Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

"Morality" hurts progress

Telka187
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 9:24:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The origins of surgery would be considered immoral. However, I think we would all agree that we're happy they did these immoral things to give us a better life today.

I feel like the harsh reality of finding things out quickly is that they need to be "immoral". Why don't we know how life in the womb is created? Because it's deemed immoral to do what it takes to really find this out. I promise you that we could find this out but morality holds us back. This information would most likely lead us to understanding how life is created which helps us answer so many questions. I find that religion holds us back on this as they will say we are destroying life.

Is there question of morality with doing this? Yes, there is, but again, we don't think twice today about how immoral those first "surgeons" were?

What are your thoughts on this topic? I want to know how life begins in the womb and to do so effectively means doing some immoral things.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 10:04:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Morality quite obviously does not hurt progress. If I were to murder someone, he might not invent something important. Without morals it might have been okay to murder the guy.

Also you don't need religion to be moral.
Telka187
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 10:22:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 10:04:26 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Morality quite obviously does not hurt progress. If I were to murder someone, he might not invent something important. Without morals it might have been okay to murder the guy.

Also you don't need religion to be moral.

What about cloning? Stem cell research? Figuring out how life actually starts in the womb? These things raise moral questions and scientists have been blocked completely or severely slowed because of morality. These are also often mostly blocked by religious people are they not?
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 10:43:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 10:22:59 PM, Telka187 wrote:
At 3/22/2014 10:04:26 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Morality quite obviously does not hurt progress. If I were to murder someone, he might not invent something important. Without morals it might have been okay to murder the guy.

Also you don't need religion to be moral.

What about cloning? Stem cell research? Figuring out how life actually starts in the womb? These things raise moral questions and scientists have been blocked completely or severely slowed because of morality. These are also often mostly blocked by religious people are they not?

Why are you conflating morality with religion?
biomystic
Posts: 606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 10:50:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 10:22:59 PM, Telka187 wrote:
At 3/22/2014 10:04:26 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Morality quite obviously does not hurt progress. If I were to murder someone, he might not invent something important. Without morals it might have been okay to murder the guy.

Also you don't need religion to be moral.

What about cloning? Stem cell research? Figuring out how life actually starts in the womb? These things raise moral questions and scientists have been blocked completely or severely slowed because of morality. These are also often mostly blocked by religious people are they not?

You know, Josef Mengele would quite agree with you. He went ahead and tested quite a few scientific investigations on how much pain Jewish children could take before they died I believe was one experiment. I could be wrong as I'm no expert when it comes to knowledge of mad scientist working as medieval torturers. Scientists are often too eager to find out things fast by killing or hurting innocent living beings because these scientists doing it aren't being hurt themselves, no one is trying to kill them or mutilate their bodies for scientific research so they feel free to hurt others with the excuse, "we're saving lives with new knowledge"...yeah, and my rounded up non-volunteer Polish dead relatives really appreciated that.
Telka187
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 11:09:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 10:50:53 PM, biomystic wrote:
At 3/22/2014 10:22:59 PM, Telka187 wrote:
At 3/22/2014 10:04:26 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Morality quite obviously does not hurt progress. If I were to murder someone, he might not invent something important. Without morals it might have been okay to murder the guy.

Also you don't need religion to be moral.

What about cloning? Stem cell research? Figuring out how life actually starts in the womb? These things raise moral questions and scientists have been blocked completely or severely slowed because of morality. These are also often mostly blocked by religious people are they not?

You know, Josef Mengele would quite agree with you. He went ahead and tested quite a few scientific investigations on how much pain Jewish children could take before they died I believe was one experiment. I could be wrong as I'm no expert when it comes to knowledge of mad scientist working as medieval torturers. Scientists are often too eager to find out things fast by killing or hurting innocent living beings because these scientists doing it aren't being hurt themselves, no one is trying to kill them or mutilate their bodies for scientific research so they feel free to hurt others with the excuse, "we're saving lives with new knowledge"...yeah, and my rounded up non-volunteer Polish dead relatives really appreciated that.

The next time you need surgery that could save your life I want you to think about the origins of surgery and how immoral it was and tell me if you actually give 2 shits.

