interesting that you taught ethics and have no problem with the vaccine rollout. I am not advocating that my patients not get the vaccine, nor am I saying the science is garbage. I am saying that I do not know enough about it to promote it. Yes, it looks good so far. And the write up looks good too. Medium and long term effects? Who knows. Thalidomide looked damned good at one point too and worked out very badly. So I have reservations on this. Ask me again in a decade. Right now, I will pass. Thanks.

I notice that I use the same rational approach to come to my position as others do theirs, albeit different positions, and I seem to catch hell for having a different stance. Seems weird; I am not bitching at anyone for getting the shot.

Lastly, I am coming at this with a 4 year university degree in a healthcare field, 14 years direct patient care experience including 9 in critical care. I do my research. Where are you coming from? Just wondering.

not at all. I use the same measure across the board, the measure I was taught to use to assess risk and benefit for all my patients. I do not work on behalf of my government, or the agency that hired me, except within the parameters of that hiring agreement, which was to advocate for, and promote, the health of my patients according to their wishes and best practice within the healthcare industry. Pushing the vaccination program is not best practice, or at least wasn't until a year ago, when suddenly my registering body decided to push the public health line. So outside of public policy, I move forward with what my patient wants, not tell them what they want, and offer them the best advice I can, no matter their stance on vaccination or other healthcare positions

I elect not to get the vaccine because I do not believe the science that I have been told. I also do not push my patients to get the vaccine, or to avoid it. I respect their decision either way. You accept the risk of getting the vaccine, choosing not to know the details behind it. I accept that that is your process and that you are comfortable with it. I only ask that we give the same level of understanding to those who do not wish to be vaccinated. I am not an anti-vaxer, far from it; I have all my vaccinations up to date. But not this one. I do not believe we know enough about the virus or its myriad mutations, to move on this vaccine. I have seen too many red flags. As you are comfortable with the risk associated with getting the vaccine, I am comfortable with the risk associated with not getting the vaccine. Both decisions are based on personal risk analysis and acceptance of said risks. Both are equally valid.

The claim that not being vaccinated spreads the virus does not hold up to science. Having been vaccinated does not prevent someone from spreading it, it reduces morbidity and mortality, not spread.

Do what you are comfortable with. Either way, you are the one that deals with the result.

so you think human life is unimportant and disposable? — Lif3r

Clearly it is, despite your tirade against it. You can also rage against the Sun, proclaim the injustice of if rising in the East and setting in the West, thereby denying the South and North any place in the path of the Sun except as a bystander. I am fairly certain the Sun won't give damn, much like those whom you are ranting against. Who are they by the way?

I have never understood the immediate assumption that the rich and powerful MUST be greedy. It is baffling. I have always assumed that those who made this assumption were upset that they were neither rich nor powerful, therefore they felt riches and power must be due to something, being greedy, that they felt they were not willing to do. Apparently I can't get rich or powerful and have morals; again, not sure why that would be.

I guess at a certain point rich and powerful people are supposed to stop making an acceptable profit and just give stuff away out of an abundance of feeling badly for being successful? Sounds stupid to me.

Nothing rare about humans. Finding a spot without one is less common than it was before, therefore the idea of rarity lacks strength. Not sure why you are so angry about other people's responses, we are not enamored of human beings as you seem to be, a matter of different opinions only.

Some of us require that it is anonymous. I could not post my opinion on a number of things if those posts could be traced back to me. I would be fired, at the very least, or lose my practice license at worst. As it is I can post my thoughts, opinions, etc. with little fear that my employer will get wind of my position which is generally in opposition to the company line. While I recognize that anonymous posting allows for nastier responses I find it offsets that drawback by enabling honest responses without fear of reprisal. Perhaps an opinion or thought won't be well received, but there will be no actual reprisal associated with it. Between work, my registering body, and public health policy I live in a gag order world. Here I can use my voice openly, not pushing the company line.

By what mechanism are two masses, separated in space by a long distance, somehow magically attracted to each other? — fishfry

They find each other sexy. See? Not tricky at all.

Sociopathy arises from multiple social plights as a learned response to increase chances of survival based upon perceived levels of threat and peril. Psychopathy is no so much acquired as inherent. Which is not to say that psychopaths or sociopaths cannot be contributing members of society, just that they are contributing members because doing so best serves their interests and needs at the time. They have less restraints than the main group of society. If they recognize "right" or "wrong" it is more as a recognition of a term, rather than something of value or something relevant. Kind of like the weather before you leave to go on a walk: you dress according to the weather, but it does not stop you from going on a walk.

The term Psychopath is no longer used. The features of psychopathy are now just rolled into the Antisocial Personality Disorder title, which is much less informative that psychopath or sociopath, although both are anti-social types with similar clusters. Sociopathy is a more learned behaviour than Psychopathy, which arguably has a large genetic component. Not too sure about the chemical imbalance thing though, so far there are no medication regimes to treat Psychopathy without having chemical restraint as part of the effect. The disorder itself is not treated by the medication, rather the medication sedates the patient to the point where they are much less threatening as their behaviour is controlled. Medication application to make everyone else feel better about things, the patient...no one really asks them, although them seem non-too-happy with it.

Thanks. It was a conscious decision years ago, I have just stuck with it.

This is as social media-ish as I get. I have no frame of reference for the other sites you mentioned.

Opinions vary, but I don't name call.

I haven't been around long, just found the site recently, but I would suggest, that even though it has been a short period, the quality of the responses has gone downhill, mostly from a surprising increase in name calling and profanity. The name calling is surprising and detracts from the discussion. Maybe that's not new though, I haven't been around on the site that long.

Ok. That was more clear. I will politely disagree with you on the origin of ethics, not the word per se, as I have not looked that up, however, ethics, as a guiding ideal, are personal, not "other" oriented, and as such empathy has little, if any, influence over ethics. Your explanation suggests that ethics are based on society; social thought. I would suggest that society is based on a foundation of ethics, or personal rules that are then extrapolated onto society as general expectations of behaviour. Ethics of the individual, pooled by like-minded individuals then create a society with similar values. Ergo, ethics make the society, not society makes the ethics. Still not seeing how empathy plays into it though.

empathy offers you the process by which any veritable ethic is possible. — thewonder

Is this clear to you? Maybe it's the nightshift, but while it sounds pretty enough it lacks clarity in spades. Break it down for me eh. Exactly how does being empathetic determine a process for ethics?

I will explain — thewonder

Go for it.

Empathy allows me to relate more to you (or someone else) based on my ability to see things from the other's perspective and feelings (which kind of makes me want to take a shower and wash that shit off). The application of empathy within the greater concept of Ethics is unclear to me. I am not sure how my greater understanding of another will make me more or less ethical in dealing with them. More biased perhaps, but ethical? I don't see it.

I am ethical in my dealings, not because of the other person, but because I choose to be. The other plays no part in it. I am honest in my business dealings because I chose to be, not based on how easy, or hard, a mark the other person is.

Just not seeing the application of Empathy to Ethics.

All land, everywhere, was under previous ownership. Just the way it is. Someone was there before, and someone will be there after, in the meantime we fight about who owns what based on "rights", whatever that means.

I own my piece of dirt because I bought it, meaning I won the financial war of pricing, and the land is my spoil of war. If I want to keep it I need to provide kickbacks to my local government, in the form of property taxes. This may be seen as normal, and more civil, than violent confrontation for land, however, only the medium has changed. Countless others have owned "my" dirt before me, and countless will after I have passed. That is the way of it. Each time it changes hands there will be a financial battle, which someone will win, while others lose. At no point do I feel entitled enough to have anyone in the future proclaim that I once had title to said land. It will be someone else's then, they have title to it, no need to mention me, or those that came before me. That list is too long, and entirely meaningless.

I thought Hamas was a terrorist group. As such it would make sense that they do not follow the laws of war (which is, in itself, an entertaining concept). I also agree that the US would invade and go building to building removing the aggressor.

I will not assume the motivation of the Israelis, however, by striking non-military targets they are either absolutely terrible at properly aiming their weapons (not something I have heard mentioned about Israeli military) or the targets are being struck exactly as intended. Rockets and military strikes upon civilian populations are a one-sided contest. Interestingly enough no one seems comfortable calling this international terrorism, which is odd, unless my geography is bad, these are different countries, or just nations within the same country?

Just saying, not sure why the term is different when a Government does it, blowing up civilians is generally terrorism, n'est pas?

Not to split hairs, but one dies for honour, dignity, altruism, etc. Generally one is not killed for them. Killing is more of a retribution, or lazy, kind of thing. I die to defend my family, the person doing the killing is likely operating in the most expedient way to achieve their goal, namely get me out of the way. The death may be honorable, the killing less so.

People keep using that word "genocide", I think they should read the actual definition first, might reduce the use of it.

I think being killed for any reason is less than desirable, which was my point. Your response suggested that the reason for them being killed was what should be objected to, not so much that they were being killed. I will try to be less circumspect in the future.

To be killed in such a brutal manner, for mere political theatre is digusting. — Manuel

Do you have a more preferred reason for being killed? Just wondering.

If you think it's acceptable to kill people who's lands you are stealing, that's your problem — Manuel

Actually, it is much easier to steal someone's land if they are dead first. Just saying, from a practical perspective, dead people do not object.

The most difficult aspect, or at least, most frustrating aspect, of attempting to extricate oneself from a society in which one is found is that either A: it can never be total, something from said society will always somehow manage to bite you in the ass, or B: you end up in yet another annoying society that you still don't want to play in, and once again, end up looking for the door.

If an individual manages to self-isolate effectively for awhile they tend to respond even more poorly to being disturbed by society later Think Unabomber here.

