Ethics and Philosophy

[Bill Pitchford <Bill.Pitchford@asu.edu>]

In response to Jim Muckerheide:

> I'll say only: that Dave's comments are fair; and that...

It is refreshing to see someone with your strength of belief to pause and 
consider the discussion without the need to defend your strong position.
(I assume a lot.) 

> 1. The data and case for hormesis is from the biologists...

I believe that this "data and case" are strong, but unfortunately subject 
to an enormous range of possible individual variations that render its 
use as a regulatory construct unworkable.


> 2. I don't equate ethics with philosophy much...

Webster's Third College Edition of the New World Dictionary of American 
English does:

	...Theory or logical analysis of the principles underlying conduct,
	thought, knowledge, and the nature of the universe: included in
	philosophy are ethics, aesthetics, logic, epistemology, metaphysics,
	etc...
(Not to inflame, merely to further discussion)

> 3. My "analogy" is inappropriate, but again your use of their words is not a
> justification for their contrary actions that carry a much stronger message
> and result in causing fear. Robley Evans noted his own contribution to
> fear-mongering about fallout in the 50's as a "justified" action to constrain
> use of nuclear weapons, as have others who participated in the "fear
> campaigns", which are now emulated by the EPA about radon.

Fear campaigns, and "perpetuating the myth" are certainly unethical, and 
further are certainly unlawful in the arena of public policy, but the 
individual decisions that are made based on fear and "myth" are not solely 
the responsibility of the perpetuators (not perpetrators) of the fear and
"myth." BUT CERTAINLY THE HPS HAS AN OBLIGATION TO FIGHT THE FEAR AND "MYTH."
But that fight must certainly not be carried out in the same manner that the
fear and "myth" were originally introduced and perpetuated.

Thank You so much for exercising your patience and logic.

Bill.Pitchford@asu.edu