified to stop someone else from doing something first?

Determining if it is justified to stop someone else from doing something first can be a complex process. It may involve considering the potential consequences, weighing the potential harm against the potential benefits, and evaluating the ethical implications of one's actions. It can also be helpful to seek guidance from ethical principles and consult with others who may be affected by the decision.

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top