Not exact matches
The reason I ask you to face the realities of your
argument here is because I'm hoping that you'll
take a close look at the logical and
ethical inconsistencies of your own position, and learn something about yourself from that close look.
Geison uses the example of Pasteur as an
argument that modern
ethical standards «leave too little room for risk -
taking and simple human courage», especially when dealing with an inevitably fatal disease such as rabies — or AIDS.
I think the
argument would come more from an
ethical standpoint where you feel like if you
took on the debt you have a responsibility to pay it back to the extent possible.
With very few exceptions, the US press has utterly failed to cover climate change as an
ethical and moral issue while focusing on the scientific and economic
arguments against
taking action that have been made by opponents of US climate change policies for almost 30 years.
For all of these reasons,
arguments against
taking action to reduce the threat of climate change based upon scientific uncertainty fail to pass minimum
ethical scrutiny.