Science Ethics and Racism in Drug Enforcement Thread

Palum

what Suineg set it to
23,811
34,719
They may be relative to a certain extent, but there is a strong biological underpinning to them also. That is what Hodj is arguing.
The fuck type of biological urge is like 'oh wait, this thing under the electron microscope I'm putting some shit in is JUST NOT RIGHT! Cro magnon would never!'?

We're not talking ten commandments line items here.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Right. I'm not saying its magic, or like a god or some shit.

Spoilering this post for its length

Morality is herd instinct expressed at the individual level. Ethics is the system by which we express that herd instinct as a society. We can see suffering in others, and most (not all) of us can and will project ourselves into that person and comprehend that what they're experiencing is not fair, or just, or right. That is the golden rule, essentially. I don't want to have experiments conducted on me without anesthesia while I'm still alive. I don't want to be shoved into a gas chamber, and so I can imagine you wouldn't want to either, and you can do the same to me.

Because we're a social species. Those of us who were, for the most part, complete loners, lived to reproductive age at a lower rate than those of us who were more adapted to working in groups. That is a self reinforcing process, and is a beneficially selective trait. Herd animals live in large herds precisely because it benefits them as a species in terms of survival. Its no surprise that this leads to certain in built characteristics that favor, in broad strokes, pro social behaviors/empathetic awareness.

Dogs are a great example. Our cousin primates are a great example, especially the bonobos, who resolve all conflicts through sexual expression, genital rubbing, so forth.

Just because a society can become so sick and twisted, like modern day North Korea, that people are so subjugated, or brainwashed, that they are forced to push those types of feelings down and ignore them as a survival mechanism, doesn't mean they go away.

This guy is a good example of that from the news recently

BERLIN: Auschwitz guard offers Germans something rare: A Nazi who admits what he did | Europe | McClatchy DC

On the opening day of his trial on 300,000 counts of accessory to murder, the man known as the "accountant of Auschwitz" told of the moment he lost his "euphoria for Adolf Hitler."

He was standing on a train platform after Hungarian Jews had been unloaded at the Nazi death camp. The unwitting condemned already had been sent to the gas chambers. The newly arrived slave laborers had been sent in a different direction.

Left behind on the platform was a crying infant. As the child cried, one of the now 93-year-old Oskar Groening's fellow SS officers approached it, grabbed it by the leg, dashed its head against a nearby truck, then tossed the lifeless body into the truck.

As horrific as that story is, what might have been more shocking was Groening's next observation.

"I don't know what else I could have expected the guard to do with the baby," he mused. "I suppose he could have shot it, though."

The casual acceptance of brutality that the former Waffen SS officer displayed even 70 years after the Third Reich was destroyed provided a rare insight into the twisted nature of the Nazi death camp mindset. Even from a man who admitted in court that he carried "moral guilt" if not legal guilt for the Holocaust, there was no notion that, perhaps, the baby did not need to have been killed.

He made the same point in his testimony Thursday. "I did not expect any Jews to survive Auschwitz," he said.

Efraim Zuroff, director and head Nazi hunter for the Israeli office of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said Groening's testimony, even in its cool detachment, is unique and historically important.

"In my 35 years of trying to bring Nazis to justice, I've not met one Nazi who expressed any regret," he said. "Even now, his words show how deeply the attitudes that made the Holocaust possible run."

Zuroff noted that Groening hardly deserves credit for coming forward, at 93. He said he once had hoped that nearing the ends of their lives, more old Nazis "would want to come clean before they had to meet their maker."

That has not been the case with others. Zuroff noted that other Nazi war crimes defendants have tended to claim the wrong person was arrested or that they did not do what they were charged with doing. Groening, therefore, is different.

Even though he lived in a society that led him to have to shut down a lot of his empathy towards the suffering he witnessed, he still has a detached, but very real, understanding of the horrors. Its sorta being stuck in a rock and a hard place, we will adapt, because humans will adapt to almost any conditions, but we still recognize that shit was fucking wrong on a fundamental level.

Morals and ethics are relative man, there no different than laws or constitutional freedoms. Why you think they magically transcend national/ideological/cultural boundaries is beyond every other person on this forum. Just because you happen to hold a certain set of beliefs and standards that does not mean someone in China or NK holds them as well.
They're relative within a certain degree of constraints, or within a range.

They may be relative to a certain extent, but there is a strong biological underpinning to them also. That is what Hodj is arguing.
This.

The fuck type of biological urge is like 'oh wait, this thing under the electron microscope I'm putting some shit in is JUST NOT RIGHT! Cro magnon would never!'?

We're not talking ten commandments line items here.
Its an issue of principles, and the broader context of what it means to push against these ethical boundaries that are set up for a purpose. Ethical scientists have a responsibility to speak out. This isn't a slippery slope type thing like "Oh today you're messing with unviable embryos, tomorrow you'll be making two headed half human half chicken mutant babies" or some shit, but it is an argument that we have to hold firm certain boundaries, and insist on certain procedural standards, as a part of the scientific process, not just bow to so called "pragmatism" that, often, isn't pragmatic at all.

