QuickTopic (SM) free message boards QuickTopic (SM) free message boards
Skip to Messages
  Sign In to access your topic list  |New Topic |My Topics|Profile
Upgrade to Pro   Customize, show pictures, add an intro, and more:   QuickTopic Pro...and check out QuickThreadSM
Topic: Societal Implications of Nanotechnology
Views: 4291, Unique: 1650 
Subscribers: 1
What's
this?
Printer-Friendly Page
Subscribe to get & post, or stop messages by email Subscribe
All messages    << 3-12  2-2 of 12  1-1 >>
About these ads
Who | When
Messagessort recent-top   
Post a new message
 
david oker  2
08-27-2003 02:18 PM ET (US)
I find this almost comical; philosophers have never been able to define what ethics is; anything that hasn't been defined falls under the philosophers label, and ethics has never left the philosophers label; so, I don't know what there millions is going to accomplish!

I think they should call themselves politicians!

I also think(yes, I know, me; yes, I think), that the only reason why ethics hasn't been defined very well is because nobody wants to define it. Same with beauty. Who wants to be told they're ugly, or in the case of ethical, that maybe they are in the wrong? Of couse, the real issue is that most people despise science, so nobody wants ethics to be turned into a science(see Jacob Bronowski if you don't mind a little more scientific analysis of ethics).

Just remember, whenever you here some group calling for ethics, they don't want it defined, they're just playing politics!
RSS link What's this?
All messages    << 3-12  2-2 of 12  1-1 >>
QuickTopicSM message boards
Over 200,000 topics served
Learn more Frequently asked questions  Acknowledgements
What they're saying about QuickTopic
 Questions, comments, or suggestions? Contact Us
Read our use policy before beginning. We value your privacy; please read our privacy statement.
Copyright ©1999-2008 Internicity Inc. All rights reserved.