The Irish...They Get Shit Done

[Ugly Bastard]

Originally Posted by George W. Bush

You're just like every other Obama supporter out there: no substance.

Quite frankly, you guys are validating his point.

[ninjaface]

Originally Posted by George W. Bush

It's also the first step to expiramenting on Jews during the Holocaust.

I wasn't aware that the Holocaust was started by experimenting on babies.

[DDTempest]

Originally Posted by George W. Bush

I was under the impression that the Irish were better than this...

Blonde, the red hair and leaving the country aside... you can't honestly stand for this kind of stuff can you? Would you like it if Obama started expiramenting on American babies?

There are plenty of extra American babies around, I am fine with it. You act like they are doing horrible horrible things to these babies. They are just feeding them little to no food for the first few days because if they over feed them THEY MIGHT FUCKING DIE.

So on one hand you have babies dying because their digestive system isn't developed and nobody is sure how much they can reasonably metabolize without HAVING A FUCKING HEART ATTACK.

On the other hand you have a baby that may not be getting NUTRITION TO THE MAXXX!!! and potentially causing complications up to and including death.

If only we knew how much premature babies could safely digest? Would you rather they start at the maximum and kill some babies and then say "holy shit that is too much, feed them less" a couple dozen times until they backpedal it enough?

You have six of one and a half dozen of the other; except the six comes with the chance to SAVE COUNTLESS LIVES.

But then again it doesn't matter as it has been proven time and time again that Gingers don't actually have viable human souls, this is why they worked on the railroads along with the Chinese.

[Mr. Blonde]

wow i just laughed the hardest i have on here in a while

[SnakeInTheGrass]

Originally Posted by Heaven Can Wait

I'm all for stem cell research, but testing on vulnerable people, be it babies, disabled, whatever, is wrong.
If it was a homeless person of sound mind then sure, but the government has no right to do this.
Also, I didn't read the article.

ever met a homeless person who was sane? the % of homeless with severe mental deficiencies is astounding

These orphans are a burden on the state....the Irish people's taxes are literally paying for every part of their existence. Why not get something good out of their investment. This research will save lives.

It is the bullshit "slippery slope" thinking expressed in this thread that has hampered scientific progress for the last 50 years.

And regarding the holocaust and Dr. mengela's works....every country condemned his work, yet demanded to see his results. No one wants to admit it, but the Nazi scientists advanced modern medicine and science by leaps and bounds, granted their methods were nothing short of horrific. We have the capability to cure diseases and increase the quality of life, however the religious groups in our country choose to cock block this research. See how their attitudes change when a family member gets cancer, they don't pray for a cure; no they get the chemo and the bone marrow transplants

[Beebs]

There is no "slippery slope" argument, there is only the argument that morality is more than counting, and this is either true or it is not, it is not sometimes true and sometimes not.

There is an entire field of ethics devoted to cases like this; would you kill one patient to harvest his organs to save 8? 20? 100?

Would you kill a man for a hundred dollars if you used the money on charity? A million? A billion?

Would you touture a baby in perpetuity if it ment the creation of a utopian existance for everybody?

At what point, exactly, do you simply stop thinking of ethics and rights, and simplify everything down to a simple numbers game? If you can do it at 10,000 why can't you do it at 2? What exactly is the diffence?

To say that believing there are simple, a priori human rights that must be considered no matter what the reward is "slowing down progress" have no fucking clue what you are talking about or what progress even is.

[SnakeInTheGrass]

Originally Posted by Beebs

To say that believing there are simple, a priori human rights that must be considered no matter what the reward is "slowing down progress" have no fucking clue what you are talking about or what progress even is.

I have no fucking clue what you were trying to say here. Take a Breath. Clarify please

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by Beebs

There is no "slippery slope" argument, there is only the argument that morality is more than counting, and this is either true or it is not, it is not sometimes true and sometimes not.

There is an entire field of ethics devoted to cases like this; would you kill one patient to harvest his organs to save 8? 20? 100?

Would you kill a man for a hundred dollars if you used the money on charity? A million? A billion?

Would you touture a baby in perpetuity if it ment the creation of a utopian existance for everybody?

At what point, exactly, do you simply stop thinking of ethics and rights, and simplify everything down to a simple numbers game? If you can do it at 10,000 why can't you do it at 2? What exactly is the diffence?

To say that believing there are simple, a priori human rights that must be considered no matter what the reward is "slowing down progress" have no fucking clue what you are talking about or what progress even is.

I get what you're saying, but the general post quality of this is quite uncharacteristic of you, Beebs. Are you drunk?

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by SnakeInTheGrass

I have no fucking clue what you were trying to say here. Take a Breath. Clarify please

People have rights.

Rights, justice, utility, and care all need to be accounted for when choosing the ethical course of action; usually in that approximate order.

This case in particular is not cut and dry, and to point out the fact that there are certain basic, a priori, rights, that human beings have is not standing in the way of anything.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

I get what you're saying, but the general post quality of this is quite uncharacteristic of you, Beebs. Are you drunk?

I'm at work and sober, a computer is the last thing I want to see when I'm drunk.

I was just trying to show that this situation fits dozens of famous thought experiments, and is basically just another way of phrasing the most fundamental question in ethics; "do right and wrong exist?".

It's just incredibly frustrating, not so much here but on other forums and in other situations, where people, who otherwise are bright and catch on quick, abondon all willingness to think, and simply start counting. Even when they do define the basis of one of the most important fields in humanity as simply counting bodies, they don't even have any rhyme or reason to what number is the magic one, and will constantly flip flop on that number when the same question is asked in a different manner.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

Honestly GWB... what's with the archaic argument here? I wouldn't have expected that out of you. Ever heard of "the ends justify the means". Just because this research is controversial doesn't mean it's bad. Think of how much it could wind up helping humanity in the long run.