There's nothing pragmatic about wasting time, money, and human tissues researching things that aren't ready for that level of research. The doctor that wants to do the human head transplant is another good example. He can't get that shit to work with fucking cats and mice and shit, but he's ready to try on a willing human patient anyway. I mean, anyone could argue, "Well so what? The guy that is going to have his head transplanted is suffering a terminal condition, he's dead anyway, and its his choice, so who cares?"

But the reality is that it is an ethical violation of the Hippocratic oaths and other medical and research ethics guidelines and codes of conduct to engage in such an activity, regardless of the patient's willingness to undergo said activity, when the technology has not even passed muster with animal trials.

It seems like a fine point, which is probably why people are so irritated at me for making it, but its not. Its actually very important in terms of preserving that ethical barrier.

Science is a loaded pistol. Its just a tool. Guns don't kill people. Science doesn't either. But the people wielding that tool can do serious harm to one another if they aren't, you know, practicing safe gun handling, storage, and other practices that are founded, fundamentally, in the principles of what responsible gun ownership implies and means.
 

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
The fuck type of biological urge is like 'oh wait, this thing under the electron microscope I'm putting some shit in is JUST NOT RIGHT! Cro magnon would never!'?

We're not talking ten commandments line items here.
Come on bro, you know no one is saying something like that.

On the other hand, there is certainly a biological underpinning to empathy and protection of children (among others). Which could, indirectly, make a scientist stop doing research or make a culture decide collectively to stop doing something.
 

Furry

WoW Office
<Gold Donor>
19,841
25,193
I just now figured it out. As retarded as hodj is, I must give him credit for being consistent in his views, unlike most of you. Just like gayness, there is no doubt some biological underpinning to ethics. Our genetics make us into the creatures we are. That said, society, experience and our own situations also mold us. Take two genetically identical twins, raise one with wolves and the other with a christian family. They will end up having wildly different personalities and forms of ethics.

Much like someone's propensity to be gay, ignoring the influence of our life on what makes us is a purely asinine view on the way the mind developes. Ethics you believe and the propensity to follow them are a choice, just like gayness.
 

Dandain

Trakanon Raider
2,092
917
What's the biological underpinning that makes people start doing horrible shit to each other? Especially when it passes the boundary of survival needs. Serious question.
 

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
I must give him credit for being consistent in his views.
...
Much like someone's propensity to be gay, ignoring the influence of our life on what makes us is a purely asinine view on the way the mind developes.
There is pretty much fuck-all in common between someone choosing to be gay and someone choosing to murder or violate some ethical constraint on them. That you think people should somehow view both of these under some consistent lens is pants-on-head retarded.

However, not shocked to see you say this. The only thing you have been "consistent" on is defining choice however you want to try and prove that everything is a choice. Even elementary particles. I'd think you were a troll but I think it is just more likely that you really are that stupid. However, I am sure you "decided" at some point on being stupid, so even that fits.
 

Palum

what Suineg set it to
23,811
34,719
Come on bro, you know no one is saying something like that.

On the other hand, there is certainly a biological underpinning to empathy and protection of children (among others). Which could, indirectly, make a scientist stop doing research or make a culture decide collectively to stop doing something.
So getting rid of genetic diseases by injecting a bunch of nonviable embryos is going to harm children in the broader sense? It's all shades of grey and the absolute ethics argument is just full of shit. Person A sees it as 'killing babies' (because sky wizard says embryo = baby) and person B sees it as curing diseases and saving lives.

Meanwhile the Chinese give no fucks whatsoever and cause Hodj to drink.
 

Furry

WoW Office
<Gold Donor>
19,841
25,193
What's the biological underpinning that makes people start doing horrible shit to each other? Especially when it passes the boundary of survival needs. Serious question.
It's hard to say, but there no doubt is some biological influence behind excessive violence, but to blame biology PURELY is dumb. As an example of biological influence, Lots of animals senselessly overkill prey in the wild. Do they do it because its fun? Is there a satisfaction to the act of killing that developed as part of their survival instincts?

There no doubt is a mixture of biology and life experience that come together in cruel people, and I don't think we have the knowledge to specifically say how much each contributes. Hodj would tell you that it is purely biological, which I think is retarded.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
What's the biological underpinning that makes people start doing horrible shit to each other? Especially when it passes the boundary of survival needs. Serious question.
Tribalism, competition for resources, or social dominance.

The interesting thing about homo sapiens is how we resemble, in actions, both chimpanzees and bonobos at times. Chimpanzees are more aggressive, more tribalistic, more territorial. Their males are more isolationist, taking tribes of females and driving out competing males, while bonobos are less aggressive, more socially cognizant, males are more willing to share territory and females are more accepting of both females and males, even from other groups, moving in and joining their social structure (females actually tend to dominate bonobo social circles, in opposition to chimpanzees).

