The problem is that no ethical system has ever achieved consensus. Ethical systems are completely unlike mathematics or science. This is a source of concern.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
There is no system that is inherently moral if the participants themselves are not.
I've participated in meetings where there were concerns by ethical experts. There is no clear solution.
Ethics are a key issue, and they're a key issue on the Democratic side, and all people have to be held to high standards.
Ethics is not routinely taught to science students except in medicine, and I think it should be.
I think ethics is always there; it's not always a very thoughtful or reflective ethics.
Ethics are pre-determined and a matter of discovery, not a evolved concept.
At the end of the day, if there are truly ethical considerations, those have to override scientific considerations.
Personally, I think it is possible to build a society that is moral on a nonreligious basis, but the jury is still out on that.
I would like us to think about it more explicitly, and not take our intuitions as the given of ethics, but rather to reflect on it, and be more open about the fact that something is an ethical issues and think what we ought to do about it.
An ethical man doesn't need a consensus of his allies in order to act against something he finds reprehensible.