What do you find immoral?

[ElectionsGuy]

Have at it. Feel free to talk about other topics that are not listed in this. With this forum, I don't expect many votes for many of these, but still interesting to see what we think. I'm only going to say:

Abortion
Death Penalty
Cloning Humans

Abortion only because most of the time it is because of stupidity, but there are many times where it is not wrong to do.

[DC Al Fine]

Abortion: Immoral
Death Penalty: Depends
Doctor Assisted Suicide: Immoral
Sex before Marriage: Immoral
Divorce: Usually immoral
Polygamy: Immoral
Pornography: Immoral
Birth control: Depends
Teenage sex: Depends
Homosexuality: Immoral (I took this to mean the act of homosexual sex, not orientation)
Gambling: Immoral
Unwed birth: Not immoral
Stem cell research: Depends
Medical testing animals: Depends
Wearing fur: Not immoral

Cloning: Undecided

[Deus Naturae]

Where is the "none" option?

[ElectionsGuy]

Where is the "none" option?

Easy, you don't check any (But seriously I probably should've put that in there, sorry)

[bedstuy]

I can't really answer this.  For any action, I could come up with a hypothetical situation where these things are immoral or moral.  A serious moral judgement has to take into account the facts and circumstances of the situation at hand.

Homosexuality: Immoral (I took this to mean the act of homosexual sex, not orientation)

That's a lot to ask of someone, to forgo sex and intimate relationships.  I wonder if moral is ever the right word for this fundamentalist Christian idea.  Homosexuality is a taboo from back in the day, but it's certainly not wrong in the way stealing is wrong.  What's the moral reasoning there?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I checked "Stem cell research". Presuming you used it as a shorthand for "human embryonic stem cell research",  the available evidence indicates that we can get the same benefits without breaking up embryos.  Given the potential ethical issues, and the lack of clear benefits, we never should have rushed ahead with human embryonic stem cell research until we had verified that non-embryonic techniques would not work as well as embryonic techniques.  Unfortunately we do tend to rush ahead in science without bothering to adequately consider the moral implications of some lines of research.

[SWE]

Death Penalty

Medical testing on animals

[AggregateDemand]

Abortion
Death Penalty
Polygamy
EMBRYONIC stem cell research
Human cloning

Abortion should be legal, but it's a major moral compromise

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Voted for a majority of things. A lot of you fail to realize the existence of a process of thought that weighs various things or, can, in fact be knowingly hypocritical. I can knowingly do or want to do a number of immoral things consciously. That certainly doesn't make me a good person, but fact is that my behavior is not the ultimate determiner of what I judge to be right or wrong. Ridiculous.

[Bojack Horseman]

None.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

None.

Glad to see you support the collapse of civil society. Wouldn't be surprised to find you approving of stealing or arson.

[IceSpear]

Where is the "none" option?

[sdu754]

I checked "Stem cell research". Presuming you used it as a shorthand for "human embryonic stem cell research",  the available evidence indicates that we can get the same benefits without breaking up embryos.  Given the potential ethical issues, and the lack of clear benefits, we never should have rushed ahead with human embryonic stem cell research until we had verified that non-embryonic techniques would not work as well as embryonic techniques.  Unfortunately we do tend to rush ahead in science without bothering to adequately consider the moral implications of some lines of research.

I completely agree with you on this. I believe they rushed in more for political rather than scientific reasons

[sdu754]

I was surprised so many people said death penalty. What about people like Hitler, Stalin, Bundy, Manson & Dahmer. I think it would be hard to argue against the death penalty for the above criminals

[bedstuy]

I checked "Stem cell research". Presuming you used it as a shorthand for "human embryonic stem cell research",  the available evidence indicates that we can get the same benefits without breaking up embryos.  Given the potential ethical issues, and the lack of clear benefits, we never should have rushed ahead with human embryonic stem cell research until we had verified that non-embryonic techniques would not work as well as embryonic techniques.  Unfortunately we do tend to rush ahead in science without bothering to adequately consider the moral implications of some lines of research.

Don't you generally need to use human cells to repair human tissue?  I thought the idea was that we could use adult human stem cells instead of embyonic stem cells.

But, I don't see the ethical problem anyway.  IVF creates more than enough unused embryos for research.  If the choice is letting the embryos die from freezer burn or using them for research, I don't see the ethical problem. 

[The Dowager Mod]

Death Penalty.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I checked "Stem cell research". Presuming you used it as a shorthand for "human embryonic stem cell research",  the available evidence indicates that we can get the same benefits without breaking up embryos.  Given the potential ethical issues, and the lack of clear benefits, we never should have rushed ahead with human embryonic stem cell research until we had verified that non-embryonic techniques would not work as well as embryonic techniques.  Unfortunately we do tend to rush ahead in science without bothering to adequately consider the moral implications of some lines of research.

Don't you generally need to use human cells to repair human tissue?  I thought the idea was that we could use adult human stem cells instead of embyonic stem cells.

But, I don't see the ethical problem anyway.  IVF creates more than enough unused embryos for research.  If the choice is letting the embryos die from freezer burn or using them for research, I don't see the ethical problem. 

