Ethics question

[dimreepr]

Ok, but how do you logically come to the conclusion it is ethically wrong?

 

 

OK, if we assume no negative consequences then of course killing the species of mosquito responsible for carrying malaria can only be good for the human race. The question of an ethical choice is somewhat moot as I doubt, if proof of no negative consequences were available, anyone could reasonably argue against it. However as so often pointed out in this thread there is no way of ascertaining what the consequences would be and given this basic fact I can only conclude that, ethically, it’s wrong.

[questionposter]

OK, if we assume no negative consequences then of course killing the species of mosquito responsible for carrying malaria can only be good for the human race. The question of an ethical choice is somewhat moot as I doubt, if proof of no negative consequences were available, anyone could reasonably argue against it. However as so often pointed out in this thread there is no way of ascertaining what the consequences would be and given this basic fact I can only conclude that, ethically, it's wrong.

 

So your saying "It cannot happen therefore if we did it, it would be ethically wrong"? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, I don't see the connection between the two clauses.

Edited May 3, 2012 by questionposter

[Greg H.]

OK, if we assume no negative consequences then of course killing the species of mosquito responsible for carrying malaria can only be good for the human race. The question of an ethical choice is somewhat moot as I doubt, if proof of no negative consequences were available, anyone could reasonably argue against it. However as so often pointed out in this thread there is no way of ascertaining what the consequences would be and given this basic fact I can only conclude that, ethically, it's wrong.

 

 

So your saying "It cannot happen therefore if we did it, it would be ethically wrong"? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, I don't see the connection between the two clauses.

 

No, I think what he's saying is more or less what I have been saying - proceeding on a course of action this drastic without giving due forethought to the consequences (beyond just assuming everything will be alright) is ethically wrong. Feel free to correct me, dimreepr, if I'm misrepresenting your point of view.

 

 

[questionposter]

No, I think what he's saying is more or less what I have been saying - proceeding on a course of action this drastic without giving due forethought to the consequences (beyond just assuming everything will be alright) is ethically wrong. Feel free to correct me, dimreepr, if I'm misrepresenting your point of view.

 

 

 

This whole thread is the assumption that we could get away with it, there should be no debate here on if we could, there's another thread in the biology section for that. What if we make it a rogue alien species? Let's say they've been attacking Earth and they are all in this sort of nomadic fleet, and we can wipe it all out with one button. No negative ecological consequences.

Edited May 3, 2012 by questionposter

[Greg H.]

This whole thread is the assumption that we could get away with it, there should be no debate here on if we could, there's another thread in the biology section for that. What if we make it a rogue alien species? Let's say they've been attacking Earth and they are all in this sort of nomadic fleet, and we can wipe it all out with one button. No negative ecological consequences.

 

That's an orange in your bushel of apples. In this case, we're eradicating something which can be shown to have no direct ecological impact on our planet (expect you know, blowing things up from space with lasers.) I still think promoting the eradication of a species is an abhorrent thing to contemplate, but when it's them or us, my survival instinct picks us.

 

Unfortunately for your argument, mosquitoes don't come close to doing that kind of ecological damage, so it's not exactly a level playing field. Additionally, in your case, the aliens are the malaria, not the mosquitoes, so you're actually killing the disease, not the carrier. I don't have a problem if you'd like to kill off malaria.

[questionposter]

That's an orange in your bushel of apples. In this case, we're eradicating something which can be shown to have no direct ecological impact on our planet (expect you know, blowing things up from space with lasers.) I still think promoting the eradication of a species is an abhorrent thing to contemplate, but when it's them or us, my survival instinct picks us.

 

Unfortunately for your argument, mosquitoes don't come close to doing that kind of ecological damage, so it's not exactly a level playing field. Additionally, in your case, the aliens are the malaria, not the mosquitoes, so you're actually killing the disease, not the carrier. I don't have a problem if you'd like to kill off malaria.

 

But so what if your "survival instinct" "picks" humans?

And why does malaria deserve to be killed off?

