No, this is upon the people who use the discovery.
Think of Nobel who invented Dynamite.
"Murder is not morally wrong because it is found in nature." This statement commits the naturalistic fallacy by wrongly concluding that the way things are in nature should dictate how things ought to be morally.
Fair and morally right treatment of people refers to treating individuals with equity, respect, and honesty, without discrimination or bias. It involves upholding individuals' rights, dignity, and well-being, and acting in accordance with ethical principles and values in all interactions and decisions.
Mandel studied what we now call dominant and recessive traits. he showed how some traits of an individual could be passed to their young. most of his work was done on peas and actually rejected when he asked other scientists if they agreed. it wasnt until (i believe) after his death his work was 'rediscovered' and shown to be correct and useful. the nazi conscept of a pure race used information that we had gained about human genetics (such as if you have blond hair you must be homozygous for the blond gene) and, through some unbeknown to me process, decided that this made you better than others. one thing that is important to remember is that science can tell you what is true (or rather what may be true) and not what is morally correct. in my opinion, just because you are homozygous for a specific gene, doesnt mean you are morally superior or inferior than anyone else. i would go far as to say that most people agree with this now-a-days.
Perfect voluntaries refer to actions done with full knowledge and consent, while imperfect voluntaries refer to actions done with partial knowledge or under coercion. In perfect voluntaries, the person is morally responsible for their actions, while in imperfect voluntaries, there may be some moral mitigation due to the lack of full consent or understanding.
If you are morally honest, you will be mentally content which is far greater that a billionaire with unrest both in body and mind. Your moral character will receive high esteem from all sections of the society.
Under what conditions can a human being held morally responsible?
No more than the maker of a car being morally responsible for deaths caused by drunk drivers.
Humans need to be morally or ethically responsible to maintain social order, promote empathy and compassion, and ensure the well-being of themselves and others. Being morally responsible helps individuals navigate complex situations ethically and make decisions that uphold values and principles that benefit society as a whole.
Only when makers of spoons are morally responsible for people that have heart attacks from being overweight. Axe makers are not responsible for a murderer killing someone with an axe. Oil companies are not responsible for the arsonist that uses gasoline to start a fire.
E smart
now adays kids of 13 and 14 are also not responsible for their actions from 15 kids start to become responsible.
Not if it was a legal sale.
Morally and ethically yes, but not legally.
it creates unity among the people
Yes, criminals are generally held morally responsible for their actions as they are considered to have knowingly engaged in behavior that violates societal norms and laws. This accountability serves as the basis for our criminal justice system and the assigning of punishment or rehabilitation measures as deemed appropriate.
Totally and completely. We each have free will, which means that we choose what we do or do not do and, as a result, we are individually responsible for the ramifications of our actions or inactions.
Yes, he chose to take drugs with the full knowledge of what they do to a person and for that he is responsible for anything he does while intoxicated