Or perhaps IVF techniques shouldn't be creating unused embryos in the first place.

[sdu754]

I checked "Stem cell research". Presuming you used it as a shorthand for "human embryonic stem cell research",  the available evidence indicates that we can get the same benefits without breaking up embryos.  Given the potential ethical issues, and the lack of clear benefits, we never should have rushed ahead with human embryonic stem cell research until we had verified that non-embryonic techniques would not work as well as embryonic techniques.  Unfortunately we do tend to rush ahead in science without bothering to adequately consider the moral implications of some lines of research.

Don't you generally need to use human cells to repair human tissue?  I thought the idea was that we could use adult human stem cells instead of embyonic stem cells.

But, I don't see the ethical problem anyway.  IVF creates more than enough unused embryos for research.  If the choice is letting the embryos die from freezer burn or using them for research, I don't see the ethical problem. 

You can get the stem cells without harvesting embryos. They can be gotten from the umbilical cord after a baby is born, as well as other sources.

[bedstuy]

I checked "Stem cell research". Presuming you used it as a shorthand for "human embryonic stem cell research",  the available evidence indicates that we can get the same benefits without breaking up embryos.  Given the potential ethical issues, and the lack of clear benefits, we never should have rushed ahead with human embryonic stem cell research until we had verified that non-embryonic techniques would not work as well as embryonic techniques.  Unfortunately we do tend to rush ahead in science without bothering to adequately consider the moral implications of some lines of research.

Don't you generally need to use human cells to repair human tissue?  I thought the idea was that we could use adult human stem cells instead of embyonic stem cells.

But, I don't see the ethical problem anyway.  IVF creates more than enough unused embryos for research.  If the choice is letting the embryos die from freezer burn or using them for research, I don't see the ethical problem. 

Or perhaps IVF techniques shouldn't be creating unused embryos in the first place.

I'm not a scientist, but I assume they have good reasons for creating a bunch of embryos.  People want to have kids who need IVF and I think that takes precedence over a fairly minor ethical complaint.

[Redalgo]

Death penalty
Gambling
Medical testing animals

Of these, gambling is the most mild and I am not convinced either way whether it ought to be banned in all or even most forms. The medical testing meanwhile has less to do with animals being used for experiments than their inhumane treatment and reduction to being nothing more than resources for humans to exploit.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I checked "Stem cell research". Presuming you used it as a shorthand for "human embryonic stem cell research",  the available evidence indicates that we can get the same benefits without breaking up embryos.  Given the potential ethical issues, and the lack of clear benefits, we never should have rushed ahead with human embryonic stem cell research until we had verified that non-embryonic techniques would not work as well as embryonic techniques.  Unfortunately we do tend to rush ahead in science without bothering to adequately consider the moral implications of some lines of research.

Don't you generally need to use human cells to repair human tissue?  I thought the idea was that we could use adult human stem cells instead of embyonic stem cells.

But, I don't see the ethical problem anyway.  IVF creates more than enough unused embryos for research.  If the choice is letting the embryos die from freezer burn or using them for research, I don't see the ethical problem. 

Or perhaps IVF techniques shouldn't be creating unused embryos in the first place.

I'm not a scientist, but I assume they have good reasons for creating a bunch of embryos.  People want to have kids who need IVF and I think that takes precedence over a fairly minor ethical complaint.

Creating human life (in some form, you must admit) just to destroy it?  How is that fairly minor?

[Goldwater]

None.

[Redalgo]

Creating human life (in some form, you must admit) just to destroy it?  How is that fairly minor?

It is minor if one does not believe all human life is equal in value. I for example do not believe in souls and do not consider human beings to be people during the earliest stages of their development. The creation and destruction of said lives is fairly minor in the same way that I consider the operations of fisheries minor relative to many other moral controversies.

[Hifly]

Abortion
Polygamy
Death Penalty
Gambling
Doctor-Assisted Suicide
Suicide
Medical testing on animals

[Goldwater]

Okay, my answer of "none" might be a bit too simplistic, so I'll go into slightly greater detail:

Abortion: I only have a problem with late term ones.
Death penalty/; Assuming it's a case where I view it as a just punishment, I have no problems with it.
Doctor-assisted suicide: Assuming this is referring cases of terminal illness, I have no problem with it.
Sex before marriage: I have no moral issue with it.
Divorce: I have no moral issue with it.
Polygamy: I have no moral issue with it, although I think it could become problematic legally.
Pornography: I have no moral issue with it.
Birth control: I have no moral issue with it.
Teenage sex: Somewhat irresponsible in many cases, but I wouldn't call it immoral.
Homosexuality: I have no moral issue with it.
Gambling: I have no moral issue with it.
Unwed birth: I have no moral issue with it.
Stem cell research: I have no moral issue with it.
Suicide (in general): This is the one I would be most likely to check. I have a negative view of suicide in general, although I would call it a sense of pity more than a sense of morality.
Medical testing animals: I consider animal testing justified for medical research purposes.
Wearing clothes w/animal fur: I have no moral issue with it.
Cloning animals: I have no moral issue with it.
Cloning humans: I have no moral issue with the act of human cloning, although I do have some issues with some possible reasonings behind it.