The Santa Monica Ethics Meetup Group

Vote now for the topic! The Ethics Meetup, this Sunday, Aug 23 on Zoom

Sun, Aug 23 · 5:00 PM PDT

·

Online

Online

Hey People!

Our monthly Meetup is on zoom this month: this Sunday, August 23 at 5 PM PT.

We're also voting now for the topic for this meeting – message me, email me (angelonapinhead@gmail.com), or post a comment with the topic(s) you most want to talk about! I’ll post an update with the winning topic in a few days.

Here are the topics to vote on, for this month's Meetup:

1) IS IT WRONG TO DO MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS? Or, is it permissible, or even obligatory? What justifies animal experimentation and what justifies restricting it? What are the issues involved?

2) ARE PEOPLE ESSENTIALLY GOOD OR BAD? Or is human nature in between good and bad, or a mix of good and bad, or is it something outside of the good/bad continuum? And, in what specific ways is human nature good, bad or otherwise? What is meant by the terms "good" and "bad" in the context of human nature? Do you have any insights about the good or bad in humans that most people don't recognize?

3) ANARCHY: is anarchy (AKA anarchism) a viable way to set up a society? What are the advantages and disadvantages of anarchy? Wikipedia defines anarchy as, “a form of society without rulers. As a type of stateless society, it is commonly contrasted with states, which are centralized polities that claim a monopoly on violence over a permanent territory. Beyond a lack of government, it can more precisely refer to societies that lack any form of authority or hierarchy.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Anarchism puts it this way, “Anarchism is a political theory that is skeptical of the justification of authority and power. Anarchism is usually grounded in moral claims about the importance of individual liberty, often conceived as freedom from domination. Anarchists also offer a positive theory of human flourishing, based upon an ideal of equality, community, and non-coercive consensus building.”

4) PHYSICIAN-ASSISTED SUICIDE (VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA). Is it ethically acceptable for the terminally ill to take their own life (or to elicit help in doing so)? What are the arguments, pro and con? If it is acceptable, under what circumstances? And, would it be permissible to encourage assisted suicide?

Second, does it make a difference if the patient has a brain illness, such as dementia, instead of a disease we usually associate with assisted dying, such as cancer? For example, should Alzheimer’s sufferers be eligible for assisted suicide, if they make that choice prior to becoming mentally incapable of doing so? What about treatment-resistant, severe clinical depression?

These are not mere academic questions. Currently, 13 states in the U.S. and at least 10 countries including Canada have some form of medical aid in dying laws – and more countries are considering it. In the U.S., laws authorize assisted dying (self-administered), which is distinct from active euthanasia (where a physician directly administers the medication), which is illegal throughout the U.S. Some countries allow active euthanasia. In five countries, there is no terminal illness requirement, but the patient's suffering must be unbearable, non-alleviable, and medically documented. Do these distinctions make an ethical difference?

5) WHEN ARE YOU MORALLY OBLIGED TO CONFRONT THE WRONGDOING OF OTHERS? And when is it okay to ignore wrongdoing? When should you take action, and when does taking action do more harm than good? When does another person's wrongdoing become my moral responsibility? Is morality and ethics primarily about what we ourselves do, or does it also include what we allow other people to do? Is ignoring an immoral act ethically equivalent to tacitly approving it? If so, then isn't it a moral error to fail to speak up or act against the wrongdoer? Does ignoring the issue make you "part of the problem rather than part of the solution?"

Many political or personal injustices are ignored or winked at for a long time before being given serious consideration – this gives us a compelling reason to confront wrongdoing. Then again, do we want to scold (and be scolded by) one another on a near daily basis for ignoring wrongdoings small and large? How many issues can a person or a society successfully examine and change at a time? Does constant confrontation of wrongdoing lead to constant conflict and a normalization of conflict? Consider the problem of moral overreach: confronting every wrongdoing may undermine the ability to confront the most serious cases of wrongdoing effectively. So, is it better to focus on a few, important failings, setting aside the lesser ones for a more opportune time? Or, is it better to address all personal or social misdeeds, since we don't know ahead of time which wrongful actions might yield to rapid change if brought to attention?

----------------

Send in a vote for your favorite topic(s) now!