[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.06 MB, 1666x1136, 1311882011056.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3513922 No.3513922 [Reply] [Original]

Let's have a discussion about ETHICS.

I suppose, from observing the behavior around here, most people, or at least the most interesting people, are amoralists in general aspect. I, too, consider myself to be an amoralist, par excellence.

I would like to bring forth a discussion in this subject. What is ethics? How has it been created, or invented, and why? How has it evolved or developed? Why do we need it? How does ethics relate to our society, and why is it beneficial (or not)?

Don't bring in shitstorms.

War scene nowhere related.

>> No.3513926

Oh, not a war scene. Actually a picture of the giants. Never mind.

>> No.3513954

>make ridiculous assumption
>ask incredibly broad question
>not /sci/ related
>"Don't bring in shitstorms."

>> No.3513977

I think that scientist should be given an "ethics free pass". As long as they dont forcefully harm anyone or misrepresent risks of experimentation they should be able to do whatever the fuck they want. And even in some cases it could be justifyable to harm people against their will. Ideally these people would be death row prisoners or something

inb4 skynet
inb4 zombies
inb4 black holes
inb4 playing god

>> No.3513990

>>3513922
Friedrich Nietzsche, "On the Genealogy of Morality".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Genealogy_of_Morality

You don't have to agree with him but I have to admit, he has really strong arguments. A good start anyways.

>> No.3514022

>>3513954

Not close the slightest.

>>3513977

I agree somewhat.

(Please note that the question was not directly related to ethics in scientific research, the picture was really misdirected.)

>>3513990

I've read many of his books already, Nietzsche really is a pinnacle, mostly noteful by putting ethics in the aestethic plane.

>> No.3514038

Isn't this pretty much the only thing they talk about in philosophy class? I haven't taken one yet but that's what I hear.

Anyway the way I see it something is unethical if it involves harming others in anyway without reasonable justification. It was created because of empathy.

Without it the world would be a sort of world wide battle royal. Everybody killing and fucking each other over to help themselves. Friends wouldn't exist. Everyone would be on their own. Since people are no longer social creatures we would probably die out quickly. Man survived thanks to brains AND teamwork.

>> No.3514088

>>3514038

>Isn't this pretty much the only thing they talk about in philosophy class? I haven't taken one yet but that's what I hear.

Oh wow, you didn't say that, did you?
How come you assume this if you never attended a philosophy class?

>Without it the world would be a sort of world wide battle royal.

That's what the world _is_, but in a much more subtle presentation. Ethics won't hinder primal competitivity, but instead offer a code of conduct for the majority to follow. If there is any agenda behind that, that's not the question.

Most often ethics is based on theology. The reason amoralists have grown up in number since the XVIII century was the diminishing power of religion, in contrast of growth of power of science.

>> No.3514095

>>3514038
World wide battle royal + teamwork is pretty much what we have now.

States vs states, interest groups within states, friend groups within communities etc.

Battles are usually softer(information systems, not physical systems) than "killing and fucking each other over to help themselves" but nonetheless they exist.

>> No.3514142
File: 840 KB, 1600x862, 9cbf3a60b09b18961338b4a14dc66c4d.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3514142

Ethics, noun, a boundary to scientific experiments to prevent non-scientists, or scientists from beyond a particular field of study, from declaring a witch-hunt and burning a 'non-ethical' scientist at the stake. A subjective concept, not unlike morals. For more, see 'morals'.

>> No.3514184

>>3514142

Not at all. Not used in the literature that way, either.

'Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality — that is, concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime, etc.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

>> No.3514263

Ethics is simply how people can bring forth specific arguments without being consistent in reference to their other ethical beliefs.

>> No.3514371

>>3514263

I would rather say, 'without being consistent'. (According to logic, for example.)

>> No.3514458
File: 163 KB, 614x373, nietsczheclaws.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3514458

>> No.3514581

Upon observing yourself and other humans it doesn't take much to conclude that it is highly likely they are also conscious beings like yourself, if you care about your own happiness then logically you must also care about their happiness. It's not logical to satiate your own libidinous desires in the first place, obviously there is some more philosophization stemming from this but that's the general jist of it.

If you ought to be ethical then you ought to be utilitarian.

>> No.3514591

>>3514458
If Nietzsche was amoral how could he pass judgement on weaklings?

>> No.3514600

>if you care about your own happiness then logically you must also care about their happiness.

Non sequitur.

Does not follow in any aspect. Care to explain?

>> No.3514605

Tit for Tat is the winning strategy in the Prisoner's Dilemma and life. So we have evolved to play Tit for Tat, like most other organisms. Breaking Tit for Tat feels unnatural to us. We like to call those actions immoral so we feel justified to condone them and preserve Tit for Tat.

>> No.3514608

>>3514605
>condone
read that as "condemn"