At 01:04 PM 11/29/2009, you wrote:
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:04:14 -0500
From: tjpa <t...@tjpa.com>
Subject: Re: Gulag
On Nov 28, 2009, at 8:06 PM, Adil Godrej wrote:
> A person living on Rs 2/day (about 4 cents) in India typically has
> one meal of rice every two days. No matter how ethical he is, he
> "cannot afford to be ethical" in those circumstances. Telling him
> that it is unethical to eat genetically-modified rice, even if that
> is all he can get, is a sure way to let him die. Yet, there are
> people who'd rather that such poor people die than allow GM rice to
> be available. These that the flag-wavers I was talking about. Should
> I be on the side of such flag wavers? In your words, "hell no". Let
> there be enough food so that there is no need to grow GM foods, then
> talk about getting the GM stuff out of the food supply. This
> requires sufficient income for people so that they have a choice.
> Would it surprise you to know that the poor often have equally good
> ethics as those who are better off?
Here the relevant issue is who is being unethical? The starving person
is certainly making an ethical decision to reject suicide. The problem
is with the people who are falsely claiming that there is something
wrong with GM. They conveniently neglect to acknowledge that humans
have been genetically modifying plants and animals for 1000s of years.
Everything we eat is GM and has been for a very long time.
Here we get to the nub of it: you view rejecting suicide as an
ethical decision. Sure, if you want to define it that way. I view
suicide more as a moral issue, rather than an ethical one. And
morality is defined by the society one lives in. For example,
allowing one self to not be subject to heroic medical procedures to
save one's life is, in my opinion, is the right ethical thing to do,
but many people consider it immoral. I think we are agreeing on the
basics, but our points of reference are different. Also, I picked GM
because that is one of those things people get excited over. My take
on GM is actually very similar to yours. Although, I must admit that
I don't think human beings have been modifying plants with animal
genes for very long.....
On Nov 28, 2009, at 8:06 PM, Adil Godrej wrote:
> I hope you now understand what I meant when I said "cannot afford to
> be ethical". It was shorthand for those in such dire straights that
> they have no time for ethics.
This is where we part. I don't see any situation where one "cannot
afford to be ethical". If that were truly the case then the starving
person you described would simply kill their neighbor and eat them.
Problem solved. Have you observed this to be the case? I suspect that
the starving person is possibly the most ethical of individuals. They
are starving because they reject the unethical alternatives.
Okay, I see what you are getting at. Point well taken. Although I
think that killing is more about morals that ethics. Otherwise we'd
never be able to defend against attacks against our selves. If a
farmer commits suicide so that the government will be shamed into
helping his starving family, did he just do something unethical
because he didn't reject suicide? This isn't a made-up example, but
what has happened with a lot of farmers in some states in India
recently. Failed monsoons are the main reason for the starving families.
Now, was your victory over this issue an ethical or moral one? :)
As Stewart alluded to earlier, though, we have now degenerated to an
academic argument, rather than action. So, let's go make our
donations this Sunday to our favorite charity, crack open a beer, and
feel good.....(from the donation and the beer). If we make our
donations online, we won't be accused of being off-topic, either.
Adil
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
