Yes! Let's destroy these research crops, kept in an enclosed environment, so there's no risk of accidental release of seeds/spores! Damn those people in Third World countries, we will not stand for this bullshit with interfering in nature, consequences be damned!LuckyClover95 said:I am apparently one of 4 people who thought it was right... I unfortunately have a soft spot for those who take dramatic action and their beliefs into their own hands. Breaking the law doesn't = immorality.
I don't like dramatic action in the form of terrorism, although then again Guy Fawkes and V also gain my respect. Huh.
All very nice and dandy, thinking up your own moral system and COMPLETELY CHANGING TERMINOLOGY to make it mean what you want it to, but don't expect others to abide to that changed terminology bit. In the right is a phrase often used to imply a legal issue, not just moral ones. So it's completely valid to say they are not in the right, since they broke the law.lunncal said:I'm arguing from my own morals, which I've developed myself from my own experiences, as I believe everyone should. My worry is that there are people who don't really have their own morals, they simply have the law and act selfishly apart from that (and there are many people like that). These are the kinds of people who are immoral within the confines of the law. When you consider the law to be the same thing as morality, you are likely a very bad person (at least from my perspective).CM156 said:Just wondering, what form of morals are you arguing from?lunncal said:The "purpose" of laws is to force those who would normally be immoral into choosing the moral choice, for fear of repercussion. At least that's what it should be, unfortunately the law isn't perfect both because designing a perfect and universal set of laws that will always lead to the morally decent option is impossible, and because the law has often been subverted and used for other purposes.
The point that I was making is simply that "it's illegal" is not a valid point to make when you are arguing that something is morally wrong. The poll and the OP were asking whether GreenPeace was "in the right", but many people simply responded with posts along the lines of "They broke the law." and that's it. GreenPeace's actions would be morally wrong even if they weren't against the law.
Something like relativism? Or absolutism? Or objectivism?
Regardless, they did break the law, and thus, deserve to get punished. Again, you don't get to pick and choose what laws you want to follow if you want to belong to a society
A morally "good" person will probably never have reason to break the law, but they will also have their own rules that they follow regardless of the law. They will do kind/good things even when the law doesn't demand them to do it. Doing a favour for a friend (or anyone else) is something that I would consider a "good" thing to do, but the law certainly doesn't demand it. Insulting or ridiculing someone else is something I would usually consider a "bad" thing to do, but the law doesn't prohibit that either.
I wouldn't steal, or murder, or threaten people even if I were allowed by law. Essentially what I'm saying is that I don't follow the law, I follow my morals (which, since I'm a half-way decent person, happen to be entirely within the confines of the law), and I believe all good people should be following their morals rather than the law. The law exists to limit those without morals, not to replace morals. This is why they have no value when deciding whether something is "right" or not.
Of course I do agree that as you say "they did break the law, and thus, deserve to get punished.". I just don't think that has anything to do with the morality of their actions.
I think that what was trying to be said was that you shouldn't follow "law" blindly, or use it as the sole compass for right and wrong. Law is a funny little fickle thing that can easily change with the times, or be changed by those that have enough political influence. lunncal is quite right to say laws are not always morally correct.CM156 said:What then is the purpose of laws, dear reader, if people get to pick and chose which ones they will obey? Or perhaps that's not what you are saying.lunncal said:I disagree with the people saying that because their actions were against the law, they were the wrong thing to do. What is legally correct and what is morally correct are sometimes two very different things, and stating that something is illegal is not the same as stating that something is wrong.
It's not as if this is an "iffy" law. They broke into a person's property and destroyed that person's property. It's very reasonible to say "This is wrong and illegal. Let them fry".
No need to get angry, I'm pretty sure that what was meant in the OP and the poll was a moral sense of right and wrong rather than a legal one, because it is a fact that what they were doing was illegal, and thus "wrong" in the legal sense. If I was wrong about that then fair enough, but I don't think I was... besides which even if that were the case I don't see how I have changed any terminology. Yes "right" can be used referring to a legal right, but that's not the kind of "right" I was talking about.Alleged_Alec said:All very nice and dandy, thinking up your own moral system and COMPLETELY CHANGING TERMINOLOGY to make it mean what you want it to, but don't expect others to abide to that changed terminology bit. In the right is a phrase often used to imply a legal issue, not just moral ones. So it's completely valid to say they are not in the right, since they broke the law.
I agree, it was morally wrong. I voted "completely wrong" in the poll and I said that I thought what they did was wrong on my first post, and each post afterwards... what's your point?Alleged_Alec said:Also: even from a moral standpoint: destroying other people's property isn't a nice thing to do, is it?
Actually, I'm inclined to agree with what the first person said, based on what I've read and learned at University.Ghengis John said:No it's not. It's something different altogether. They may both attain the goal of change in a plant or animal but the process makes all the difference. Think of it this way: A nail and a screw are both fasteners. Yes? A screw is more advanced than a nail. Yes? Do you dive a nail with a screwdriver or a screw with a hammer? No. A nail is not a screw. A screw is not a nail. Anyone who tells you so is woefully misinformed.the_green_dragon said:Genetic Modifation has been happening for ages. It's the next step up from Selective Breeding and Cross Breeding. Now instead of having to selective breed they can select the traits they want and don't want.
Oh, awesome. I didn't know it's also possible to add in genes as well as alter/subtract them. This pretty much makes GM food a hell of a lot more useful in the long term.Esotera said:Snip
Yeah, look at what we did to the banana:Uszi said:Actually, I'm inclined to agree with what the first person said, based on what I've read and learned at University.
Your analogy with screws and nails is a bit too simplistic to adequately represent the whole controversy. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies]
And I'm not even sure it makes sense---is a screw really more "advanced" than a nail? And what does it matter that you use different tools for different hardware? You also don't use a screw driver to type on a keyboard or drive a golf ball. I don't follow your argument at all.
If anything your argument seems to appeal to some notion that living organisms can be divided into discreet categories based on intrinsic properties. Which doesn't really apply to living things, much less crops that have been engineered by humans through selective breeding to not look anything like what they used to.
For instance, did you realize that broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower and collard greens are all the same species of plant [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassica_oleracea]?