4 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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.