37 réponses à ce sujet

[God]

I disagree entirely with that perspective. I'm a relativist, for what it's worth, and I don't believe in any inherent right or wrong way to achieve a goal, so long as it is achieved. 

 

Now, I'm not going to advocate dropping all barriers and letting us just get on with the science unhindered. But I do believe that there are possibilities on the table that might be more practical.

 

As a soldier, we've been trained to take a different approach. Not the view I'm advocating per se, but the approach of 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' and 'the mission always comes first'. It's why we have soldiers much more liberal with interpreting orders when there is intentional leeway given. At the end of the day, we do believe that how you accomplish the mission does not matter as much as it being accomplished. Now, for some sake or another, we'll restrain ourselves from acting too rationally (which you might interpret as harsh), but when it comes down to the line, we don't care how it's done, as long as it is done.

 

I can see how your perspective might come into conflict with that.

[God]

I disagree entirely with that perspective. I'm a relativist, for what it's worth, and I don't believe in any inherent right or wrong way to achieve a goal, so long as it is achieved. 

 

Now, I'm not going to advocate dropping all barriers and letting us just get on with the science unhindered. But I do believe that there are possibilities on the table that might be more practical.

 

As a soldier, we've been trained to take a different approach. Not the view I'm advocating per se, but the approach of 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' and 'the mission always comes first'. It's why we have soldiers much more liberal with interpreting orders when there is intentional leeway given. At the end of the day, we do believe that how you accomplish the mission does not matter as much as it being accomplished. Now, for some sake or another, we'll restrain ourselves from acting too rationally (which you might interpret as harsh), but when it comes down to the line, we don't care how it's done, as long as it is done.

 

I can see how your perspective might come into conflict with that.

[Kabooooom]

I disagree entirely with that perspective. I'm a relativist, for what it's worth, and I don't believe in any inherent right or wrong way to achieve a goal, so long as it is achieved.

Now, I'm not going to advocate dropping all barriers and letting us just get on with the science unhindered. But I do believe that there are possibilities on the table that might be more practical.

.

And what are you using to deduce that one shouldnt drop all barriers and continue unhindered, given your perspective? I'm curious.

I'm a doctor, and I'm also an atheist. I share your view about moral relativism, as there is no intrinsic morality to nature. But that's irrelevant. As a sapient species, we must decide what is right and wrong, what is acceptable and what is not. WE impose those limitations on our own actions. But what should we base them upon? Is it possible to construct an ethics devoid of religion, based solely upon humanistic virtue?

It is.

And so, I cannot fathom how one could say it would be ethical to torture men, women, and children if the end goal was relevant enough. This is fundamentally different than the calculus of war, so I find your comparison lacking. I have absolutely no moral problem whatsoever with letting ten million people die so that a billion may live in matters of warfare in which there is no choice and no suitable alternative to the suffering.

But you are talking about deliberate human experimentation and torture for scientific knowledge. In such a situation, there IS a choice and suitable alternative. The comparison is worse than apples and oranges.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

I do. I guess I'm not coming off in that aspect well. I do care, but I also acknowledge that some people aren't going to be saved, and that our position would be significantly worse off if I didn't take the measures that I undertake within the story (or more appropriately, what Cerberus takes in action). 
 
But yes, I do believe that if I'm hurting some people who would not be hurt while making things better for everyone else, I do feel that I am making things better overall.

Well here is the issue that I am having... the "everyone else" you are making things better also remain at risk of randomly being selected and disposed of for whatever other thing you feel is necessary. There will always be problems, and lots of them, which means lots of people having their lives destroyed when it would otherwise be normal for them. So on one hand, you may be making some things better, but on the other, you are also perpetrating another problem in and of yourself. To me, this is not an improvement.

[Kabooooom]

And here is another comparison- you are basically advocating that the ends justify the means, and that pragmatism should be weighed heavily.

So lets frame a scenario from a soldiers perspective: If the most efficient means to end a war is to cause massive collateral damage but force the enemy into submission (Hiroshima and Nagasaki are perfect examples of this), would you find this to be an ethical act? Or, would you prolong warfare longer, costing the lives of more soldiers in the long run but sparing the lives of more civilians? Do the lives of a million civilians outweigh the lives of a million soldiers?

Are they equivalent? Do you value soldiers more for their utility? Or civilians for their innocence and contribution to society at large?

Can you see how taking a stance that does not attempt to place a value on human life, and self-imposed rules on how to handle human life, can cause the ethical waters to be endlessly muddied? Lines must be drawn.


We don't torture innocent people for scientific merit, and we don't kill civilians for convenience. If we adopt what you are proposing as a guiding force for society, then you might as well no longer call our species humanity - because we would have lost our humanity.

[God]

And here is another comparison- you are basically advocating that the ends justify the means, and that pragmatism should be weighed heavily.

So lets frame a scenario from a soldiers perspective: If the most efficient means to end a war is to cause massive collateral damage but force the enemy into submission (Hiroshima and Nagasaki are perfect examples of this), would you find this to be an ethical act? Or, would you prolong warfare longer, costing the lives of more soldiers in the long run but sparing the lives of more civilians? Do the lives of a million civilians outweigh the lives of a million soldiers?

Are they equivalent? Do you value soldiers more for their utility? Or civilians for their innocence and contribution to society at large?

Can you see how taking a stance that does not attempt to place a value on human life, and self-imposed rules on how to handle human life, can cause the ethical waters to be endlessly muddied? Lines must be drawn.


We don't torture innocent people for scientific merit, and we don't kill civilians for convenience. If we adopt what you are proposing as a guiding force for society, then you might as well no longer call our species humanity - because we would have lost our humanity.

