|
In Round 2, the respondents were invited to comment on the given issues and principles, to add other issues and principles and to comment on the process as a whole. The material submitted was thoughtful and extensive.
The range of opinion and the intensity of feeling with which those opinions were delivered and the great diversity of viewpoints is captured in these diametrically opposed views of the future of values in our society:
-
I think that humanity will be better every year, will be more opened and compassionate, with great science and technology achievements in its favor and in favor of the planet. … That process is gradual; but the difficult thing will be to detect and support populations that suffer religious and ideological oppressors, whose tendency to grow is evident now in Latin-America and Africa, disguised very well in pseudo-democratic postulates.
-
The traditional nucleus of society- the family- will disappear; the concept of offspring will disappear, the human being will be seen as a couple of chemical reactions inside a bag. Birth and death will not be the basic points of life but singularities of machines. The machine society in which the human being is just another machine, that is the ethics of the future; no ethics at all as we see it today; no values at all as we see them today. Good and bad will have no meaning for the future generations.
The comments were organized into several major headings.
Discussion of Issues That Appeared in Round 2 -
Discussion of Principles That Appeared in Round 2
-
Newly Suggested Principles Drivers of Value Change -
Global Norms
What Contributors Suggested as Proper Values -
-
Professed Values vs. Behavior
-
Methodological Criticisms
-
Content- Based Criticisms
-
Forecasts of Value Changes
-
General Comments
-
Kudos and Thanks
First, a few of the comments about specific issues and principles are presented. Then several examples of respondents’ contributions are presented under each major heading. In many instances the comments have been truncated and are included in more complete (though edited) form in Appendix A2. Appendix A2 also contains additional contributions that do not appear in the summaries below.
1. Discussion of Issues that Appeared in Round 2
Issues 2005-2010
1.2 What is the ethical way to intervene in a country that is endangering people significantly enough to justify collective action by other countries, abridging the first nation’s sovereignty?
-
The wishes of powerful countries to create political and cultural homogeneity in other states oblivious to the inherent or fundamental beliefs and culture of the lesser states is potentially destructive and will cause the opposite of the intended or desired harmony.
-
You seem to consider that it is proper for a country to get involved by itself in other countries’ affairs; that is inadmissible. Nobody is the “police of the world.” Each country must make its own decisions and to advance towards its specific solution of its problems.
1.5 Should religions give up the claim of certainty and/or superiority to reduce religion-related conflicts?
-
Most religions are based on the principles of subjugation and homogenization. For this reason it is exceedingly difficult to see any alleviation in their claims for superiority in relation to other cultural and ethical viewpoints.
1.7 Should national sovereignty and cultural differences be allowed to prevent international intervention designed to stop widespread violence perpetrated by men against women?
-
The issue on stopping widespread violence perpetrated against women is linked to the question on intervention. I think that rights of people should go ahead of national sovereignty. The question of course is who or what decides when a country is significantly endangering its or other people or what counts as violence against women. If taken to its extremes, one could ask "is a country (rich, democratic, western) significantly endangering its people if income distribution gaps are widening and a growing part of the population can be considered poor?" Should this kind of development call for outside intervention?
1.8 Do we have a right to clone ourselves?
-
The issue of cloning pales to insignificance next to the problem of, say, cleans drinking water in the developing world. It is a luxury for those whose necessities are met. Therein lays the danger. Because a deeper question then arises - When it comes to cloning and genetic enhancement, can a kind of capitalistic eugenics be avoided? And if human cloning is perfected, what color will most cloned children be?
-
The question, 'Do we have a right to clone ourselves?' gives rise to that most fundamental of considerations - the tension between the rich and poor, and between the developed and developing worlds. I suspect that cloning will only be an option for the affluent. I am therefore left wondering - Who are the 'we' in the question, 'Do we have a right to clone ourselves?'
-
During the last couple of years humanity has been concerned with the cloning problem. …It would be good to note that long before the notorious baby Dolly appeared, humanity had faced similar problem, but in a different, may be less evident form. History from time to time gives people similar problems, changing them only depending on the current moment and the condition or level of technical progress.
-
Cloning life forms that could not grow old or die or become extinct could destroy diversity and evolution which are natural and make life more interesting…
Share with your friends: |