At best we can hope to achieve a modicum of individual freedom by playing well enough within societal rules (whichever one you are in) that one is never on the radar, and therefore no one around knows that you really are ambivalent to society. That's about as good as it gets.

Based on the readings I have done I would suggest that power, wisdom, and knowledge are far from recent acquirements and that the concept of Atlantis, actual or not, is hardly beyond the realm of possibility. We could not, currently, reconstruct the pyramids using only the material that was available when they were built, despite our espoused advancements in physics and sciences. To me that suggests the builders of the pyramids were more skilled and knowledgeable than we are today. Eastern theology/philosophy has been explaining phenomena for thousands of years and we have provided no better, and many worse, explanations for these phenomena. Not seeing much advancement there. I cannot speak to the countries of the world, I lack experience beyond North America, however, many of the books I read have multiple (english, french, latin, greek, and arabic) languages used in them, written in a fashion to suggest that the reader would be able to easily flow through the reading, regardless of the language used.

I am fluent in English, passible in French, and can fumble in Spanish. My coworkers speak primarily one language only, as do most in the region I live in. I feel woefully under educated when I read these books, needing to constantly reference Google translate as I read. This, to me, suggests that we have lost linguistic ability over time, not improved upon it.

I am not saying that we have no accomplishments, just that I see no reason to assume that no one before us has accomplished equal, or greater, accomplishments.

Death is the end of my animation of this body. The body itself will decay. The force that had been animating it will transition elsewhere, there, as best as I am able to determine, things will begin anew. I do not believe death, in it's current usage, is final; merely another aspect of change, and not so unfamiliar.

Atlantis worked out so very well for them. If we go that route then I support ending in much the same fashion.

"Your scientists spend so much time wondering if they could do something they didn't stop to consider if they should." Jeff Goldblum: Jurassic Park. Very wise words.

people are fond of self deprecation. It plays into the woe is me perspective. Also, if someone is insignificant, it lets them off the hook for having to achieve anything in their life, after all, they didn't matter anyway, so why should they need to actually do anything with their life? Just saying, it is an easy out.

"And it will begin anew"? Don't you really mean "It will be finished forever"? — Metaphysician Undercover

Nope. I mean it will begin anew. Not sure how that was unclear.

I think human life is no more special than any other life. Saying every human life has value is poorly thought out. Every mosquitos life also has value, just check with the mosquito. I still dislike mosquito bites and will kill them as needed without a second thought. I am not saying they don't value their life, nor that their life has no value, however, in the grand scheme of things, I take being not itchy over a happy healthy mosquito. Same approach applies to humans. We aren't exactly rare or anything, so saying every life has value...Meh.

I am not concerned with death. She is an old friend that will call on me as she chooses. When she does, I will hold her hand and walk through that door with her. And it will begin anew.

We intuitively feel that using a thermometer gives a higher probability that the weather outside will match your belief. — Curious Layman

But why do you believe that? I do not. The thermometer may corroborate something I already believe, as will seeing buddy walk by in, what I believe to be, appropriate clothes. I have experienced days that froze my ass, while the thermometer implied they should have been balmy. The thermometer doesn't consider wind, and humidity, and all the other little details that living bodies feel. Buddy in the coat likely does, even if his normals are different than mine. Neither the thermometer nor the other dude are the best choices to check the weather. Pop your head out the door and figure it out yourself.

Also...I am not insignificant. Just ask me.

Size is irrelevant. Consider: The coronavirus is tiny. Despite this, it has, through direct and indirect (plague and panic), effectively changed the actions of an entire race, and through that has also had an impact on the rest of the planet. Tiny virus; huge change. Size is a detail, influence is important.

It's all in the fucking paper, if you pardon my language — god must be atheist

it isn't actually. The "paper" as you call it isn't overly clear. It is also based on an assumed premise and once that premise is removed, the paper falls apart. I was hoping for more. Hopefully not your best work.

autonomous moral codes — god must be atheist

First problem: your autonomous moral code theory is still voluntary. Animals, including people, do not always save their young, neither do we necessarily feel any guilt over not saving them. So there is no actual autonomous moral code, although I can see why the idea has appeal. Without the concept of autonomous morality your premise is bankrupt.

Second problem: The previous ethicists' attempts to determine a moral pathway are generally universally applicable within the specific parameters of whatever culture someone is seeking ethical guidance in. Morality, as you pointed out (rather unclearly), is dependent on cultural perspective, therefore providing specific directions (only eat yellow beans) will not work, as cultures vary. However, providing general guidelines (always try for maximal Good) will be much more productive. The definition of Good may change in each culture, however, as each culture has a definition of Good, then seeking the maximal Good from each action will be recognized as the preferred moral option for each, and every, culture. Therefore seeking maximal Good is a basic and clear code for universal morality.

Third problem: Some of us feel no guilt. We approach life with eyes open and do, or do not, based on our own reasons and never look back again, except to learn from an outcome. Using guilt as an indicator of a poor moral decision excludes us guilt-free types.