[dimreepr]

So your saying "It cannot happen therefore if we did it, it would be ethically wrong"? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, I don't see the connection between the two clauses.

 

I’m not surprised this sentence "It cannot happen therefore if we did it, it would be ethically wrong" makes no sense to you (me either) for a start it’s an oxymoron. No, I’m not saying that and I’m really not sure how you can come to this conclusion from my post #26. I alluded to our inability to completely eradicate mosquitoes in post #7 but even then I didn’t, actually, state it couldn’t be done. I tried to take the ambiguity out of the OP and answer it and your post #25 as directly as I could, as previously stated a rephrasing of the original question is in order.

 

But so what if your "survival instinct" "picks" humans?

And why does malaria deserve to be killed off?

 

There is no ethical question to be answered if the choice is based on the survival of the human race. As to why malaria deserves being killed off, zapatos answers this quite succinctly in post #5.

 

Greg no correction is necessary.

 

 

[questionposter]

I'm not surprised this sentence "It cannot happen therefore if we did it, it would be ethically wrong" makes no sense to you (me either) for a start it's an oxymoron. No, I'm not saying that and I'm really not sure how you can come to this conclusion from my post #26. I alluded to our inability to completely eradicate mosquitoes in post #7 but even then I didn't, actually, state it couldn't be done. I tried to take the ambiguity out of the OP and answer it and your post #25 as directly as I could, as previously stated a rephrasing of the original question is in order.

You keep stating "that" it is ethically wrong, but I don't actually see many reasons why?

 

 

 

There is no ethical question to be answered if the choice is based on the survival of the human race.

 

Why not? The human race as killed off plenty of other species.

[dimreepr]

You keep stating "that" it is ethically wrong, but I don't actually see many reasons why?

 

The reason I think its wrong is the unknown consequences outweigh the potential good.

 

When weighing an ethical question one has to consider the consequences both positive and negative and balance the good verses the bad. This is fundamentally true of any ethical question. The lack of either negates the question, as there is nothing to balance.

 

Why not? The human race as killed off plenty of other species.

 

Ethics is a human construct; ethical questions are raised by humans and evaluated by humans. If the human race had a threat, such as you describe in post #29. The question then becomes instinctive and one of self preservation, anyone in that situation trying to advocate we not defend ourselves in the manner you suggest, would be shot or dragged away by the men in white coats. In a kill or be killed situation and you’re the innocent party there is no ethical question to answer.

 

 

[Greg H.]

But so what if your "survival instinct" "picks" humans?

Because at the point someone places my life in danger they have relieved me of the burden of having to make an ethical decision to preserve theirs.

And why does malaria deserve to be killed off?

 

I didn't say malaria deserves to be killed off. If I said anything, it's that I am apathetic to it's continued existence. However, diseases that can be prevented, should be, in my opinion, because of the suffering they cause to humans. However, your argument is not about eradicating the disease, it's about eradicating one carrier the mosquito. You could just as easily make the same argument about chimpanzees and gorillas, both of which are known to carry the parasite Plasmodium falciparum which can cause malignant malaria in humans. Even if you wiped out the mosquitoes, you wouldn't kill the disease.

 

In fact, a study by Francisco Ayala (as reported by Science Daily) found two previously unknown species of malaria bearing parasites, without even looking at mosquitoes. This would seem to indicate that the disease is not completely dependent on the mosquito to pass to humans, and wiping them out would not even have the supposed positive benefit, which leaves only potentially negative ones. Ethically, a choice which has only negative outcomes is wrong, at least in my view.

 

 

[questionposter]

The reason I think its wrong is the unknown consequences outweigh the potential good.

 

When weighing an ethical question one has to consider the consequences both positive and negative and balance the good verses the bad. This is fundamentally true of any ethical question. The lack of either negates the question, as there is nothing to balance.

 

 

 

Ethics is a human construct; ethical questions are raised by humans and evaluated by humans. If the human race had a threat, such as you describe in post #29. The question then becomes instinctive and one of self preservation, anyone in that situation trying to advocate we not defend ourselves in the manner you suggest, would be shot or dragged away by the men in white coats. In a kill or be killed situation and you're the innocent party there is no ethical question to answer.

