Posted by alexandra_k on October 25, 2018, at 19:22:12
In reply to Re: This website is full of copyright infringements, posted by alexandra_k on October 25, 2018, at 19:02:35
It is interesting that there is this belief that is very widely held that we simply need to do a bunch of experiments on people and / or on animals in order to make important scientific advances.
I honestly believe that the vast majority of scientific experiments that are done on animals (and indeed, even on people) are 'fishing' types of expeditions in the 'we just wanted to see what would happen' sense.
In their defense, that is how many scientific advances are actually made. It was by way of something approaching a historical accident that we discovered the clinical utility of penacillin and lithium and so on. Perhaps by feeding people beads of plastic or woodchips or who knows what we will discover something amazing! Perhaps by tracking the fate of people who live in areas known to have naturally (or otherwise) higher levels of trace elements or heavy metals or pollutants or whatever we will similarly discover...
I think it's a pretty crap justifciation for the fact that there are people who just seem to *enjoy* inflicting harm on other people/s.
People want to say 'I thought I needed to do x or y atrocity because otherwise I wouldn't have my job, I wouldn't have my way of life, otherwise I couldn't afford to send my kids to the private school' and so on... I think often times that's similarly just an excuse. They did what they did because they enjoyed feeling like they had one up on / over some other person / peoples.
THey did it because they thought they could get away with it.
With the Milgrim experiment I wonder how much it was the experiments indicating to the people who participated that they *jolly well should* have felt awful about what they just did that resulted in them displaying distress. How many displayed distress about what they did without prompting for them to display distress about it?
That was what was so f*ck*ng awful about it. Just how immoral most people really are.
Just how important it is to have rules and structures so people don't behave immorally.
It was like the psychopathic guy who posted here once who was not committing crimes (he said) because of some teaching he got when in jail about how if he wanted to stay out of jail (and he did) then he better not break laws.
So long as the laws are developed he (as a psychopath) can function okay outside jail. Not pose too mjuch of a risk to non-psychopaths.
Most people are psychopaths. They don't seem able to apprehend morality.
It's okay... I just need to remember that. At the end of the day I can only be responsible for my own conduct.
But it is a cognitive capacity thing. So there is some belief that the non-psychopaths have some aspect of control over the way things are...
The US laws were able to develop quite a lot... for the protection of peoples. The civil war was fought. Egalitarianism.
Are there other egalitarian people?
UK is hierarchical / class based. Dunedin is very class based (they won't see it that way probably but it is with the people on the hill and the people in teh low-lands / sewerage back-up)... State house areas as.. A way of getting some people out of the low lands, I guess...
Autralians say they are free, but the laws aren't so well developed. And they do treat NZers like 2nd class citizens. Or, they allow a-symmetry with respect to Australians being treated as local in NZ (for welfare, for government student loans) but the converse not being the case.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:1101335
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20151112/msgs/1101578.html