Your post is simply applying a different definition to the terms I used.
Your reply is a case for righteousness.
I don't think you have considered the implications of the use of such words as "good". I agree with you that experimentation is futile in the absence of ethics.
Why are you presuming common application of the use of the word good and useful? For example, the science behind the atomic bomb and it's usage, was it useful? To whom was it useful, those devastated by the blast or those who set it off?
I urge you to reevaluate your basis for righteousness.
Don't you understand that morality requires certainty?
Your post is simply applying a different definition to the terms I used.
Your reply is a case for righteousness.
I don't think you have considered the implications of the use of such words as "good". I agree with you that experimentation is futile in the absence of ethics.
Why are you presuming common application of the use of the word good and useful? For example, the science behind the atomic bomb and it's usage, was it useful? To whom was it useful, those devastated by the blast or those who set it off?
I urge you to reevaluate your basis for righteousness.
Don't you understand that morality requires certainty?