http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015 ... nt=event25A truly ethical bioethics should not bog down research in red tape, moratoria, or threats of prosecution based on nebulous but sweeping principles such as “dignity,” “sacredness,” or “social justice.”
-
In total there are 26 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 25 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am
Pinker's moral imperative for bioethics: "Get out of the way"
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Pinker's moral imperative for bioethics: "Get out of the way"
- LanDroid
-
- Comandante Literario Supreme
- Posts: 2800
- Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
- 21
- Location: Cincinnati, OH
- Has thanked: 195 times
- Been thanked: 1166 times
Re: Pinker's moral imperative for bioethics: "Get out of the way"
Well said as always. Many Americans immediately shoot for the most paranoid possibility when considering anything new, potential, or mysterious. I'm reminded of arguments over human cloning a while back where folks screamed about monstrous cloned armies of identical Hitlers, marching across continents to global tyrannical victory. But if one ever had a chance to hold a cloned baby (perhaps one exists by now), smiling, wiggling, and cooing, I expect all those fears would melt away.
- Flann 5
-
Nutty for Books
- Posts: 1580
- Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
- 10
- Location: Dublin
- Has thanked: 831 times
- Been thanked: 705 times
Re: Pinker's moral imperative for bioethics: "Get out of the way"
You have to ask, nebulous to who,Pinker?ant wrote:http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015 ... nt=event25A truly ethical bioethics should not bog down research in red tape, moratoria, or threats of prosecution based on nebulous but sweeping principles such as “dignity,” “sacredness,” or “social justice.”
Ethical issues are not the domain of scientists or even exclusively of psychologists.
His motto is just do it, and if a problem arises we can fix it then. How does he know that?
The whole eugenics movement was supposedly based on cutting edge scientific knowledge applied to 'improve' the human race.
Nebulous concepts such as dignity,sacredness and social justice were not allowed to get in the way.
He wants to sweep aside the ethical concerns of others about genetic manipulation and the possible consequences of these things as alarmist fantasy.
- Taylor
-
- Awesome
- Posts: 962
- Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:39 pm
- 14
- Location: Florida
- Has thanked: 423 times
- Been thanked: 590 times
Re: Pinker's moral imperative for bioethics: "Get out of the way"
Can the system CRISPRCas9 that Pinker mentions, aid, or help formulate a better understanding of species evolution such as what has been discussed with regards to fruit fly experiments? or is it strictly confined to a modification of current patient application. Can it help determine origin of a species?
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Pinker's moral imperative for bioethics: "Get out of the way"
Pinker's own dignity is nebulous.
I'm certain he'd be the first to admit that it is, huh?
How can we test the hypothesis that it is?
All in the name of science, of course. Pinker's "self" is incidental when compared to the rewards we'll get from the data.
I'm certain he'd be the first to admit that it is, huh?
How can we test the hypothesis that it is?
All in the name of science, of course. Pinker's "self" is incidental when compared to the rewards we'll get from the data.
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Pinker's moral imperative for bioethics: "Get out of the way"
Taylor wrote:Can the system CRISPRCas9 that Pinker mentions, aid, or help formulate a better understanding of species evolution such as what has been discussed with regards to fruit fly experiments? or is it strictly confined to a modification of current patient application. Can it help determine origin of a species?
We no longer question the origin of the species. We came from a pond of purposeless gue, and have only an illusion of purpose. Thats why dignity is an illusion as well.
- Flann 5
-
Nutty for Books
- Posts: 1580
- Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
- 10
- Location: Dublin
- Has thanked: 831 times
- Been thanked: 705 times
Re: Pinker's moral imperative for bioethics: "Get out of the way"
Stephen Pinker blithely assures us,quote; "Of course individuals must be protected from identifiable harm,but we already have ample safeguards for the safety and informed consent of patients and research subjects."
Just who is asking the consent of unborn babies about whether their body parts can be used in scientific research?
These are moral judgements and for Pinker it's a utilitarian numbers game.
Why not just take Pinker's body parts and give them for scientific research or transplant? After all why let nebulous principles like dignity,sacredness and social justice get in the way of the greater benefit of a greater number?
Just who is asking the consent of unborn babies about whether their body parts can be used in scientific research?
These are moral judgements and for Pinker it's a utilitarian numbers game.
Why not just take Pinker's body parts and give them for scientific research or transplant? After all why let nebulous principles like dignity,sacredness and social justice get in the way of the greater benefit of a greater number?
Last edited by Flann 5 on Tue Aug 04, 2015 7:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Pinker's moral imperative for bioethics: "Get out of the way"
Good points, Flann.
I'm thinking secular humanism holds to a specific agenda and belief that consciousness is the measure of intrinsic value.
Pro Choice is definitely pertinent to this discussion. Where secular humanism chooses not to assign intrinsic moral value and dignity makes the slaughter of the unborn of no significant consequence to its alleged value system.
This, needless to say, can be seen as monstrous behavior.
I'm wondering where our resident humanists are and would like to see them participate in this thread.
Where's the humanity in all this?
On perhaps a side note, I see how some atheists are fond of arguing against the Old Testament's conception of God and the heinous acts encouraged and supported within OT scripture. New Atheism has something of a parasitic relationship with the OT and utilizes that relationship to direct Christianity's attention at issues of immorality and "How can you worship such a God" rhetoric.
Where is secular morality to be found in Pinker's "Get out of the way" ethics?
Let's hear it.
I'm predicting we will get either tumbleweeds passing through the night, or very indirect responses from our fellow Humanists.
I'm thinking secular humanism holds to a specific agenda and belief that consciousness is the measure of intrinsic value.
Pro Choice is definitely pertinent to this discussion. Where secular humanism chooses not to assign intrinsic moral value and dignity makes the slaughter of the unborn of no significant consequence to its alleged value system.
This, needless to say, can be seen as monstrous behavior.
I'm wondering where our resident humanists are and would like to see them participate in this thread.
Where's the humanity in all this?
On perhaps a side note, I see how some atheists are fond of arguing against the Old Testament's conception of God and the heinous acts encouraged and supported within OT scripture. New Atheism has something of a parasitic relationship with the OT and utilizes that relationship to direct Christianity's attention at issues of immorality and "How can you worship such a God" rhetoric.
Where is secular morality to be found in Pinker's "Get out of the way" ethics?
Let's hear it.
I'm predicting we will get either tumbleweeds passing through the night, or very indirect responses from our fellow Humanists.
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 12
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Pinker's moral imperative for bioethics: "Get out of the way"
Do you think an infant in the 20th week of gestation has intrinsic value and dignity?LanDroid wrote:Well said as always. Many Americans immediately shoot for the most paranoid possibility when considering anything new, potential, or mysterious. I'm reminded of arguments over human cloning a while back where folks screamed about monstrous cloned armies of identical Hitlers, marching across continents to global tyrannical victory. But if one ever had a chance to hold a cloned baby (perhaps one exists by now), smiling, wiggling, and cooing, I expect all those fears would melt away.