Marinka, one point I've made repeatedly is the ethical principle shared throughout developed societies, of protecting their most vulnerable members. Possibly this is observed less manifestly than idealistically, but a duty of care is nevertheless the objective.
Don't you imagine that insensitive, inexperienced chart-readers could hurt vulnerable people within the chart reading? Do you just turn a blind eye, shrugging that we have no duty beyond our own body and personal concerns? And by analogy, maybe you won't harm anyone by speeding through a red light, but maybe you will. Should your community take that risk? And can it realistically exempt you from a law it makes to protect people crossing the street? Or does it have to set one traffic law for everybody?
Yes, you are your brother's keeper.
Your attitude sounds almost anti-social to me. I don't accuse you of this, but ask, can you explain why it's not? The definitions vary, but basically it means behaving in ways that can negatively impact on other people, with no regard for the impacts and their consequences.
What about the possibility that a deeply depressed teenager asks for a horary death prediction, but you don't know this about the person: all you see is the question and the chart? Or many other problematic examples I could suggest.
Do you feel you have any duty beyond satisfying your own intellectual curiosity? Yet this is an illusion. How can you get the feedback enabling you to learn from your possible errors in interpretation? On another thread, a 50 year-old man wonders if he will live past 80. If he lives that long, 30+ years later, the feedback will be meaningless. If he doesn't live long, he will not return to tell you.
If your objective is to learn death prediction techniques, you don't need to practice on living people who could get harmed out of your advice. New medical students, after all, learn anatomy on cadavers, not living patients.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-social_behaviour