This is why I raise the question. If the life form cannot produce a human recognized form of suffering then is it immoral?
Telka187
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 11:09:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 10:43:59 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 3/22/2014 10:22:59 PM, Telka187 wrote:
At 3/22/2014 10:04:26 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Morality quite obviously does not hurt progress. If I were to murder someone, he might not invent something important. Without morals it might have been okay to murder the guy.

Also you don't need religion to be moral.

What about cloning? Stem cell research? Figuring out how life actually starts in the womb? These things raise moral questions and scientists have been blocked completely or severely slowed because of morality. These are also often mostly blocked by religious people are they not?

Why are you conflating morality with religion?

Because religious people claim morality is from God.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 11:14:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 10:50:53 PM, biomystic wrote:
At 3/22/2014 10:22:59 PM, Telka187 wrote:
At 3/22/2014 10:04:26 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Morality quite obviously does not hurt progress. If I were to murder someone, he might not invent something important. Without morals it might have been okay to murder the guy.

Also you don't need religion to be moral.

What about cloning? Stem cell research? Figuring out how life actually starts in the womb? These things raise moral questions and scientists have been blocked completely or severely slowed because of morality. These are also often mostly blocked by religious people are they not?

You know, Josef Mengele would quite agree with you. He went ahead and tested quite a few scientific investigations on how much pain Jewish children could take before they died I believe was one experiment. I could be wrong as I'm no expert when it comes to knowledge of mad scientist working as medieval torturers. Scientists are often too eager to find out things fast by killing or hurting innocent living beings because these scientists doing it aren't being hurt themselves, no one is trying to kill them or mutilate their bodies for scientific research so they feel free to hurt others with the excuse, "we're saving lives with new knowledge"...yeah, and my rounded up non-volunteer Polish dead relatives really appreciated that.

Yes, one experiment I read about involved freezing men to the point of near-death and then forcing women to engage in various kinds in intimate acts to determine if this might be more effective at bringing body temperatures back to normal. They were looking for ways to treat German bombers who crashed or jettisoned into the Channel. I saw a documentary on the experiments which Japanese doctors performed on military and civilian prisoners for decades in the name of "pure science." Does science itself really want the reputation of placing expediency before morality?
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 11:22:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 9:24:36 PM, Telka187 wrote:
The origins of surgery would be considered immoral. However, I think we would all agree that we're happy they did these immoral things to give us a better life today.

I feel like the harsh reality of finding things out quickly is that they need to be "immoral". Why don't we know how life in the womb is created? Because it's deemed immoral to do what it takes to really find this out. I promise you that we could find this out but morality holds us back. This information would most likely lead us to understanding how life is created which helps us answer so many questions. I find that religion holds us back on this as they will say we are destroying life.

Is there question of morality with doing this? Yes, there is, but again, we don't think twice today about how immoral those first "surgeons" were?

What are your thoughts on this topic? I want to know how life begins in the womb and to do so effectively means doing some immoral things.

Of course one could argue that while origins of surgery seem imoral on the short run, it is certainly moral on the long run. Those surgeons might be thinking of the future of mankind and how millions of people can be saved or benefited through surgery, therefore the lives of those millions outweigh the lives of the few that they must use as expense. Because their intentions are to save potential millions at the cost of a few, this is certainly moral.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 11:53:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 11:22:50 PM, Defro wrote:
At 3/22/2014 9:24:36 PM, Telka187 wrote:
The origins of surgery would be considered immoral. However, I think we would all agree that we're happy they did these immoral things to give us a better life today.

I feel like the harsh reality of finding things out quickly is that they need to be "immoral". Why don't we know how life in the womb is created? Because it's deemed immoral to do what it takes to really find this out. I promise you that we could find this out but morality holds us back. This information would most likely lead us to understanding how life is created which helps us answer so many questions. I find that religion holds us back on this as they will say we are destroying life.

Is there question of morality with doing this? Yes, there is, but again, we don't think twice today about how immoral those first "surgeons" were?

What are your thoughts on this topic? I want to know how life begins in the womb and to do so effectively means doing some immoral things.


Of course one could argue that while origins of surgery seem imoral on the short run, it is certainly moral on the long run. Those surgeons might be thinking of the future of mankind and how millions of people can be saved or benefited through surgery, therefore the lives of those millions outweigh the lives of the few that they must use as expense. Because their intentions are to save potential millions at the cost of a few, this is certainly moral.

