[redpoint5]

"Scholars will say whatever you pay them to, just like scientists and doctors."

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

Chuckle.

That isn't a refutation.

Shall I assume you trust the conclusions of environmental scientists paid for by Big Oil? How about doctors paid for by the tobacco industry?

Originally Posted by sgtlethargic

I'm into certain ethics and certain wisdom.

What is the fundamental framework for those certain ethics and wisdom?

Should humanity continue to destroy what remains of Earth's ecosystems?

Needs elaboration, as it isn't given that Earth's ecosystems are being destroyed. The human ecosystem has continuously and vastly improved over the ages, especially in recent times.

Should humanity have weapons deployed that can kill millions of people in short order, and would probably destroy society?

No, but then what's your practical suggestion? Once the cat is out of the bag...

Should there be an effective international justice system, or should international injustice prevail via the barbarity of economic weapons and explosives?

This could use more elaboration also. I could interpret this to mean that Sharia law should be incorporated into international law and impose upon societies not inclined to treat women as property, in which case I would respond that "international justice" should not prevail.

All justice is enforced via formidable threat. There is no such thing as justice enforced impotently.

Do animals have the right to not have their bodies and lives exploited?

From human law, no. From the law of nature, still no. Animals tear themselves apart continuously, and they have no internal mechanism to participate in an ethical framework.

That said, people of the future who enjoy high quality, low cost, lab grown meat will consider us as backwards barbarians, because that's what the current generation always does; judges past people by current ethical standards, as if we possess the capability of enjoying future paradigms before they come to pass.

Should the wealthiest nation-state ever have people living on the street?

Depends on where you fall on the libertarian vs authoritarian scale. The libertarian is likely to state that people who choose to live on the street should be allowed to live on the street. The authoritarian might say they should be locked up in mental institutions or drug rehab facilities.

Should the wealthiest nation ever have people going without proper medical care, or go bankrupt due to medical care?

Define wealthiest. Define proper... left-thinkers tend to have a good opinion of the efficacy of government programs and be in favor of political solutions. Right-thinkers tend to have a poor opinion of government programs and are more inclined to local solutions.

Should we invest in preventing pandemics, even if it's a negative return on investment (the Covid-19 pandemic could've been prevented)?

How could the pandemic have been prevented given that zero countries avoided it? The only way to prevent a pandemic is to prevent travel... and even then it's a fool's errand given the amount of illegal border crossing. You'd have to make the penalty for travel of any sort be immediate death, or some such draconian measure to prevent a pandemic.

Should there be billionaires?

Probably, given that nature has produced them.

Should someone that tried to steal an election be eligible for election?

Someone found guilty of election tampering should not be eligible for election, maybe. The way you keep someone you don't want from holding office is to not vote for them. The reason I'm against age limits for POTUS is because the way you keep someone you don't want from being POTUS is not voting for them.

Should the State have the legal right to kill humans (death penalty, economic warfare, warfare, policing)?

This is very discombobulated. If someone poses a serious immediate physical threat, the state should have the right to stop them from killing you, up to and including killing them. That means policing.

No idea what you mean by economic warfare. Taxation, perhaps?

Should lethal weapons be replaced with less-than-lethal weapons?

Should food be replaced with less-than-food? It's non-sequitur because they serve different functions based on differing circumstances.

Should lethal weapons be illegal to manufacture?

My hands are lethal weapons. The point of manufactured weapons is to level the playing field so that anyone from a petite woman to Goliath are potentially equally formidable.

Should pharmaceutical businesses be held responsible for their unethical roles in illicit use of legal drugs?

This is another authoritarian vs libertarian question. People are either responsible for their decisions, or they are not. Worded differently, they either have sovereignty over their body and decisions, or they are subjected to another authority.

Should people be working 40 or more hours per week?

Productive people; yes. Unproductive people, no.

Should tax revenues be used for war and the threat of war?

It's the #1 most fundamental purpose of taxation. If you say no to that, then all the rest is gone as well. Securing the sovereignty of the nation is the highest purpose of government.

Should women be more or less forced to give birth?

That needs more context. Women should choose if they want to become pregnant or not, and make decisions based on that.

Should humanity continue being in competition for resources and wealth

Of course. It's baked into the most fundamental part of human DNA. You're asking if humanity should continue being human. What's the alternative, we incorporate ant DNA so we go about as drones mindlessly serving a colony we're not even aware of?