4 ms·

> Trial and error are not acceptable because one error is not acceptable Trial and error is exactly what evolution is. I'm struggling to understand your argum

> Trial and error are not acceptable because one error is not acceptable Trial and error is exactly what evolution is. I'm struggling to understand your argument - is it that evolution, once it makes a mistake, culls that line? Whereas when humans make a mistake (based on your dog breed example), they continue it? Evolution continues its trial and error even after mistakes are made. There's no central database that limits this -- it continues to happen, again and again, with the same mutations.

badrabbit 7y ago
We're not discussing evolution. You're changing the subject. As human beings we recognize our ability to discern right from from wrong, just from unjust,cruel from humane and correct from incorrect. Knowing there is a risk of something incorrect that will result in an unjust,cruel and inhumane outcome, if you proceed with that action you are considered unethical. If the same outcome happens as a result of nature, other humans or by choice of the person/animal then it was not your decision or responsibility. The fact that other actors or nature might cause the same outcome does not absolve you of the decisions you make right?
- edmundsauto 7y ago
  I disagree that humans have an ability to differentiate right from wrong in any universal sense. > Knowing there is a risk of something incorrect that will result in an unjust,cruel and inhumane outcome, if you proceed with that action you are considered unethical. I also disagree here. Unethical negligence is determined by a calculated risk of the bad outcome. There is a risk of bad outcomes every time a jury takes a criminal case, but that it clearly not an unethical action. I'm generally not sure what your point is. We take calculated risks that could end up with something bad happening -- think driverless cars -- but there is a lot of variance between individuals' line between "acceptable risk" and "unacceptable risk". And sometimes the ends do justify the means, depending on your opinion on the Trolley Problem.

badrabbit 7y ago

We're not discussing evolution. You're changing the subject. As human beings we recognize our ability to discern right from from wrong, just from unjust,cruel from humane and correct from incorrect. Knowing there is a risk of something incorrect that will result in an unjust,cruel and inhumane outcome, if you proceed with that action you are considered unethical. If the same outcome happens as a result of nature, other humans or by choice of the person/animal then it was not your decision or responsibility. The fact that other actors or nature might cause the same outcome does not absolve you of the decisions you make right?

edmundsauto 7y ago
I disagree that humans have an ability to differentiate right from wrong in any universal sense. > Knowing there is a risk of something incorrect that will result in an unjust,cruel and inhumane outcome, if you proceed with that action you are considered unethical. I also disagree here. Unethical negligence is determined by a calculated risk of the bad outcome. There is a risk of bad outcomes every time a jury takes a criminal case, but that it clearly not an unethical action. I'm generally not sure what your point is. We take calculated risks that could end up with something bad happening -- think driverless cars -- but there is a lot of variance between individuals' line between "acceptable risk" and "unacceptable risk". And sometimes the ends do justify the means, depending on your opinion on the Trolley Problem.