Value is set by the individual: As a child, my mother was worth more, to me, than millions of people I had never met. As an adult, I have those people in my life, I care for tremendously and for whom I would do anything.

Don't tell me millions of people are worth more than a few, unless you're willing to sacrifice yourself and those closest to you, to save millions you have never met and neither have made any attempt to do so.

Sacrifice is always easy, when it's not ours to make.
Telka187
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 12:02:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 11:53:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 3/22/2014 11:22:50 PM, Defro wrote:
At 3/22/2014 9:24:36 PM, Telka187 wrote:
The origins of surgery would be considered immoral. However, I think we would all agree that we're happy they did these immoral things to give us a better life today.

I feel like the harsh reality of finding things out quickly is that they need to be "immoral". Why don't we know how life in the womb is created? Because it's deemed immoral to do what it takes to really find this out. I promise you that we could find this out but morality holds us back. This information would most likely lead us to understanding how life is created which helps us answer so many questions. I find that religion holds us back on this as they will say we are destroying life.

Is there question of morality with doing this? Yes, there is, but again, we don't think twice today about how immoral those first "surgeons" were?

What are your thoughts on this topic? I want to know how life begins in the womb and to do so effectively means doing some immoral things.


Of course one could argue that while origins of surgery seem imoral on the short run, it is certainly moral on the long run. Those surgeons might be thinking of the future of mankind and how millions of people can be saved or benefited through surgery, therefore the lives of those millions outweigh the lives of the few that they must use as expense. Because their intentions are to save potential millions at the cost of a few, this is certainly moral.

Value is set by the individual: As a child, my mother was worth more, to me, than millions of people I had never met. As an adult, I have those people in my life, I care for tremendously and for whom I would do anything.

Don't tell me millions of people are worth more than a few, unless you're willing to sacrifice yourself and those closest to you, to save millions you have never met and neither have made any attempt to do so.

Sacrifice is always easy, when it's not ours to make.

What if it's "nobodies" sacrifice? What if we're able to clone wombs, implant eggs from people who don't care or know and get sperm from people who don't care/know. Sounds like everyone but the fetus isn't making a sacrifice, but since nobody cares about that fetus does it really matter then? If a perfect stranger cares then does it matter?
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 12:17:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 11:53:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:

Value is set by the individual: As a child, my mother was worth more, to me, than millions of people I had never met. As an adult, I have those people in my life, I care for tremendously and for whom I would do anything.

Don't tell me millions of people are worth more than a few, unless you're willing to sacrifice yourself and those closest to you, to save millions you have never met and neither have made any attempt to do so.

Sacrifice is always easy, when it's not ours to make.

As a matter of fact, I would be willing to sacrifice myself if it means saving millions, though I'm not sure i'd sacrifice those closest to me.

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure the patients early surgeons operated on were not close to them, so they would certainly value millions over them.
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/23/2014 1:11:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/22/2014 9:24:36 PM, Telka187 wrote:
The origins of surgery would be considered immoral. However, I think we would all agree that we're happy they did these immoral things to give us a better life today.

I feel like the harsh reality of finding things out quickly is that they need to be "immoral". Why don't we know how life in the womb is created? Because it's deemed immoral to do what it takes to really find this out. I promise you that we could find this out but morality holds us back. This information would most likely lead us to understanding how life is created which helps us answer so many questions. I find that religion holds us back on this as they will say we are destroying life.

Is there question of morality with doing this? Yes, there is, but again, we don't think twice today about how immoral those first "surgeons" were?

What are your thoughts on this topic? I want to know how life begins in the womb and to do so effectively means doing some immoral things.

I think we need to be careful of what we want to learn, how we go about finding out, and when. Not all information is good for us. And it's not all good for us all the time. What I mean is that we need to advance morally and ethically as we advance intellectually and scientifically. Otherwise we run a serious risk of creating technologies that we are not yet ethically mature enough to handle. And in fact we are now living in a time when this is happening. And we may well end up destroying ourselves as a result.

We really need to evolve past blind greed as the basic motive behind our technological decision-making. Because, right now, technology is enabling that greed to run rampant through our culture, our politics, our economy, and our society, and it's destroying our quality of life faster than it's improving it. And we're currently headed for a disaster of frightening proportions if we don't get hold of ourselves.

It's not looking good.