ForumsWEPR[necro]Ethics: Your choice

340 104730
DDX
offline
DDX
3,562 posts
Nomad

This will be an ethical question thread, that will relate mainly to religious beliefs and ethics. Hopefully it will be a good idea and people will want to play.

Each week I will present a topic, and you may discuss it, and bring your morality into the question.

This week:
soldiers have come to search your house! They will kill you and eat you if they find you. You are hiding in the closet farther away from the door than your friend who is hiding underneath a sofa. The people eating soldiers stop in front of the sofa, and start bending over slowly to see if there is anyone underneath it. You see this through the crack in the door. You have 2 choices to jump out, scream and run out the door to save your bestest friend in the whole world, or you can watch them drag him away.

basically would you save yourself? or would you save your friend.

  • 340 Replies
Kyouzou
offline
Kyouzou
5,062 posts
Jester

That's crap, that's saying lets take a group of a 1,000 people if one of them is a criminal, then they're all criminals. Why not just destroy the infected ones, in the long run that helps the companies image. What they're doing now just makes them look like total bastards.

pHacon
offline
pHacon
1,903 posts
Nomad

Why not just destroy the infected ones, in the long run that helps the companies image. What they're doing now just makes them look like total *******s.


Because that takes more time and effort, it's easier to just get rid of them all, and most everyone wants to take the easy way out.
Kyouzou
offline
Kyouzou
5,062 posts
Jester

Talk about customer service, yeah? They're a global company, god knows hiring a few extra people wouldn't kill them.

DDX
offline
DDX
3,562 posts
Nomad

Talk about customer service, yeah? They're a global company, god knows hiring a few extra people wouldn't kill them.


doesnt matter, that's just the way the law is set up, and by extension the farmers are charged of theft and the only way to appease monsanto is to burn the crops. plus since it is a multi billion dollar global company they have the lawyer force the size of a small country. and a small lowly farmer won't have the resources of out maneuvering their crafty force of lawyers.
Kyouzou
offline
Kyouzou
5,062 posts
Jester

So are we getting a new topic anytime soon?


You'd think with our society we would be able to distinguish between right and wrong.

Kevin4762
offline
Kevin4762
2,421 posts
Nomad

I would save myself, because I would probably live a better life than her.

aknerd
offline
aknerd
1,416 posts
Peasant

Actuallly, I believe that Monsanto should be allowed to sue.

Granted, I'm not going to do any of my own research on this because it's an ethics question, not a current events topic. So I'm basing my answer entirely on information given before me.

From said information, it seems like Monsato's products are not nefarious in anyway. They increase crop yield, which is a good thing given global starvation and all that. So it would seem like Monsato should be encouraged to continue their research, neh?

Well, Monsato is only going to invest money in research if they know they can profit from it. If other people are allowed to profit from it (even by accident), that will decrease Monsato's incentive to continue research.

Furthermore, if we allow farmers to use Monsato's crops without permission (again, even by accident) other agriculture research firms will see this and be discouraged. Whereas if Monsato is allowed to sue, investors will feel safer investing in research firms, thus promoting further research.

Finally, if farmers are not punished for accidentally acquiring these crops, the situation might get out of hand. If these crops are truly superior, then what's to stop farmers from purposefully "accidentally" acquiring the seeds? Farmers are uniformly noble or honest; some might try to use their legal leeway to get free seeds.

DDX
offline
DDX
3,562 posts
Nomad

Granted, I'm not going to do any of my own research on this because it's an ethics question, not a current events topic. So I'm basing my answer entirely on information given before me.

righto it is majority ethics based and realitvely recent
Furthermore, if we allow farmers to use Monsato's crops without permission (again, even by accident) other agriculture research firms will see this and be discouraged. Whereas if Monsato is allowed to sue, investors will feel safer investing in research firms, thus promoting further research.


this is what I felt too, but the way monsanto executed it was just completely wrong in my opinion, had the followed the judicial system in place and not relied on their massive pool of lawyers this problem wouldn't have been raised. and people would possibly hate monsanto less
wajor59
offline
wajor59
909 posts
Nomad

Farmers can't be held liable or responsible for seeds becoming airborn from a truck loaded with them or by bird droppings. This is tragically ridiculous and boarders on feudalism. I'm surprised Monsato hasn't aquired land by this type of thievery.
If, they were an honest company they would have gone through the proper legal channels to insure that their product doesn't "stray" onto some innocent farmers land. They should have to provide proof of the farmers intentional aquisition of the Monsato seeds not by happenstance.

royalguy
offline
royalguy
148 posts
Nomad

I would say to Monsanto you may go onto my property and test every single crop and take very single one of your crops tell them have fun it is not my problem that you poisoned my field although the judge would not be happy with bare knuckle fighting like that hope that works for now

Showing 331-340 of 340