Weekly BlogWork

Sorry I didn't come to the Pizza party.  The history mid-term demanded all my attention.

1.)

http://slate.msn.com/?id=113959&

This article discusses the differences between an ethicist and someone with valid, well thought out  principles.  For example Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine sent out their plan to ethicists.  The ethicists applauded the scientists for their outstanding ethics.  However, in actuality, the ethicists were only examining the scientists proposal within narrow parameters.  Thus, they were not demonstrating solid principles, merely an intelligent manipulation of the question.  They phrased the question in such a way that it appeared ethical without delving into the subtle nuances.

2.)

P1: It is immoral to justify one's work with invented morality disputes.

P2: Many stem cell research companies are justifying their work with ethics committees that only examine the morals in question within specific parameters.

C: Many stem cell researchers immorally justify their work.

Deductive Valid Sound.

3.)  This article presents an interesting point of view.  I personally lost respect for the scientists that seemingly invented special ethics committees to review their work and decide it is valid.  However, the question remains, are the scientists guilty of this knowingly doing it, or are they blind to their faults?  Do they actually believe that these ethics committees are justifying their work entirely or merely agreeing with their logic.  I believe that many of these scientists want to believe their work is ethical and this is enough for them to overlook the finer points.  They are happy to except agreements from third parties.  Let this be a warning to all.  It is very easy to become caught up in an exciting series of events, but we must always examine the morality of our deeds.