 

 

 

I already considered all of that before I even posted this topic, I'm looking for concise logic in ethical responses to lead to probable answers, not just personal opinions, and dictionary.com has this to say about it

http://dictionary.re...owse/ethics?s=t

It doesn't say you "have" to balance out anything.

 

opinion, because of the suffering they cause to humans. However, your argument is not about eradicating the disease, it's about eradicating one carrier the mosquito.

 

 

My argument is about the ethics of it, or logically how something could or couldn't deserve to be killed off. And so far I see no logical correlation between "your body happens to release some chemical that causes fear" or "signals are sent to your brain that tell you your body is being damaged" and "species x deserves to be eradicated".

Edited May 4, 2012 by questionposter

[Greg H.]

Your initial premise may be flawed.

 

You're assuming that there is some logical process that drives ethics, when the two conclusions may not even be related. If a man enters my home and points a gun at me, I can logically conclude that he means to do me harm. Now there may be other considerations to take into account, but we'll use the simplistic example for now. Ethically, it may be wrong to kill this man, but logically, if I intend to preserve my health and well being, I may have to, ethics or not.

 

If mosquitoes killed humans every time they bit one of us, then the logical course of action is to kill off the mosquitoes before we all die - it's an "us or them" kind of proposition. But it doesn't necessarily follow that what is logical is also ethical. Ethics has nothing (or at least very little) to do with survival.

[questionposter]

Your initial premise may be flawed.

 

You're assuming that there is some logical process that drives ethics, when the two conclusions may not even be related. If a man enters my home and points a gun at me, I can logically conclude that he means to do me harm. Now there may be other considerations to take into account, but we'll use the simplistic example for now. Ethically, it may be wrong to kill this man, but logically, if I intend to preserve my health and well being, I may have to, ethics or not.

 

If mosquitoes killed humans every time they bit one of us, then the logical course of action is to kill off the mosquitoes before we all die - it's an "us or them" kind of proposition. But it doesn't necessarily follow that what is logical is also ethical. Ethics has nothing (or at least very little) to do with survival.

 

But there's not really an "us" or "them" situation ever, that is the situation living things assume for themselves, it's not really logical, they only act on it because they assume it's the only logic possibility or do nothing to create another possibility. If ethics isn't logical, then why consider it? And why not just do research to create immunity to malaria anyway?

Besides, the human race has wiped out plenty of species that weren't actually a threat to it in really any way, so logically I don't see how one would deserve to live without the other deserving to live or one deserving to die without the other deserving to die. Objectively I don't see why something should logically deserve treatment positively or negatively just because the human race happens to be the one effected.

Edited May 5, 2012 by questionposter

[Vent]

Requiring strict objectivity throws ethics out the window because asking for an ethical answer found only by objective logic invalidates the ethical stance held by the being doing the reasoning.

[questionposter]

Requiring strict objectivity throws ethics out the window because asking for an ethical answer found only by objective logic invalidates the ethical stance held by the being doing the reasoning.

 

How so?

[Vent]

because it's never going to be 'objective', is it?

[questionposter]

because it's never going to be 'objective', is it?

 

How is it logical then?

[dimreepr]

Pure gainsay isn’t very conducive to a reasonable discussion. Pure or objective logic has little to do with ethics, as ethics is based upon a moral stance and morals has more to do with emotion and subjectivity than it has to do with logic.

 

 

[questionposter]

Pure gainsay isn't very conducive to a reasonable discussion. Pure or objective logic has little to do with ethics, as ethics is based upon a moral stance and morals has more to do with emotion and subjectivity than it has to do with logic.

 

 

 

Then that means logically there is no real reason for malaria or mosquitoes to actually wiped out because the only reason it is suggested is because of emotions which do not have a direct logical correlation to actions or reality.

Edited May 5, 2012 by questionposter

[dimreepr]

Then that means logically there is no real reason for malaria or mosquitoes to actually wiped out because the only reason it is suggested is because of emotions which do not have a direct logical correlation to actions or reality.

