Why? what justification do you have for this?

Just because someone doesn't think that it is an inherent truth that it is "right" that all people should continue to exist doesn't mean they think that people should not exist

What people consider to be a benefit or detriment depends entirely on their desired outcomes and priorities, which can be arbitrary. When what is "benefit" is arbitrary so too can be your morals if what is of benefit is your guiding light.

The main problem I see with people who talk about "morals derived from logic", comes from people not realizing that it all comes down to their own biases and their own preferences.

Sure, the system you've devised might be a reasonable and logical way to achieve the goals you intend.. but why do you have those goals? why are those goals "right"?

It all comes down to an a priori justification of their morals in the end. They just haven't recursively analyzed their own morals enough to realize it yet.

When all morals are effectively arbitrary (as the priorities and values that influence them can be) it is hard to say they are defined by "logic".

God made humans rational beings.

Telling people who collect stamps they're idiots could be a hobby.

Ha! I knew the denialists would come swarming out of the woodwork on this one.

Consider the stem cell paper that we're talking about here. It was published in January and immediately started going down in flames. Here we are six months later, watching scientists gleefully kick the cold corpse of the authors' reputations. And you're still wondering who keeps the reviewers and editors of a scientific journal honest?

Peer review isn't some kind of certification of a paper's truth. It can't reliably weed out misconduct, experimental error, or statistical bad luck. It's just supposed to reduce the frequency of fiascos like this one by examining the reasoning and methods as described in the paper. It doesn't have to be perfect; in fact it's preferable for it to let the occasional clunker through onto the slaughterhouse floor than to squelch dissenting views or innovation.

That's why climate change denialists still get published today, even the ones who disbelieve climate change because it contravenes their view of the Bible. Peer review allows them to keep tugging at the loose threads of the AGW consensus while preventing them from publishing papers making embarrassingly broad claims for which they don't have evidence that has any chance of convincing someone familiar with the past fifty years of furious scientific debate.

Here's what I think is the confounding factor (there always is one): I'd be wondering, "Does that button REALLY deliver a shock, or is it some kind of sham social psychology experiment prop? I bet it's a prop. If it isn't, it won't deliver THAT bad a shock. If it is, I wonder what the researchers will do when I push it?"

The confounding factor is curiosity. They'd have to do *two* sessions with the overly curious.

This statement is not the conclusion of the article, it's the headline of the article.

The journalist is using a basic journalistic technique of stating the position in the simpliest, bluntest and most provacative way possible. That makes it easy for the casual browser to grasp the topic, and hopefully draws them in.

The article then goes on to modify and explain.

Not necessarily. If you're a secular moral relativist you don't think there is any kind of absolute moral truths etc.

Imho, morals are a human construct, there are no morals as inherent properties of the universe, this is generally described as moral nihilism.

Aside from our own personal biases that lend us toward favouring our own systems, how would you define suffering?

If it is reacting to stimuli that causes it harm, plants, vegetables and many forms of life do that. If you try to not eat anything of that nature you'll quickly find yourself starving.

Why should only harm that can be applied to us or things like us be considered harm?

They don't care because it happened naturally without interference. Much like how if an old man dies in his sleep naturally people don't tend to care, but if he dies in his sleep with a pillow shoved over his face by a party conscious of what it will do, people do care.

Like how you don't see PETA activists trying to fight off all the violent animal deaths that happen in nature.. because there was no interference.

Wouldn't the abortion pills they're against in this case not count as contraception? I mean.. isn't the point of contraception to stop conception?

The only reason I can see to try to avoid the name "abortion pill" is the social stigma, but that can be worked on. (imitation of kang's voice) "Abortions for all!"

Saying "Wiki" when you mean "Wikipedia" is like saying "internet" when you mean "slashdot".

Except that if you read the majority opinion they actually open up any provision of the law to challenge on the same grounds. They warn that the ruling should not be taken as covering anything covered by insurance, but presumably any such thing could in principle be challenged on the same basis, and depending on the circumstances might likewise be exempted. The majority has opened the door to challenging the application of any provision of this law to a closely held corporation -- indeed any provision of any law. They just don't know how the challenge will turn out.

It's interesting to note that the court broke down almost exactly on religious lines when dealing with contraception. Five of the six Roman Catholic justices voted with the majority, and all three Jews joined by one dissenting Catholic. I think this is significant because the majority opinion, written exclusively by Catholics, seems to treat concerns over contraception as sui generis; and the possibility of objections to the law based on issues important to other religious groups to be remote.

Another big deal in the majority opinion is that it takes another step towards raising for-profit corporations to the same status as natural persons. The quibbling involved is astonishing:

Which may be true, but it's irrelevant. The question is whether compelling a for-profit corporation to do something impacts the religious liberties of natural persons in exactly the same way as compelling a church to do that same thing. If there is any difference whatsoever, then then the regulations imposed on the church *must* be less restrictive than the regulations imposed on a business. Logically, this is equivalent to saying the regulations imposed on a business *may* be more restrictive than the regulations imposed on a church.