Resolving conflicting loyalties
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-08-2011, 03:35 PM
 
Resolving conflicting loyalties
I am currently writing a book on the history of Physics.

In the “Ethics of Science” chapter I wrote the following”

“There are many reasons why scientists decide to participate in weapons development. Here are a few of them:

· We need it to defend our nation
· These weapons will prevent war
· The enemy won’t stop, so we can’t either
· If I don’t do it, someone else will
· It is a great challenge and “super physics”
· Nobody else would fund my research
· It’s the only job I could find
· It’s a living
· It is fun!

Only the first three reasons cited above deserve further analysis. These were the reasons that compelled well meaning scientists to develop nuclear weapons during World War II. All three expressed, in different ways, their loyalty to their country.”

I have already posted my suggestion on how to resolve our conflicting loyalties here (Post #25) but I would like to know how you guys see this very important problem.

In the post I mentioned, I wrote:

“In our complicated world, individuals have simultaneous and often conflicting memberships in many tribes: immediate family, extended family, work-group, religion, political party, social organizations, country, race, species and life.”

I would like to hear your views on the subject.
Quote this message in a reply
01-09-2011, 01:13 PM
RE: Resolving conflicting loyalties
I think what we normally do is juggle.

Right now, my wife and kids are safe, but my country is engaged in a struggle that may, if things go badly, destroy or enslave us all.
Therefore, much as I'd prefer the human race survive, and though I know this invention may endanger the human race, aiding my country is the most urgent consideration. I'll deal with the consequences, once this crisis is over.

Or: Right now, my country is at war and I am needed at the front. But my house is in the path of advancing enemy and my children are inside. I will rescue them, remove them a place of safety, if I can find one, no matter how long that takes. Then if there still is a country, i will return to defend it.

Or: Right now, the nation is in terrible danger from an enemy. My army has been defeated; my people are dying. The gods abandon us. As king, it is my responsibility to appease them. I love my infant son, but I will offer him to the gods to save the people.

Is that what's called situational ethics?

It's not the mean god I have trouble with - it's the people who worship a mean god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2011, 02:10 PM
RE: Resolving conflicting loyalties
Kinda scientist are you? Tongue

Nah, you're my kinda scientist. I'm more thinking the last one - it is fun. What kind of "fun" is weapons development? I'm an American - learning new stuff, blowing shit up, having an unlimited budget - that's fun. I don't do it - because I don't exactly trust my government to act sensible.

Integrity is crucial to science. As an example, I do not consider that Michael Behe has scientific integrity - rather he has allowed his faith to cause divergence. It is my integrity that keeps me out of a field of endeavor that brings unnecessary chaos.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2011, 02:46 PM
 
RE: Resolving conflicting loyalties
(06-11-2011 02:10 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Kinda scientist are you? Tongue

I am still waiting for your response to the last link, to Post #25.

Then we can talk.


ETA: ...and I am still waiting for your response to my last post on the "Military Chaplains" thread (Post #28)
Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2011, 03:35 PM
RE: Resolving conflicting loyalties
(06-11-2011 02:46 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  
(06-11-2011 02:10 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Kinda scientist are you? Tongue

I am still waiting for your response to the last link, to Post #25.

Then we can talk.


ETA: ...and I am still waiting for your response to my last post on the "Military Chaplains" thread (Post #28)
25 comes from an old thread. Last time I "resurrected an old thread" someone went off - and it wasn't even old, so I went off back. Tongue

And how am I supposed to respond to 28 which is kinda like - I'm Zat, I'm right, and that's that? Big Grin

25 seems to be your reductionism into the meaning "honour." I see no essential difference between that and zero-state. 28 is a little more complicated. I never previously defined ethics - I always assumed that ethical standard was derivative of individual moralities; zero-state implies that extant ethical standard is a result of individual moralities that were less than moral.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2011, 03:41 PM
 
RE: Resolving conflicting loyalties
(06-11-2011 03:35 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  And how am I supposed to respond to 28 which is kinda like - I'm Zat, I'm right, and that's that? Big Grin

Post # 28 is Peterkin's post.

Quote:25 seems to be your reductionism into the meaning "honour." I see no essential difference between that and zero-state.

Post # 25 is the best logical chain I have ever been able to forge.

Either you agree with the conclusion, or you point out a logical error I committed.
Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2011, 03:49 PM (This post was last modified: 06-11-2011 03:54 PM by houseofcantor.)
RE: Resolving conflicting loyalties
(06-11-2011 03:41 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  Either you agree with the conclusion, or you point out a logical error I committed.

I agree with the conclusion - I don't agree that it is a conclusion because I have zero-state and you have a different conception of morality. My logic ain't "better" than yours, that's crazy talk; it's just different. As for 28 - I may have jumped to conclusion from the wrong assumption and become a different kind of asshole. Further investigation is required. Wink

Hey! 28 is Zatamon. Tongue
Ghost brought it up - as I don't agree with Matt's perspective in that particular thread, I blamed you - well, I directed my response to you, and 28 occurred.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2011, 04:20 PM
 
RE: Resolving conflicting loyalties
(06-11-2011 03:49 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(06-11-2011 03:41 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  Either you agree with the conclusion, or you point out a logical error I committed.

I agree with the conclusion - I don't agree that it is a conclusion

How can you say that "I agree with the conclusion", without agreeing that it is a conclusion? Huh



ETA: ...and I am still waiting for your response to my last post on the "Military Chaplains" thread (Post #28)

Huh
Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2011, 05:10 PM
RE: Resolving conflicting loyalties
(06-11-2011 04:20 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  How can you say that "I agree with the conclusion", without agreeing that it is a conclusion? Huh



ETA: ...and I am still waiting for your response to my last post on the "Military Chaplains" thread (Post #28)
I'm sorry for being me. Tongue

As a conclusion, it is congruent with the state of zero-state. Chaotic Determinism is the future of zero-state... I don't mean to be so dang confusing, but I didn't get here by accepting standard definitions. Just the other day, someone posted a definition of faith, where I highlighted the first two and called that word defined. Then I went to youtube were a theist was giving me lip. Told that fool - if you have no sincerity, you have no faith.

Yay atheism!

And what is it with 28? How can I point to an error in your logic without saying you are wrong for being you? I don't get it.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2011, 05:45 PM
 
RE: Resolving conflicting loyalties
(06-11-2011 05:10 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  And what is it with 28? How can I point to an error in your logic without saying you are wrong for being you? I don't get it.

What on earth is 28?

I have no idea what you are referring to???? Huh
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: