Mismatched technology and ethics

How should we think about weird things?
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed May 31, 2017 12:01 am

One general term is the conflict between science and values. What we can do, and what we should do.

A quibble that might not be: "The same doctors and technology that are able to keep Terry ‘alive’ also suggest that to continue is useless,............" //// No... that is NOT what the doctors "say" and technology doesn't say anything at all. You got a bit of that "folk knowledge" creeping into your analysis here.....as we all do. IE--I'm not aware of any folk knowledge that thinks of feeding tubes as sustainance. The acceptance of same is rather based on that is what is required to maintain the hope that they do possess. There is a "distinction" in there somewhere.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jun 01, 2017 12:42 am

Here I agree with Bobbo. The technology is not the issue, but rather how society creates values.

Personally I think this question should be like making a will. If a person is of sound mind, he or she can decide what to do.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 01, 2017 12:53 am

Given the science and "my" values, I'll go a step farther: the DEFAULT should be withdrawal of life support if there is not reasonable expectation of recovery, UNLESS the patient has made wishes known otherwise, or by the family: AND THEY PAY FOR THE COSTS INVOLVED.

Yeah: its a death panel deal.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3067
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu Jun 01, 2017 3:41 am

The only conflict is between people who think they gain more with a new technology and those who don't want to lose what they've build with the old.
Ethical justifications come second.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:01 am

EM: surely not "the only" conflict? Especially when I can't even determine what you are identifying????

Can you spell out what you mean using the end of life hypo I used or the fertility/abortion example the OP did....or just say: "Ok.....its only one of the conflicts."....whatever it means.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7367
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby TJrandom » Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:19 am

Doesn`t the conflict generally arise when it is non-affected person interfering with affected people? Of course an affected person might have a personal and internal conflict, and seek out advice, thus bringing the non-affected into the conflict. But in general, if the non-affected would just bow out, all would be well. Thus not a matter of technology at all, but rather of personal values transference.
Last edited by TJrandom on Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:26 am

Again TJ==apply your notion to the two examples given so far. In both as I view what you say, the people affected with the technology ARE the one's having to deal with the consequences.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7367
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby TJrandom » Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:58 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Again TJ==apply your notion to the two examples given so far. In both as I view what you say, the people affected with the technology ARE the one's having to deal with the consequences.


OK, for right-to-die – the near death person who chooses death, has no conflict so long as nobody interferes. Drugs, guns, tall buildings, etc., all being readily available. The issue arises then not with technology, but values transference by non-affected people who might prevent life self-termination.

With fertility/abortion, the heavily pregnant person can choose abortion or not, the technology being readily available – self medicated, doctor assisted, or back ally. Again, chose an abortion or not, affecting only the life of the prospective mother. The issue arises when non-affected people transfer their values (of what is legal and thus protected life) to the affected prospective mother.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:13 am

Well TJ.... it must be parallax view? The right to die certainly in conflict as assisted suicide is illegal in all states except maybe Oregon?.....but its a harder example otherwise than is being preggers. The pregnant person has the legal right to abort excess eggs in the first trimester, so it would be her own conflicts that could give her conflict with the fruits of the technology she chose to use. No one else.

Aren't we both having the same kind of conflict now? Extending our lives........but we remember when we were young and vital?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3067
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:29 am

hi bobbo,

I was trying to be more general than the example in the OP, because I don't think it's all that relevant.
but ok.


First of all, right-to-die and abortion have absolutely nothing in common, nothing. It makes no sense whatsoever to discuss them in the same frame unless you want to make some philosophical statement about the power over life humans have.

About abortion: humans have always regulated their reproductive rate to meet the demands of the environment. if you have lots of labour, you have many children - if not then not.
Abortion is the logical consequence of our achievement of extremely low child mortality plus a sense of overcrowding, which is the result of urbanization: we know that we can cut the world population by 3/4th or more without risking extinction.
When to abort is another issue - and we know from data that the simpler and less stigmatized the process is, the earlier it happens: self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" really want to force women to abort as late as possibel to maximize the harm to mother and child.

prolonging life isn't about ethics, either, it's just human nature: we can have all the arguments why spending a million $ for another 6 months of life are really not worth it, and still most people would do anything for another week unless it's in agony. If the cure for mortality turns out to be eating a foetus a day, then we can be sure that somehow, somewhere we will come up with a rationalization that will make it seem ok.
This is a typical case where the benefit to the individual stands opposed to the benefit of the species: humans could be more innovative and productive if lifespans were shorter, but we will do what we can to achieve amortality - though that could very well cause our extinction.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7367
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby TJrandom » Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:48 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Well TJ.... it must be parallax view? The right to die certainly in conflict as assisted suicide is illegal in all states except maybe Oregon?.....but its a harder example otherwise than is being preggers. The pregnant person has the legal right to abort excess eggs in the first trimester, so it would be her own conflicts that could give her conflict with the fruits of the technology she chose to use. No one else.

Aren't we both having the same kind of conflict now? Extending our lives........but we remember when we were young and vital?


And yet in the not so distant past, at least here in Japan, a birth wasn`t a birth until three days had passed. From a practical standpoint a foetus could die during childbirth, or as a baby within those three days post birth by intervention, and it wasn`t a legal issue at all. My point being that the current legal limitations on life self-termination and on abortions are the result of values transference, and not technology at all.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jun 01, 2017 5:52 am

Is this now a debate on abortion and Euthanasia?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7367
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby TJrandom » Thu Jun 01, 2017 6:08 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Is this now a debate on abortion and Euthanasia?


I hope not, since IMO that debate ended so many years ago.... I still don`t see a reason to implicate technology in moral conflict.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jun 01, 2017 6:20 am

Nor do I TJ. These issues are ones purely of personal ethics, not technology.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:09 am

EM--your post amuses me. Certainly all the issues fall across a spectrum or continuum of relevant concerns? Yet you stake out one position on such curves and say that is all there is? I don't think so.

First of all, right-to-die and abortion have absolutely nothing in common, nothing. It makes no sense whatsoever to discuss them in the same frame unless you want to make some philosophical statement about the power over life humans have.
So..... which is it? You know==="absolutely" has that "single point ring" to it. but just note your own analysis: absolutely nothing followed by just one illustration putting the two issues on parity. In context....both issues are affected by technology.... the very subject of this thread.

I'll stop with one issue per response. We get lost so easily otherwise.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:11 am

TJ--a bit likewise with EM===> without the technology making life possible or extended, the ethical/morals/choices don't even arise. I don't know how you guys separate the CAUSATION from the consequences in such compact spaces. Makes my head spin. Do you read what you write?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:13 am

Lance: many issues cause lots of smoke with neither heat nor light WHEN discussed in generalities. Always good to put rubber on the road, come down to earth and deal with real concrete examples. Gives specificity to so many otherwise whispy elements. You can add your own examples, but when you offer none yourself, not very productive to criticize the ones put on the table by others. Mix and match the two responses already for a full answer to your own complaint.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3067
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:30 am

bobbo,
i profess not to understand what you are trying to say.
If the connection is purely abstract, it doesn't matter in any real sense - except to keep philosophers busy.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7367
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby TJrandom » Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:34 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:TJ--a bit likewise with EM===> without the technology making life possible or extended, the ethical/morals/choices don't even arise. I don't know how you guys separate the CAUSATION from the consequences in such compact spaces. Makes my head spin. Do you read what you write?


No ethical/moral choices being made by the affected person - rather only in the eyes of the non-affected observer, and that without needing to implicate technology at all. Of course technology marches on and gives more choices now than before, should a person wish to use them.

And yes, of course I do read what I write – no need to take that path. Unless you are after technology in the sense of the internet, word processing, use of reading glasses... :D

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 01, 2017 1:41 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:bobbo,
i profess not to understand what you are trying to say.
If the connection is purely abstract, it doesn't matter in any real sense - except to keep philosophers busy.

Right to Die and abortion cases have many points in common with many being created/highlighted/complicated by technology. In both, its technology that can create/extend life in ways not possible before so there are moral/ethical issues created by these new circumstances. Need more be said other than look again?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 01, 2017 1:44 pm

TJ---whaaaaa? OF COURSE.... moral choices are made by us all, all the time. I think you are confusing this with a linguistically close but separate issue that the person making their own moral choices often is not conflicted or certainly facing opposition? But if I choose to live long or die with dignity THAT is a moral choice regardless of what other people are doing. Its EXACTLY what other people disagree with. You can't disagree with something that doesn't exist.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3067
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby ElectricMonk » Thu Jun 01, 2017 2:21 pm

Both abortion and right-to-end-of-life have existed since the beginning of human societies or even earlier. The only thing changing is the degree to which it is possible.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7367
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby TJrandom » Thu Jun 01, 2017 6:04 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:Both abortion and right-to-end-of-life have existed since the beginning of human societies or even earlier. The only thing changing is the degree to which it is possible.


And maybe the degree to which non-affected people want to interfere by asserting their own values....

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7367
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby TJrandom » Thu Jun 01, 2017 6:13 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:TJ---whaaaaa? OF COURSE.... moral choices are made by us all, all the time. I think you are confusing this with a linguistically close but separate issue that the person making their own moral choices often is not conflicted or certainly facing opposition? But if I choose to live long or die with dignity THAT is a moral choice regardless of what other people are doing. Its EXACTLY what other people disagree with. You can't disagree with something that doesn't exist.


I think you understand my point so I won`t quibble too much. IMO, my own moral choices should be mine to make. Yours for you to make. I might well not even see my choices as involving ethics or morals. Neither of us need face opposition, but that we might do so isn`t a technology issue, but rather a busybody issue.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jun 01, 2017 9:10 pm

Just one addendum to your statement, TJ. I suspect you will agree.

A moral choice is your own business if the result affects only you. If a moral choice harms others, then it becomes the business of others.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7367
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby TJrandom » Thu Jun 01, 2017 9:22 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Just one addendum to your statement, TJ. I suspect you will agree.

A moral choice is your own business if the result affects only you. If a moral choice harms others, then it becomes the business of others.


Agreed.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7367
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby TJrandom » Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:13 pm

I was trying to think of a situation where ethics and technology might be intertwined because technology presents possible solutions. Conjoined twins, both viable while conjoined, but only one viable if separated, might be such as case.

One scenario would be to agree to remain co-joined. Another, for them to agree to a separation, with the non-viable willingly accepting his fate. A third would be for the viable one to assert a `right` and thus kill his sibling. IMO, only the third is a moral issue. Technology only came to play by presenting the fairly recent option for separation.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:45 pm

TJ---my favorite definition of morality: "Morality is what you do when no one else is looking." //// So....... no ......... morality is not about interference or complications caused by other people. Like a fish that doesn not realize it is in water until removed......I'm having trouble recognizing what distinction you guys are trying to make.

If either conjoined twin decides to do something or not do anything: thats morality on display. Different degrees of intensity depending on the people and issues involved......but its the water we swim in.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:47 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:Both abortion and right-to-end-of-life have existed since the beginning of human societies or even earlier. The only thing changing is the degree to which it is possible.


Without even understanding what you are saying, the response is easy: OK.... by your own assessment, the morality is in the degrees.

btw: I reread my post to you and I agree....near impossible to understand. I do that too often trying to raise an issue without directing an answer. Pros and Cons to all we do...... and we can always do it better. Thats my morality anyway.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:04 pm

Bobbo

The "when no one is looking" bit is not a definition. It is a witticism. Quite clever, but not defining.

I could look up a dictionary definition of morality, but I suspect that each of us has his/her own definition.

For me personally, morality is covered by the following.

I will try not to harm, but instead to help...
1. My fellow humans
2. Other animals
3. The natural environment.

That is a very broad reaching statement, but covers, IMHO, all morality. Interpreting it, of course, is the complicated bit.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:13 pm

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are calling my favorite definition a witticism? I have NEVER been so insulted. Of course, "when no one is looking" is not defining.........it sets the condition for ACTION.......which is the same kinetic you utilize: morality is "what you do." Following the law may or may not coincide with your morality........but what do you do when no one is looking? That is actually your unvarnished morality. Maybe your id.......but still morality.

Heh, heh.........hard to discuss such morality on a public forum here where we are all exposed?

Ah well....................... keep thinking about it. Shirley your hierarchy of activities that morality cannot be separated from is a failed tautology that needs some of that thinking? You know......beyond bubble gum wrappers? IE: Morality in your view is "helping." So.... how do you help them? Do you separate the twins.....or leave them alone?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:16 pm

Morality: Motivation based on ideas of right and wrong. ///// Hmmmm....not even "the action" taken. Just the motivation? I call this definition: too short...... as most are.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:15 am

Responding to your question, Bobbo.

