0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
of course, first we must define "good" and "evil".my thinking is that the concept of "good" and "evil" is irrelevant."might makes right" trumps (no pun intended) either. history appears to support my belief that might wins.(altho I would like to be convinced that "good" is better than "evil" or even "might" in the battle)
l
I hope so. (I am optimistic)
Je suis spartacus
Are morality and science mutually exclusive?
Quote from: ATMD on 01/12/2018 00:49:13Are morality and science mutually exclusive?You are asking the wrong question.Morality is a personal thing, so the question should be “are people working in science more or less moral than those working in other disciplines”, and “are there more or less of them when comparisons are made”.Clearly there are people with positive morals working in science so morality and science are not mutually exclusive. However, it’s worth bearing in mind that people have different views on what is or is not moral.
Quote from: Colin2B on 01/12/2018 09:10:07Quote from: ATMD on 01/12/2018 00:49:13Are morality and science mutually exclusive?You are asking the wrong question.Morality is a personal thing, so the question should be “are people working in science more or less moral than those working in other disciplines”, and “are there more or less of them when comparisons are made”.Clearly there are people with positive morals working in science so morality and science are not mutually exclusive. However, it’s worth bearing in mind that people have different views on what is or is not moral.Sorry I might not have worded the question correctly. What I meant to ask was "Does acquiring more knowledge in science makes one a more moral person?"You are right, there are people with positive morals working in science but there are also people with negative morals who are great scientists.
What I meant to ask was "Does acquiring more knowledge in science makes one a more moral person?"You are right, there are people with positive morals working in science but there are also people with negative morals who are great scientists.
Quote from: ATMD on 01/12/2018 14:15:15What I meant to ask was "Does acquiring more knowledge in science makes one a more moral person?"You are right, there are people with positive morals working in science but there are also people with negative morals who are great scientists.I think you have answered the question.
Sorry I might not have worded the question correctly. What I meant to ask was "Does acquiring more knowledge in science makes one a more moral person?"
Quote from: ATMDSorry I might not have worded the question correctly. What I meant to ask was "Does acquiring more knowledge in science makes one a more moral person?"The parody of scientists seeking pure knowledge for the sake of knowledge portrays an amoral search for knowledge.Most scientists need to eat, so in fact what they work on is determined to some extent by funding agencies, so the goals of these funding agencies and employers color the morality of the science. The goals of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are somewhat different from DARPA. The political opinions of the US President affects what scientific programs NASA and NOAA can run.The applications for which their discoveries are ultimately used is often determined by whether someone can see a way to make money out of it, or make a weapon out of it. Anything beyond that is philanthropy.There are a small number of scientists who have the luxury of pursuing their interests - gentlemen scholars from previous centuries, or professors with tenure.I am sure that some scientists are driven by curiosity or the desire to make the world a better place, but others are driven by desire for fame, wealth or institutional pressures (the latter group may have triggered clusters of paper retractions). The ability of scientists to continue work will be determined by how many papers they get published and cited (if they are at a university) or how many patents are awarded and licensed (if they are in industry).The first time "morality" is officially involved is when proposed experiments on humans (and animals) must be put before an Institutional Review Board or FDA, who will consider whether the ends justify the means, and are a checkpoint asking whether the positive outcomes could be achieved with fewer negative consequences.There have been some moral decisions made to place a moratorium on genetic engineering of human germlines, experimentation on geoengineering or use of nuclear, biological & chemical weapons and gene drive technology. Some of these have been self-regulation by scientists, while some of them have been pressure from non-scientists (politicians, religious leaders, protesters, newspapers - and now from Facebook and Twitter...). But unofficial regulation is likely to be ignored sooner or later, like the recent babies born in China who (it is claimed) have been genetically engineered to make them less susceptible to HIV (but probably more susceptible to Influenza and West Nile virus).
wouldn't you be pro-genetic modification?