Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

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

  1. May 22, 2004 #1
    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: )
  2. jcsd
  3. May 22, 2004 #2
    Thanks. I'll check it out. What's your opinion?
  4. May 22, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
  5. May 22, 2004 #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 gonna od it anyway and we'll have to join in anyway so we might as well get a head start'
  6. May 22, 2004 #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
  7. May 22, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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?
  8. May 22, 2004 #7
    yeah. Sory about the misunderstanding ...
  9. May 22, 2004 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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
  10. May 22, 2004 #9
    I get it :D
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook