Science Ethics and Racism in Drug Enforcement Thread

Cad_sl said:

The fact that they believe it to their core doesn't make it any less of a delusion. Them believing it doesn't change its truth value. Them believing it doesn't make prayer somehow more effective. It. Is. False. Teaching little kids things that are known to be false and secondarily teaching them that questioning it makes them a bad person is per se unethical, in my view.

Click to expand...

Correct, except you have now labeled the most common behavior in raising human beings in the whole world as unethical, which i want to say, is a bit of stretch.

Cad_sl said:

It seems so in 2015 in America, anyway. This idea that life has some intrinsic value is a relatively new idea in human history.

Click to expand...

I understand your point, but realize that valuing life is something that has been proven to exist in most higher mammals with social structures. I think what you are talking about is hyperbolic victim culture tropes. At a basic level, human beings do not want to see others suffer, but often our rational minds generate reasons to make it acceptable when it conflicts with our personal interests.

lendarios_sl said:

Correct, except you have now labeled the most common behavior in raising human beings in the whole world as unethical, which i want to say, is a bit of stretch.

Click to expand...

Why is that a stretch? Just because the majority of people do a thing does not magically make it ethical. There have been plenty of accepted practices that the majority engaged in over history that have been later shown to be reprehensible when examined in hindsight with a critical eye.

Phazael_sl said:

Why is that a stretch? Just because the majority of people do a thing does not magically make it ethical. There have been plenty of accepted practices that the majority engaged in over history that have been later shown to be reprehensible when examined in hindsight with a critical eye.

Click to expand...

And during those times, they were considered ethical.

So modern day. if you were to take a poll into "if teaching religion is it unethical or not", most individuals will say that it is either ethical, or at best, ethics dont apply to it. I don't think for a second any significant number of people will consider it unethical. That is why it is a stretch.

hodj_sl said:

between teaching religious beliefs as facts and teaching them as social constructs.

Click to expand...

Negative.
You can only use religious beliefs as social constructs if the enough people believes them to be facts. Else they can not be used as social constructs.

when defining ethics and morals, populism is what dictates your answer. Ethics and morals don't exist in a vacuum and they are defined by the customs of the people.

@Cad-
in my view, ethics lapse the more focused on basic personal needs an individual becomes due to circumstances. I think the bulk of non sociopathic people would agree that torture is bad, but the minute 9/11 happened and a bunch of sheep felt fear, they justified it in their minds and over half the country was ready to start tasing every turban wearing guy in the nuts at Gitmo. An average person seeing a starving child will feel compelled to lend aid. Same person in the same situation but starving day to day in the middle of a food shortage, well maybe not so willing to help.

So I guess if you are arguing that personal survival is a stronger instinct than empathy in most cases, I would generally agree with you in most cases. There are still people who would dive in front of a bus to save a small child they don't know, so its not always clear cut. I think its a case of impulse decisions versus having a prolonged scenario. In a split second choice, empathy is going to win out. Give people in stressful situations a chance to rationalize shit for personal gain, especially when said rationalizations are greased by a social order with an agenda to push, then all sorts of genuinely evil shit occurs, especially in the face of a real crisis of survival.

I would actually argue that what you are describing are institutionalized hatred and bigotry being pressed into certain people in various cultures to serve an agenda. Religious institutions have done this for centuries to assert dominance over an ignorant populace. Governments have stoked hatred to facilitate certain agendas. But at a basic local level, humans are social animals (one of many) and that requires empathy to work. As hodj linked earlier, its how the first tribes were formed leading to eventual gigantic nations we now have. But as the numbers climb or resources dwindle, people become detached to the point of cruelty at times, as you stated.

hodj_sl said:

This is a nonsense statement that demonstrates you don't know what the term social construct means.

Click to expand...

Tell me how is the wiccan society is coming along, or the Scientology system is coming along. You do know they only thing missing in order for cults to be embedded into social construct is mass appeal right.

hodj_sl said:

You're still strawmanning by the way. There's a difference, pretty profound difference at that, between teaching religious beliefs as facts and teaching them as social constructs.

Click to expand...

I cant find a single society in mankind history, that has kept a mass religious teaching and somehow keep it out of it's social structure, they are too interrelated. If you have one by all mean link it.

hodj_sl said:

At this point you're not even making a point.

The exact same reasons we don't teach xenu myths and witchcraft in science classes are the reasons we don't teach 6000 year old earth myths in science classes. You done yet?

Click to expand...

But we do make laws to take into account 6,000 myths but not and not xenu nor witchcraft. see where that religion -> social construct link comes into play?

Also when have I stated u should teach religion as a science class? Nor where have I stated we should teach religion in public schools?
What i said was the teaching of religion is not unethical. This is the one point were we disagree, and I consider it stretch, to hold such a contrarian position, on a topic that by its definition is the public opinion of something.

hodj_sl said:

Oh religion is required for social functioning huh?

Click to expand...

Tanomba, I never said that, nor implied that.
here some free logic for you
a->b does not mean b->a
a= religion -> (leads) b= social construct

did you link an atheist tribe to show that you can have religion without a social construct.. because i think you made a wrong turn somewhere.