 

 

That is quite twisted logic; if something attacks you then emotion is much more likely to inform your response than any objective reasoning.

 

 

[questionposter]

That is quite twisted logic; if something attacks you then emotion is much more likely to inform your response than any objective reasoning.

 

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your use of the semi-colon, because otherwise you seem to be misunderstanding my point because the point of what I was saying was exactly that "if something attacks you then emotion is much more likely to inform your response than any objective reasoning. "

You wouldn't ever attack something because there's some logic that says it should die, you'd only attack it because of the chemicals released into your bloodstream, and those chemicals don't have a direct correlation to logic. It's just that if they are released, they cause a compulsion to do something. There's nothing saying that something actually "deserves" the response.

Edited May 6, 2012 by questionposter

[Vent]

How is it logical then?

 

What has non-contradiction got to do with objectivity?

[dimreepr]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your use of the semi-colon, because otherwise you seem to be misunderstanding my point because the point of what I was saying was exactly that "if something attacks you then emotion is much more likely to inform your response than any objective reasoning. "

You wouldn't ever attack something because there's some logic that says it should die, you'd only attack it because of the chemicals released into your bloodstream, and those chemicals don't have a direct correlation to logic. It's just that if they are released, they cause a compulsion to do something. There's nothing saying that something actually "deserves" the response.

 

 

I knew I shouldn’t respond to posts after my fourth glass of wine, your reply isn’t, in the cold light of day, quite so twisted, my apologies.

 

Whilst morals have a lot to do with emotion and subjectivity, logic does have its part to play. In the scenario of the OP this statement “You wouldn't ever attack something because there's some logic that says it should die.” is false, if the negative consequences are known. I doubt anyone could logically or emotionally argue in the mosquitoes defence; we humans are the ones dying after all.

 

 

[Vent]

Logic doesn't have a part to play in the construction of the statements, only the deductions from those statements. Asking for objectivity in the premises themselves is asking for an objective ethical standard for the purpose of (supposedly), validation. We can attempt to get around it with semantics by, for example, stating that ethics deals with human values and human values are concerned with the well being of humans. Taken as a given we can then validate or invalidate a given ethical proposition, but since there's nothing in logic that necessitates this inherency in ethics it's therefore subjective (from a logical standpoint). Ethics and objectivity seem to remain at odds with each other, but personally i see no problem with this and it actually seems a good thing to me because we are the ones that hold the values after all.

[questionposter]

I knew I shouldn't respond to posts after my fourth glass of wine, your reply isn't, in the cold light of day, quite so twisted, my apologies.

 

Whilst morals have a lot to do with emotion and subjectivity, logic does have its part to play. In the scenario of the OP this statement "You wouldn't ever attack something because there's some logic that says it should die." is false, if the negative consequences are known. I doubt anyone could logically or emotionally argue in the mosquitoes defence; we humans are the ones dying after all.

 

 

Negative consquences are known, but they would only mean something because of emotions, and what if there was a culture that didn't consider dying to be negative?

 

Logic doesn't have a part to play in the construction of the statements, only the deductions from those statements. Asking for objectivity in the premises themselves is asking for an objective ethical standard for the purpose of (supposedly), validation. We can attempt to get around it with semantics by, for example, stating that ethics deals with human values and human values are concerned with the well being of humans. Taken as a given we can then validate or invalidate a given ethical proposition, but since there's nothing in logic that necessitates this inherency in ethics it's therefore subjective (from a logical standpoint). Ethics and objectivity seem to remain at odds with each other, but personally i see no problem with this and it actually seems a good thing to me because we are the ones that hold the values after all.

 

There is one solution however, which is acknowledgement. Since ethics itself is based off of emotions which have no direct correlation to reality, niether side of an ethics argument really matters, which leaves it up to free will for whatever path it decides it wants to make.

So logically we don't actually have to not wipe out nor eradicate malaria.

Edited May 6, 2012 by questionposter