Tag Archives: Morality

Commentary

Animal rights activists oppose research that can save millions of lives

2 Comments

It is an axiom of my profession (software engineering) that “there is no silver bullet”. Every design decision represents a compromise – a trade-off – between two competing goals. As someone who loves animals very much, I think that it is important that my readers understand the benefit that we get when we allow medical researchers to experiment on animals to develop new cures.

The story is here. (H/T Secondhand Smoke via ECM)

Excerpt:

A new malaria vaccine has been shown to provide 100% protection in mice. If it can approach that level in people, it could slash the toll from one of the world’s worst scourges, according to Stefan Kappe of Seattle Biomedical Research Institute (SBRI). “We’re shooting for 90%-plus protection,” said Kappe, who is the leader of the international collaboration behind the vaccine. “I am extremely optimistic this will work. The initial trials on Kappe’s vaccine are tentatively scheduled to start in January at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval is required.

Either we are going to save many human lives or save a few animal lives. It’s that simple. We cannot do both.

Commentary

Round-up of articles from Townhall.com

Leave a comment

Three editorials sent to me by my friend Andrew.

First, Dennis Prager explains the real goals of the left. (Also H/T Muddling Toward Maturity)

Excerpt:

Principle One: The left, as distinct from traditional liberals, is not, and has never been, interested in creating wealth….

Principle Two: The reason the left asks why there is poverty instead of why there is wealth is that the left’s preoccupying ideal is equality — not economic growth….

Principle Three: The left everywhere seeks to make as big and powerful a state as possible….

Principle Four: The left imposes its values on others whenever possible and to the extent possible.

Second, Phyllis Schlafly explains why family courts are unfair to men.

Excerpt:

Did you know that a family court can order a man to reimburse the government for the welfare money, falsely labeled “child support,” that was paid to the mother of a child to whom he is not related? Did you know that, if he doesn’t pay, a judge can sentence him to debtor’s prison without ever letting him have a jury trial?

Did you know that debtor’s prisons (putting men in prison because they can’t pay a debt) were abolished in the United States before we abolished slavery, but that they exist today to punish men who are too poor to pay what is falsely called “child support”?

…Did you know that alleged “child support” has nothing to do with supporting a child because the mother has no obligation to spend even one dollar of it on a child, and in many cases none of the “support” money ever gets to a child because it goes to fatten the payroll of the child-support bureaucracy?

Finally, Rebecca Hagelin explains how to teach children about morality.

Excerpt:

Many overwhelmed parents institute a bunch of rules and routines to help get through each day. But don’t mistake having a list of “dos” and “don’ts” for parenting – it’s more like policing. Having rules without telling our children what they mean in context of their future can leave them feeling frustrated and angry. Worse still, living a legalistic life can result in emptiness. Yes, your children should obey you just because you “said so”, but parenting also involves inspiring them to do so.

Today’s culture teaches our kids to live for the moment, to fulfill selfish desires and cravings, and says very little about who – not just what – they should become. No one is inspiring and encouraging our children to become adults whose lives are marked by strong moral character, goodness, truth and joy. We need to set the vision clearly before them – and you can’t do that with just a set of rules. If you don’t thoughtfully connect your rules with how they help your children have a beautiful, meaningful life, you have missed the opportunity to raise sons and daughters of purpose.

This is exactly my own view, and I have used the same Scripture she does to encourage my relatives. Memorize that verse and apply it to raising your pets and children.

News

How objective are scientists about their research, given their political views?

10 Comments

Hot Air linked to this Pew Research poll about the beliefs and attitudes of researchers in the scientific fields.

Excerpt:

More than half of the scientists surveyed (55%) say they are Democrats, compared with 35% of the public. Fully 52% of the scientists call themselves liberals; among the public, just 20% describe themselves as liberals. Many of the scientists surveyed mentioned in their open-ended comments that they were optimistic about the Obama administration’s likely impact on science.

For its part, the public does not perceive scientists as a particularly liberal group. When asked whether they think of scientists as liberal, conservative or neither in particular, nearly two-thirds (64%) choose the latter option. Just 20% say they think of scientists as politically liberal. However, a majority of scientists (56%) do see members of their profession as liberal.

Most scientists had heard at least a little about claims that government scientists were not allowed to report research findings that conflicted with the Bush administration’s point of view. And the vast majority (77%) says that these claims are true. By contrast, these claims barely registered with the public – more than half heard nothing at all about this issue. Only about a quarter of the public (28%) said they thought the claims were true.

Both scientists and the public overwhelmingly say it is appropriate for scientists to become active in political debates about such issues as nuclear power or stem cell research. Virtually all scientists (97%) endorse their participation in debates about these issues, while 76% of the public agrees.

I think it helps to make the point I was making earlier about the fraudulent science used to support global warming and Darwinian evolution. Many scientists have an agenda. They get paid by the government. The bigger government is, the better they get paid. Therefore, many are Democrats. Scientists tend to be biased in favor of material entities and explanations. Morality is non-material. Scientists therefore tend to resent the idea that moral claims are knowledge. They prefer to have autonomy from non-material moral rules. Therefore, many are atheists.

There are some dissenters of course. But these are rare.