Wednesday, November 21, 2007
This is to let you know about a new blog which will provide ethical analysis of the news, with a focus on developments in science and technology developments. You can find it at http://ethicsinthenews.typepad.com/ and we plan to provide comment at least daily for an initial month‚s trial. Authors are drawn from researchers at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, the Program on the Ethics of the New Biosciences and the Oxford Future of Humanity Institute at the Philosophy Faculty, University of Oxford. Content has so far included ŒSupermouse‚, the monkey cloning, and imaging the brain as well as obesity and home medical diagnosis.
Administrator and PA to the Director
Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics
16/17 St Ebbe's Street
Tel: 01865 286888
Fax: 01865 286886
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
In the article Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories, I though it was interesting how Brandt makes use of a disease know to have antagonistic or contradictory/incompatible elements as a metaphor. That is, indeed, how society works: a stunted moral life or disharmony. Biology has often asked the question: Is there such a thing as ‘true’ altruism? It depends on how one defines ‘true’ and ‘benevolent person.’ There might be cases in which a rarity happens in nature, and one encounters an individual who is morally good by nature and does not have to strive to be in control and do great efforts to be good. Because generally, an individual will do a good (a ‘blessing’) if the results of such action exceed or are equal (in the future) to the benefits received by its ‘blessed’ counterpart. But when it comes to kinship, would it be fair to say that it is easier to reciprocate because one is doing a favor to one’s own lineage or genes?
Every society has something called the Favor Bank. If one deposits favors in another person’s account, in the short/long run, that is an investment. So, concerning the ‘benevolence’ topic which Brandt talks about, I think that people do favors and are nice, in most cases, due to reciprocity. So, can there be a world full of harmony when the rule is ‘quid pro quo?’ I’m not trying to be cynical….this personal conclusion is empirical ……but it is opened to any critic from anybody in class. You are welcomed to refute this point if you wish…but please provide solid proof.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Wikipedia's "experience machine" entry;
philosophical note on Nozick's "experience machine" thought experiment;
Philosophy and The Matrix entry on "experience machine," with accompanying film clip!
Thursday, August 30, 2007
I thought of another scenario that applies to this situation. What about grave robbers of the late 18th century and early 19th century who unlawfully took bodies and used them as cadavers in the name of studying human anatomy. For religious reasons and because of society's lack of acceptance for this type of behavior, these people were often severely punished by the law.
But is what they are doing unethical? Does it violate the widely accepted ethic of honoring the dead? Or are they still honoring the dead? OR, are they living by a different set of ethics? Does the government have the right to make laws based on a widely accepted ethic that is not held by everyone? In a practical sense, do the benefits that were gained for science outweigh the importance of honoring the dead? Eventually as pressure was put on different governments, laws like Britain's Anatomy Act of 1832 were passed to make cadavers more available and widespread. If there are two different ethics here, are laws like this a reflection of a change in ethical priorities, or simply a compromise because both ethics are important?
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Is stealing wireless wrong?
By Finlo Rohrer
BBC News Magazine
A man has been arrested after being spotted allegedly sitting in a street with a laptop using someone else's unsecured wireless connection. Is it immoral to do this?
So here's the thing.
You're walking down the street in Hypotheticalville and in front of you is a gentleman who, when he walks, spills seemingly endless torrents of golden coins on to the pavement behind him.
He seems unconcerned by this and you notice that if not picked up, these magic coins quickly evaporate. Is it moral for you to pick a few up?
It's the kind of tree-falls-in-the-forest whimsy that an undergraduate philosopher might mull over for a moment, but back in the real world a not entirely dissimilar debate is being played out.
The man arrested in a street in west London is at least the third person to be accused of breaching the law by taking internet service without permission.
The Communications Act 2003 says a "person who (a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and (b) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service, is guilty of an offence".
It is a bit like reading your book from the light coming out from someone's window
There are also suggestions using somebody else's wireless could come under the Computer Misuse Act, usually used to combat hacking and electronic fraud.
But if it can be interpreted as illegal, can it be truly said to be immoral?
Read the entire article here.