I said the interpretation was the problem. My idea of morality is, I think, correct. But the details are subject to individual interpretation, and everyone is different. So the way I would do some things may not be the same as others.

For example, helping and not harming animals. Where do you draw the line? Is stepping on an ant Immoral? How about killing a whale for its oil? I do not think it is possible to define a code of morals in its entirety. Everyone will have different ideas.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jun 02, 2017 1:18 am

Lance: so your concept of morality is doing the right thing without being able to describe/set parameters/give examples at all..................

Worthless.

You are also making a serious conflation as if morality applies to all. Yes and No. Morality DOES apply to all........and then you got two types of people: those who are moral, and those who aren't. Yes.........this is terribly dumbed down as I too want to help animals.

Heh, heh............I will add that morality has NOTHING to do with animals....helping them or not. animals are relevant ONLY in the way they are utilized to make HUMAN life better. I mean......... its right there: they're ANIMALS. Little mindless eating, killing, reproducing machines without a thought of the world. We are the same....... then we call it morality.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jun 02, 2017 1:25 am

Bobbo

The point I made is that everyone is different, and what I consider moral, another person may differ on.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jun 02, 2017 1:38 am

That doesn't define or explain morality at all. people differ on every and any issue you can name.

Got anything at all?

Pick any example and give an example of
1. morality
2. YOUR morality
3. The right and wrong choices and why they are so

.............or dither incompetently that people will have different judgments?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jun 02, 2017 1:49 am

Bobbo.

Quite correct. People do differ. Hence in a world of 7 billion people, there are 7 billion kinds of morality.
My personal code of morality requires me to avoid harming others, and instead help them where that is practical. I am no saint, and I will admit that I do not make great personal sacrifices to this end. My code requires me to avoid cruelty to animals, but I still eat meat. My code requires me to be a conservationist, but I do not subscribe to the endless unscientific drivel that some conservationists spout. My code is good, but I admit to being a weak human and indulging in compromise.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7367
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby TJrandom » Fri Jun 02, 2017 2:21 am

Bobbo – I might have said - when people ARE looking, since something done in private doesn`t require careful consideration from the dark hearted (killers, thieves, etc.). But when done under the view of others, might at least encourage the person to think first – that is, invoke morals.

(Still, no technology mismatch here…)
Last edited by TJrandom on Fri Jun 02, 2017 7:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jun 02, 2017 5:27 am

Seems we are all thrashing around a bit, so I returned to the OP:

tuanhuylink wrote:........ An idea that stuck with me is that one of the sources of conflict is a mismatch between the knowledge and technology used medically and that used to inform the ethical decision-making. ...........

For instance, a major conflict occurs when people accept modern technology (chemical and procedural) to insure fertility, and then adopt a different stance when addressing the consequent production of too many fetuses (i.e., refusing advice to abort which then leads to extreme medical problems).

Is there a term in general use for this phenomenon? I’d like to find some other thoughts along these lines.


I don't think English has a word for this phenomenon. Several are related or in the ballpark. I think "Future Shock" catches a bit of the dilema. Being hypocritical and short sighted does as well....but you gotta knock off the rough corners?

Unlike "us"..... I think our OP here has formulated an excellent example we might focus on before sallying forth with others? MORALITY. I note right off the block that some people think bringing more people into this world that is already too crowded is actually NOT a moral position. Perhaps even less moral to bring 6 or more fetuses to life just so the couple could have ONE of their own rather than adopt any of the unwanted fetuses?

This touches on the incorrect comments made on this subject as the morality of the decision is the couple's own regardless of what other people may think AND it is brought on entirely by the new fertility technology. All around: a very good hypothetical.

Hmmmmm.....does "morality" even enter into this situation?......or is more of people wanting to do what they want to do for whatever reasons they have......so they can do it as long as they have access to the technology? And is that the role technology always plays? As opposed to not having any role at all........technology is always giving us more choices.

I think so.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9869
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Mismatched technology and ethics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:01 am

I would regard the number of people we bring into the world as being more a matter of practicality than morality. There is no current problem with too many people, since average fertility has dropped to barely above replacement. In fact many nations, like Japan, have a problem with too few children.


Return to “Skepticism and Critical Thinking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests