0 Members and 282 Guests are viewing this topic.
1. A kid treats his new friend with a peanut cookies not knowing that she is allergic to peanut.2. A kid treats his new friend with a peanut cookies after knowing that she is allergic to peanut.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 13/07/2021 04:40:071. A kid treats his new friend with a peanut cookies not knowing that she is allergic to peanut.2. A kid treats his new friend with a peanut cookies after knowing that she is allergic to peanut.In case 1 he would honestly answer yes to both tests. In case 2 he could not. So I will grant you that actions taken with entirely good intentions (you used the word "treat") can have bad consequences, and an action that fails my tests is immoral.
Your moral tests, are two steps algorithm to determine if an action is considered moral or immoral. It depends on following assumptions:Everyone is pursuing self preservationEveryone loves someoneEveryone is rationalIt turns out that those assumptions are not always true.
What matters in determining morality of an action is its intended consequences.
Thousands of people have fallen prey to an elaborate wide-ranging scam selling fake coronavirus vaccines in India, with doctors and medical workers among those arrested for their involvement, authorities say.At least 12 fake vaccination drives were held in or near the financial hub Mumbai, in the country's western Maharashtra state, said Vishal Thakur, a senior official of the Mumbai police department."They were using saline water and injecting it," Thakur said. "Every fake vaccination camp that they held, they were doing this."An estimated 2,500 people were given fake shots, he said. The organizers charged their victims fees for the shots, earning up to $28,000 in total."We have arrested doctors," he added. "They were using a hospital which was producing the fake certificates, vials, syringes."So far, 14 people have been arrested on suspicion of cheating, attempts at culpable homicide, criminal conspiracy, and other charges. More arrests may come as police continue investigating other people involved in the scam, Thakur said.India was ravaged by a second wave of coronavirus between April and early June, which infected millions and killed tens of thousands nationwide. After peaking in May, daily cases have slowly declined, easing the pressure on the strained medical system -- and allowing authorities to step up their vaccination program during the country's recovery.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Quote from: Just thinking on 14/07/2021 04:55:05Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.I really thought I had it that time an old friend told me that quote some time ago.
The Golden Rule is the principle of treating others as one wants to be treated. It is a maxim that is found in most religions and cultures.[1] It can be considered an ethic of reciprocity in some religions, although different religions treat it differently.The maxim may appear as a positive or negative injunction governing conduct:Treat others as you would like others to treat you (positive or directive form)Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form)[1]What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself (empathetic or responsive form)[1]The idea dates at least to the early Confucian times (551–479 BCE), according to Rushworth Kidder, who identifies the concept appearing prominently in Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and "the rest of the world's major religions".[2] 143 leaders of the world's major faiths endorsed the Golden Rule as part of the 1993 "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic".[3][4] According to Greg M. Epstein, it is "a concept that essentially no religion misses entirely", but belief in God is not necessary to endorse it.[5] Simon Blackburn also states that the Golden Rule can be "found in some form in almost every ethical tradition".[6]
The maxim may appear as a positive or negative injunction governing conduct:
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 14/07/2021 12:02:34The maxim may appear as a positive or negative injunction governing conduct:This makes good sense according to man.
Via America’s Lawyer: Back in February, the House of Representatives released an alarming report about toxic heavy metals found in popular baby foods, which can cause long-term developmental harm. Attorney Madeline Pendley joins Mike Papantonio to discuss how manufacturers now face a bundle of class-action lawsuits.*This transcript was generated by a third-party transcription software company, so please excuse any typos.Back in February, the House of Representatives released an alarming report about toxic heavy metals found in popular baby foods. Now manufacturers are in the hot seat facing a bundle of class actions, attorney Madeline Pendley joins me now to talk about this. You know, I, I, my takeaway on this, one of the first, one of the first things I read was the FDA has an action plan. That's almost an, that's an oxymoron.Yeah, it's discouraging. It doesn't mean anything at all.It means nothing's going to happen. Tell us why these class action lawsuits are about.Essentially the biggest baby food manufacturers in the country have been poisoning your children. So these manufacturers have sold baby food that's contaminated with significantly high levels of very dangerous heavy metals, like arsenic, lead, mercury and children have been exposed to it for years.It's a long-term exposure that's the issue. I mean, a doctor can say, yeah, if baby eats mashed up pears, that taste awful by the way, eats them, then they're probably going to be okay for that.Right.But when they do it day after day after day for years, it is that long-term exposure that causes the problem, right?Right. So part of the problem with heavy metals is the exposure kind of builds up or accumulates in the body each time somebody is exposed. So really any exposure can add to a harmful amount of heavy metals in the body.Yeah. In other words, you don't just rid your body of heavy metals, every 24 hours. It's bioaccumulative is what they would call it.Exactly.Some of them are what we call biopersistent.Right.But we do know this, it's bioactive. It affects, it affects your systems, your, your brain, other, other systems in the body. And they've known about, they, they've known about the dangers of heavy metals for decades and decades. Who are the companies that are involved in this?It's a lot of really big household names, actually, you know, like Campbell's, Beech-Nut, Gerber, Happy Baby by Nurture and Parent's Choice by Walmart.Doesn't it, doesn't that sound sick? Happy Baby has now, my memory is Happy Baby had, where it came to, it came to arsenic, it had like 600 times what it should have, 600 parts per billion. Is that right?Exactly, yes.And that is, that's off the scale.Right.And nevertheless, Happy Baby's selling the product and they're saying, gee whiz, everything's going to be okay. Your, your baby's going to be well taken care of. Some of them even advertise that it's organic and you don't have to worry about it, right?Right. And the problem with organic is, I mean, whether this is true or not, when people are purchasing organic products, they're doing it because they want it to be safer to some extent, you know, they want it to be free from harmful chemicals and things like that. So it's especially frustrating that these companies were allowed to market their product as organic and therefore safer although it had significantly high levels of dangerous heavy metals.What are the potential health impacts that we're talking about here? What would, what do we expect when you take a child that's in those developmental years and you expose them to heavy metals for years?So what we know is, is one, this is not some hypothetical harm that we're talking about. There are many studies that correlate heavy metal exposure to children with developmental delays.
I must ask when you say is there a universal moral standard do you mean is there one in action now ore do you mean is there a standard available that we are not using?
When starting the thread I wasn't sure if there is in fact a universal moral standard, although my intuition said yes, there is.After long discussion, reading literatures, watching Youtube videos related to this topic, and think it through, I found that the answer is yes. I even figured out what it is. But apparently we are not using it yet. It even seems that most of us haven't aware about it yet.
Are you hoping that someone will confirm your discovery and are you at some point in time going to tell the world of your insight?
I've mentioned that efficiency is a universal instrumental goal, and I haven't seen a convincing reason to argue against that.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 15/07/2021 12:45:12I've mentioned that efficiency is a universal instrumental goal, and I haven't seen a convincing reason to argue against that.If efficiency is the ultimate main component then a standard that is designed to accommodate this function would be very difficult even destructive for many as efficiency is for the efficient. This type of action would be very beneficial to many and leave many in its wake. eg. An efficient car is only effective within its limits too much load will defeat the purpose.
Efficiency is instrumental, which is usually described as ratio between results and used resources. So it has lower priority after effectiveness. If the terminal goal is not achieved, then the efficiency is 0, because even if you use no other resources by doing nothing, you still waste time, which is the most valuable resource.
So by adopting efficiency as the standard we would shed the load and achieve the ultimate efficient world machine.