Like this.

What is the neccesary amount of ends to justify a given amount of means?

What if its not .5%, what if its 5%? What if its 50%? What if its all of them, the RESULTS ARE STILL THE SAME. "The ends justify the means", you said it yourself, well guess what, the ends are the same, in fact, they would probably be better.

How many dead babies, exactly, is too many?

Ethics is not arithmetic.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

At first, I was like, wow, this is great we are finally getting some good use out of these babies that nobody wants. But Gdubs and beebs raise some good points. I have a good mind to write my senator about this and demand some pressure on the Irish to stop this nonsense.

[Heaven Can Wait]

Yeah, Beebs nailed it.
"The end never justifies the means"
The death penalty fits in here, feel free the watch penn and teller's bullshit episode on it.
They oppose it because they believe that even for 1 innocent person to be killed for every.. 1000, or whatever murderers, thats 1 too many.
I read some article on MSN on this yesterday '5 impossible questions' or something, its easy.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Heaven Can Wait

Yeah, Beebs nailed it.
"The end never justifies the means"
The death penalty fits in here, feel free the watch penn and teller's bullshit episode on it.
They oppose it because they believe that even for 1 innocent person to be killed for every.. 1000, or whatever murderers, thats 1 too many.
I read some article on MSN on this yesterday '5 impossible questions' or something, its easy.

Thats not quite what I'm getting at, although I didn't make that very clear.

I'm getting at that even if you can know, for certain, that not one single person would wrongly die, is that all that matters?

I'm not arguing too many babies will die, I'm arguing that's not the only thing, or even the most important thing to think of.

Is it right? In and of itself, in a vaccum, is something right?

[Heaven Can Wait]

If you can research things without any loss, then what's wrong with that?
I still don't understand you.
Are you saying that these babies should be left alone? if they die they die?

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Heaven Can Wait

If you can research things without any loss, then what's wrong with that?
I still don't understand you.
Are you saying that these babies should be left alone? if they die they die?

I'm saying that more than the results needs to be looked at.

It's like all the examples I gave, or the trolley example where you have to chose between a trolley full of 5 people going into a wall or crashing into a group of 3 people saving the trolley, killing the 3.

It is not just a numbers game, there are other issues involved.

[Heaven Can Wait]

So do you have a stance on it? I'm guessing you're saying it's wrong, but saying that 'other issues are involved' is a cop out, are you saying you can't put a price on life? something like that?

[Orgazmo]

The "you can't put a price on life" argument is bullshit. If you agree with this, then you should be opposed to anything that isn't absolutely necessary yet provides a risk to life. A speed limit of 70 on the interstates, for example.

[Heaven Can Wait]

^ I think people should decide what their life is worth, if they want to drive at 50 because the statistics say they will die less often, that's fine by me.
The problem with this is the amount of freedom a newborn can be given, they obviously need support.

[Ironic Mustache]

Originally Posted by Heaven Can Wait

^ I think people should decide what their life is worth, if they want to drive at 50 because the statistics say they will die less often, that's fine by me.
The problem with this is the amount of freedom a newborn can be given, they obviously need support.

The people who then decide to drive at 90 would be endangering the lives of the people going 50. They shouldn't get to make that choice.

[DDTempest]

Originally Posted by Ironic Mustache

The people who then decide to drive at 90 would be endangering the lives of the people going 50. They shouldn't get to make that choice.

People driving 120 would be endangering the lives of the people going 90! HOLY FUCKING BALLS THIS IS SPIRALING OUT OF CONTROL!!

[Ironic Mustache]

It's more of a slippery slope than that time we oiled up Vaga!

[DDTempest]

Originally Posted by Beebs

I'm saying that more than the results needs to be looked at.

It's like all the examples I gave, or the trolley example where you have to chose between a trolley full of 5 people going into a wall or crashing into a group of 3 people saving the trolley, killing the 3.

It is not just a numbers game, there are other issues involved.

My answer to this really depends on whether or not I am on the trolley.

For lack of a better comparison, I look at humanity as a very large herd. I have worked hard enough to work my way forward to the front of the herd so that I don't have lions nipping at my feet. I am certainly not at the front of the herd leading the way, but I am not at the back either. I am well aware of where I stand currently and I will make damn sure I am not "falling behind" so that I don't have to worry about lions nipping at my feet. I am an unethical bastard through and through, but I am willing to admit it.

I am willing to bet that no person on this board would be willing to give their own life to save the life of ten strangers.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by DDTempest

I am willing to bet that no person on this board would be willing to give their own life to save the life of ten strangers.

I'm not trying to white knight here, but it honestly depends on the circumstances. If someone approached me and asked me to sacrifice myself so my organs could save 10 people, hell yes i'd probably say no. If I was going to die anyways (cancer of the liver, persay, and nowhere else) i might oblige. Or if I tried to save some people and fully realize I could die in the process, then probably. Like that video someone posted in KAVotD when the lions are ripping apart someone and nobody is jumping in and helping, I can't say I wouldn't be retarded enough to jump and try to help.

[hfam95]

Originally Posted by Beebs

Like this.

What is the neccesary amount of ends to justify a given amount of means?

What if its not .5%, what if its 5%? What if its 50%? What if its all of them, the RESULTS ARE STILL THE SAME. "The ends justify the means", you said it yourself, well guess what, the ends are the same, in fact, they would probably be better.

How many dead babies, exactly, is too many?

Ethics is not arithmetic.

Mr. Beebs has caught the classroom correct. Sounds like he paid attention to those philo classes on Bentham & JSM. He understand.