 

Soldiers and their utility, absolutely. 

 

I still entirely disagree. Honestly, I think what you're saying what we have (humanity) is not something worth having in the long run or worth that much IMO. I believe in a context-by-context ideology where each action is weighed by its practicality and ability to determine which results are best. I don't believe in lines that can't be crossed, at least as far as ethics are concerned. If it muddies the pool, whatever. To be frank, I don't care. 

 

If the person has no discernible value to our society in life, then I do support making them useful in death. Again, to be frank, it helps the rest of us advance, and it no longer inconveniences us. 

[God]

And what are you using to deduce that one shouldnt drop all barriers and continue unhindered, given your perspective? I'm curious.

I'm a doctor, and I'm also an atheist. I share your view about moral relativism, as there is no intrinsic morality to nature. But that's irrelevant. As a sapient species, we must decide what is right and wrong, what is acceptable and what is not. WE impose those limitations on our own actions. But what should we base them upon? Is it possible to construct an ethics devoid of religion, based solely upon humanistic virtue?

It is.

And so, I cannot fathom how one could say it would be ethical to torture men, women, and children if the end goal was relevant enough. This is fundamentally different than the calculus of war, so I find your comparison lacking. I have absolutely no moral problem whatsoever with letting ten million people die so that a billion may live in matters of warfare in which there is no choice and no suitable alternative to the suffering.

But you are talking about deliberate human experimentation and torture for scientific knowledge. In such a situation, there IS a choice and suitable alternative. The comparison is worse than apples and oranges.

 

What, when accumulating all variables, projects the best outcome with the most viable results? There are more variables than I can begin to count. What is practical, pragmatic, and most cost-effective for resources. I don't put stock in the intangible, the non-real. Atheist as you are, you're putting a faith into an abstraction based on irrationality at its core.

 

I don't disagree that ethics can be imposed without religion at all. I disagree on what we believe those ethics are, and what we view as good and evil. I view knowledge, propagation, and growth as the good. I view ignorance, extinction, and stagnation as the evil. 

 

I can fathom it just fine. If the torture and killing leads to knowledge, propagation of the species in the long-run through the knowledge learned through their death, and the growth of our society without significant resource depletion as the outcome, then yes, it is a worthwhile goal. 

[Kabooooom]

Soldiers and their utility, absolutely.

I still entirely disagree. Honestly, I think what you're saying what we have (humanity) is not something worth having in the long run or worth that much IMO. I believe in a context-by-context ideology where each action is weighed by its practicality and ability to determine which results are best. I don't believe in lines that can't be crossed, at least as far as ethics are concerned. If it muddies the pool, whatever. To be frank, I don't care.

If the person has no discernible value to our society in life, then I do support making them useful in death. Again, to be frank, it helps the rest of us advance, and it no longer inconveniences us.

To be frank as well, your stance is one pretty much only adopted by sociopaths. Not that there's a problem with being a sociopath, of course. It persists in 1% of the population and therefore likely had an evolutionary advantage at one point. Clearly, throughout human history, it was beneficial to have people with your perspective.

I'm just not so sure it is still beneficial.

[God]

To be frank as well, your stance is one pretty much only adopted by sociopaths. Not that there's a problem with being a sociopath, of course. It persists in 1% of the population and therefore likely had an evolutionary advantage at one point. Clearly, throughout human history, it was beneficial to have people with your perspective.

I'm just not so sure it is still beneficial.

 

Well, I do have sociopathic tendencies. I'm not a 'true' sociopath, as I do possess the ability to care for and love people. That said, I do admire them and believe they have an advantage, especially within the military. 

 

I do believe its beneficial as well. Sociopaths are some of the most practical beings you can encounter. The issue with them is when they stop being practical. One distinct problem is that they have a rather large tendency to hold a god complex and think of themselves very highly. Which, ironically enough, can cloud their judgement. 

 

I think it's going to stem down to a fundamental disagreement between us. You hold their to be a distinction (in some cases, such as the experiments and torture) to be a practical solution, and an acceptable solution. I hold the two to be one and the same. The practical solution is always the acceptable solution. It need not always be the torture or experimentation. There are scenarios where those are undesirable for whatever tangible reason (publicity, lack of support, lack of security, etc.) They would thus not be the practical solution.

[Kabooooom]

What, when accumulating all variables, projects the best outcome with the most viable results? There are more variables than I can begin to count. What is practical, pragmatic, and most cost-effective for resources. I don't put stock in the intangible, the non-real. Atheist as you are, you're putting a faith into an abstraction based on irrationality at its core.

I don't disagree that ethics can be imposed without religion at all. I disagree on what we believe those ethics are, and what we view as good and evil. I view knowledge, propagation, and growth as the good. I view ignorance, extinction, and stagnation as the evil.

I can fathom it just fine. If the torture and killing leads to knowledge, propagation of the species in the long-run through the knowledge learned through their death, and the growth of our society without significant resource depletion as the outcome, then yes, it is a worthwhile goal.

To the contrary, both our views are based in rationality at their core. I have trouble rationalizing an understand of your view, because I am an empathic human being who devoted his life to both healing and advancing human knowledge. You have trouble rationalizing an understanding of my view, possibly because you lack the same level of empathy.

It's fine, two different perspectives. It is worth noting however that your philosophical position is likewise completely intangible, as are all such positions (including my own). There is a difference between intangibility and faith.

[MikeFL25]

Haha, I made this topic to air out an idea I had while replaying ME3, and it has become a full-blown debate on ethics and morality.  Thank you internet 

[God]

It's what you get with me. I can't really argue anymore on the rest of this point, since I'm largely in agreement now and feel the matter is concluded.