You have to think like the first earliest homo erectus that spread out in the first real wide ranging dispersal patterns around the globe probably didn't have much competition. But then came along archaic homo sapiens, and they started outcompeting them for the same territory. Then, as they spread out from Africa into Europe and elsewhere, they started to come into contact with other groups, like the Neanderthals and Denosivans. There's some evidence of interbreeding between these populations (some small percentage of the human genome is probably derived from both Neanderthal and Denosivan populations, for instance) but mostly we drove them north into colder climes, the Ice Age ended, disrupting the Neanderthal and Denosivan ways of living, and we just sorta out competed them.

That's sorta the foundations of intertribal conflicts, usually, some sort of competition for resources.

We see it even now, though less so since so many of the hunter gatherer and more archaic populations have either been subsumed or wiped out by modernity, but these groups end up on marginal territory, eeking out a living while the larger social communities take up all the best land and resources for themselves.
 

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior
<Donor>
17,781
25,896
What's the biological underpinning that makes people start doing horrible shit to each other? Especially when it passes the boundary of survival needs. Serious question.
Intraspecies competition can be more prevalent than interspecies competition. Antelope legs are not there only to outrun cheetas. They are also there to outrun other antelopes.

I think that general concept sets the stage for understanding, in any case. Not that it perfectly explains every act of violence in human history, just that it is a real thing that species compete within themselves. It is one of the main arguments against the idea of 'group selection' in evolution.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Intraspecies competition can be more prevalent than interspecies competition. Antelope legs are not there only to outrun cheetas. They are also there to outrun other antelopes.

I think that general concept sets the stage for understanding, in any case. Not that it perfectly explains every act of violence in human history, just that it is a real thing that species compete within themselves. It is one of the main arguments against the idea of 'group selection' in evolution.
There's definitely tension there, this video is a good example



But the funny thing is that because that one knocked the weaker, slower one down, the rest of the herd probably escaped, so one could argue that its sorta a glass half full/half empty thing. Selfish gene versus altruism. One dies so the rest may live, or in this case, one is sacrificed so the rest can survive.
 

Furry

WoW Office
<Gold Donor>
19,841
25,193
There is pretty much fuck-all in common between someone choosing to be gay and someone choosing to murder or violate some ethical constraint on them.
Do you think there are muders which aren't almost instinctual, occur in wild passion? Seemingly normal women who eat parts of their babies. While murder is always objectively a bad choice, I think you can find a wide range of thought behind murder which is in many ways equivalent to the point where people choose to act on gay feelings. Some choices may be more deliberate than others, some choices more a moment of passion. Wherever the basis for the decision comes from, that moment where it occurs is undoubtedly a choice.
 

Furry

WoW Office
<Gold Donor>
19,841
25,193
I'm just quoting this so you can't edit it later on.
Why would I edit it? While there are certainly differences in how deliberate and intentional either choice is, the major difference is that ethically, murder is almost always a bad choice for a society, while acting on gayness has (or should have) no consequence for society.

Anywho, I've said my part. Feel free to claim I literally think gays are hitler, despite the fact I choose to be gay myself. Let me show hodj how it's done. I'm done with this thread faggots.
 

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior
<Donor>
17,781
25,896
Someone without feels fucks a lot of crazies. A generation of monsters is born.
rrr_img_95623.jpg
 

Qhue

Tranny Chaser
7,496
4,446
Back around 2000 I was at the University of Minnesota which was on a federally mandated massive Science Ethics kick. Why federally mandated? Well because the University's medical school and associated hospital had been caught selling unapproved anti-rejection drugs to transplant patients for decades. In fact this research bankrolled the University hospital which then had to be sold to pay the massive fine and the U of MN was then put on "special" status with the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation which required extra scrutiny to any and all grant applications.

Even though all the ethics transgressions landed solidly in the lap of the medical school the restrictions and emphasis of the ethics education hit everyone and so we were all made to go to a seemingly interminable series of ethics training courses, symposiums, colloquia, etc.

The truly amazing thing, to my view, was that the ethics training was aimed mostly at the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, engineering) rather than the bio sciences or anything at all related to the social sciences. The social scientists all considered themselves immune to ethics training because they were all naturally-born ethical researchers by virtue of being social scientists and believed that any member of the hard sciences were all monsters who were out to destroy the planet with our doomsday machines. When I pointed out that we already had ethics in our curriculum BEFORE this mandate hit (dealing with Oppenheimer for physics, Dow Chemical for Chemistry, the Challenger Accident for Engineering) and asked exactly where ethics had been discussed in their departments they just sputtered and stomped off.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
45,573
73,676
Social sciences don't have to worry about ethics because nothing they do matters anyway.

Physics and engineering makes an atom bomb, chemistry makes agent orange, social scientists lock some students in a fake jail and make other students be the keepers while one guy is ordered to electrocute everyone.