Daylife/Reuters Pictures
|
What would our forebears have made of test-tube babies, microwave ovens, organ transplants, CCTV and iPhones? Could they have believed that one day people might jet to another continent for a weekend break, meet their future spouse on the internet, have their genome sequenced and live to a private soundtrack from an MP3 player? Science and technology have changed our world dramatically, and, for the most part, we take them in our stride. Nevertheless, there are certain innovations that many people find unpalatable.
Leaving aside special-interest attitudes such as the fundamentalist Christian denial of evolution, many controversies over scientific advances are based on ethical concerns. In the past, the main areas of contention have included nuclear weapons, eugenics and experiments on animals, but in recent years the list of “immoral” research areas has grown exponentially. In particular, reproductive biology and medicine have become ripe for moral outrage: think cloning, designer babies, stem-cell research, human-animal hybrids, and so on. Other troublesome areas include nanotechnology, synthetic biology, genomics and genetically modified organisms or so-called “Frankenfoods”.
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy. That, however, is an abdication of responsibility. Some moral reactions are irrational, but if scientists are serious about tackling them – and the bad decisions, harm, suffering and barriers to progress that flow from them – they need to understand a little more and condemn a little less…
I left Jones’ Headline alone. It’s could be construed as opportunism, deliberately leading discussion to the sensational and uninformed – excused as “inviting comment”.
As societies become more scientifically literate, scientific developments may well be judged more from a position of knowledge and less on the basis of intuitive responses driven by moral heuristics. However, there is another serious obstacle to the rational approach: our emotions, and especially the most morally loaded of emotions, disgust. In the wake of the creation of Dolly the cloned sheep, bioethicist Leon Kass of the University of Chicago argued that the visceral feeling which many people have in response to the most contentious scientific advances embodies a kind of wisdom that is beyond the power of reason to articulate. Many people are guided by this supposed “wisdom of repugnance”.
Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, is not one of them. He has coined the more disparaging term “yuk response” to describe this reaction, and believes we should challenge the idea that repugnance is a reliable moral guide and the ultimate arbiter. “You begin the process by questioning the validity of the yuk response, calling it into doubt and pointing out that the yuk meter may be untrustworthy,” says Caplan. Then it becomes possible to start exploring the reasons and justifications for people’s initial intuitions of right or wrong, and see how they stand up to scrutiny.
Most of what Jones describes is cultural and parochial, of course. How shall I oversimplify? If I included an illustrative photo at this point of a nubile, bare-breasted young woman, our religious brethren would reel back, aghast. Slightly less hypocritical Western males would leer – and hope ther wives and fellow workers didn’t see them looking. Much of the rest of the world – from Euro sophisticates to Oceania – would admire her beauty. In Japan there wouldn’t be a peep even if she was barely into puberty.
Found by KD Martin at Cage Match
YES, this is out of control. As the likelihood of something approaches zero, the appropriateness of saying “probably” becomes reduced to the point of revealing not science but a fear to speak the truth.
There is no god, and if there was, he should be shunned.
#1 – Bobo
VOTE ALL GODS OUT OF OFFICE!
#2–Good one Mustard. Course, he wouldn’t go.
You know what that would make him don’t you?
They all say the same bullshit until they get hit by a truck and end up in a wheelchair for the rest of their lives and then they start asking why the government is not spending more in stem cell research.
Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
No.
Immoral advances: Are politicians and busy bodies out of control?
Yes.
Many scientific advances have indeed been used for immoral purposes. However, given the enormous assault on science by fundamentalists (those who think with their fundaments), I think we need to avoid attacking science for the fact that others may use it to bad ends.
There are times when the only morally correct thing to do are listen to what science has to say, since it is often the only voice of reason on a particular topic. Consider such issues as abortion, global warming, other environmental policies, energy, medicine, etc.
On what else should we base our policies?
Science in and of itself is basically neutral from the standpoint of morality but can provide tremendous input on what correct action should be from a moral standpoint.
That said, it is true that some of the work of scientists is itself morally repugnant. As an example, I would point to the use of chimps and other highly intelligent creatures in medical research. By the time any drug is ready to be tested on chimps, it should not be difficult to find human volunteers for the study. Humans need not be caged, would understand the study, and would be among those who benefit from the study. If no volunteers can be found, perhaps the drug is not of sufficient benefit to warrant study, regardless of its effectiveness.
In general though, I support the position that science should not be squashed by those who think it is immoral. If/when we do curtail science, it must be done very very carefully and never from a religious standpoint. Anyone saying scientists should not play god is immediately to be suspected of imposing religion on the rest of us, and thus violating the first amendment.
#6–Scott== you need to re-work this sentence and the idea it contains:
“Science in and of itself is basically neutral from the standpoint of morality but can provide tremendous input on what correct action should be from a moral standpoint.”
ALL decisions are moral. Science is just the tool that gets you there.
Should we clone Paddy to form a zombie race of idiot servants to clean the homes of welfare recipients? That is a moral question. The science used to clone the less fortunate among us “says” nothing on the subject. Tools never say anything==thats how they are neutral. If they say nothing and are neutral, they have nothing to teach us==like Paddy, he’s not neutral, he just has nothing to teach us==hence good welfare helping zombie.
The permutations based on our decisions are so numerous that asking if the ends justify the means or if something is moral is inconsequential. We may never fully understand the ramifications of our decisions since most of us are focusing on a singular outcome. How many moves can one anticipate in the simple game of chess? Chess is such a small subset of life. We consider people like Kasparov a genius but in reality his knowledge is but a snowflake in a blizzard. So, one can ask this question but I doubt one will ever be able to answer this question.
Scientific advances provide us with the means to live healthier and longer, and we are all products of these advances. The only problem I have is that natural selection no longer works, and what we are left with is a highly overpopulated planet, and science has yet to find a way to deal with that.
#6 Scott,
You forgot the “Let’s put this helmet onto a dog, tie it up and then hit the dog in the head with a pneumatic hammer to see how many blows to the head can the helmet take before the skull cracks open.”
Sometimes I think these “scientists” are doing these experiments while they have an erection…
Angel–nice image, but I bet that never happened.
As a tool, “science” can be used by anyone. From researchers to anyone else, including the cosmetics industry.
Again–“science” has done nothing and the morality is all on people making decisions on what they DO. Science provides options–not decisions, not morality, not choices.
#7 – bobbo,
#6–Scott== you need to re-work this sentence and the idea it contains:
Statement 1 (by me):
Statement 2 (by you):
IMHO, your statement 2 gives a clear example of my statement 1 and is therefore, merely a restatement of my point. I think we’re in violent agreement here.
Perhaps a more apt example, however, of science giving input into a moral decision might be global warming. Without trying to turn this into a debate on global warming, please accept this as merely an example. For those who do not accept it as valid, please do so only for the purpose of this as hypothetical for this topic.
Government must make a decision on whether to go with renewable energy or continue to subsidize oil companies. If science states that global warming will put a billion people out of their homes by 2050 (and I believe it does, but that’s not the point of this thread), then that is input into the moral decision of the type of energy to support. Right?
Perhaps I should have picked a less controversial example. Here’s another. If the science shows that there is some endangered species of bat that makes it’s home on one or several specific Appalachian mountains, then that information should be taken into account when determining whether to remove a particular mountain as a source of coal.
Morality? What is morality? Without religion it’s only an opinion what someone should do. Morality and religion can not be taken apart from one another.
Really, why is killing the old and weak of our society something that shouldn’t be done. A Christian and answer this easily. An Atheist, not really other than ‘He doesn’t feel it should be done or doesn’t think is should be done.’ Killing the weak, the genetically inferior, would be good for EVOLUTION. Does that mean we kill all the Asians, Blacks, Mexicans, Europeans. The NAZI’s and the Communist have developed logical arguments the destruction of vast tracks of inferior humans.
Why is pollution bad? If EVOLUTION is a reality, we’ll adapt.
Why is it wrong to take what you need? There’s no scientific reason not to. There are many reasons to do so. Some even develop political parties on taking what isn’t theirs, Demoncrats come to mind and the the Republicrats also come up.
You should smart enough to carry the argument against such a society based upon ‘scientific thought’ as a society anyone really wants to live in. Science is just a bunch of individuals with theories or beliefs, that can be argued and twisted to come up with any conclusion the elite want to use to justify their actions.
Look at Global Warming, just a buch of BS, when the earth continues to cool what’s going to be next scientific thing the old 70’s scare of a Global Ice Age. One excuse after another to simply take power and hold power over the many by the few, welcome back to the Dark Medieval Ages – fellow peasants/serfs Dhimmis
Whatever!….
Traaxx
Scott==we aren’t in violent agreement, merely “close.” You are still conflating “science” with having the correct moral decision. Maybe if I rotated my head 3% I’d see it the same as you?
Does science provide “input” and information on every question there is? (heh, heh!)===yes.
But can science “provide tremendous input on what correct action should be from a moral standpoint.” == No. The “correct action” is purely defined by the morality applied. Science is absent from that evaluation. You put science and morality too close together.
So, since we agree science says nothing about morality, how does it “lead to” moral decisions?
#13–traax==so there was no morality before religion?
#15 – Bobbo
>>so there was no morality before religion?
Probably not. Evidence for “religious” behaviors, such as intentional organized burying of the dead, indicates “religion” may go back as far as 300,000 years, well before humans had evolved the traits associated with modern human behavior.
Which do you suppose came first – worshiping some aspect of the unknown, or a prescriptive code of moral conduct governing people’s behavior?
What ever happened to thinking about God as the most thrilling thought in the universe?
#17–shubee== turned out not to be true.
#18 – Bobbo
>>shubee== turned out not to be true.
Heh heh. That’s like an impotent guy saying “sex sucks!”.
#16–Mustard==excellent. I was thinking of god(s) centric religions of the last 5000 years rather than the animism that stretches far back.
Still, the notion of religion as the basis for morality has been so thoroughly trashed even on this blog that I have no interest in repeating it.
God=everything good. Everything Bad is a corruption of God, but God still knows and causes everything and has made everything the way it is. Fine.
bobbo #18,
The idea that the most cherished hope of atheism is true might turn out to be false.
#20 – Bobbo
>>Still, the notion of religion as the basis
>>for morality has been so thoroughly trashed
>>even on this blog
“EVEN ON THIS BLOG“???? Haw! If there’s a blog on God’s green earth that I would look to for a hearty thrashing of all things “religious”, it would be dvorak dot org slash blog.
>>God=everything good. Everything Bad God, but
>>God still knows… Fine.
Not to worry, Bobbo. It’s natural to fear and despise what you don’t understand. Remember how they badgered Copernicus?
Traxx,
“Morality? What is morality? Without religion it’s only an opinion what someone should do. Morality and religion can not be taken apart from one another.”
What a load of bunk. Even WITH religion, it’s an option. Morality and religion certainly CAN be taken apart from one another. Morality is the glue that holds society together, and it was around far before organized religion. Religion does NOT have a monopoly on morality.
“Why is pollution bad? If EVOLUTION is a reality, we’ll adapt.”
Evolution is a reality, but that doesn’t mean it happens fast enough for us to adapt to the levels of pollution we are creating.
The US is becoming anti Science. That is the long and short of it.
You don’t stay on top with that view point.
On the other hand a lot of people don’t have a viable moral code. They think their dog or cow is worth as much as their neighbor’s kid.
They don’t understand why you can’t let rats reproduce madly in your corn crib or deer do the same thing across the nations farmland and urban housing. I’ve had dog owners tell me their dogs won’t bit and that their dogs chase deer and seen them try to kill my cat.
They don’t want to kill anything but they like to eat meat.
They are vegans and claim this is healthy even though medical science says it isn’t. No meat makes you weak and your brain shrink.
They’ve been sheltered to point they are out of contact with the real world or they are living in dreamland.
Of course to some degree this is true of everybody but I think it is getting much worse.
#16 Mr Mustard –
“Probably not. Evidence for “religious” behaviors, such as intentional organized burying of the dead, indicates “religion” may go back as far as 300,000 years, well before humans had evolved the traits associated with modern human behavior.”
Burial doesn’t necessarily indicate religious activity. It was most likely a pragmatic approach to dealing with decomposing bodies, just as having an area designated as a toilet is a pragmatic approach to not contaminating your food supply or living quarters. That doesn’t mean they knew about hygene.
“Which do you suppose came first – worshiping some aspect of the unknown, or a prescriptive code of moral conduct governing people’s behavior?”
Morality certainly came first, and without it we would not have survived long. It is a built in instinct, and it is even seen in the animal kingdom.
#11 Bobbo.
There’s an old Canadian science show called the nature of things, they aired and episode on animal testing, some of the clips they aired included a german shepherd going though that ordeal, you could see the animal spasming after each hit of the hammer.
#9 for the win
Human destiny is to transcend the process of natural selection and evolution — processes that are slow, inefficient and random — and augment it biological engineering.
At first we won’t be wise enough to do it “right” and just like every other advancement it will at first be used for immoral purposes, but after a few dozen high profile mistakes and evils later we’ll get it right.
Such is the future that will unfold in the coming decades ..
#26………. is that really science? + ewwwww!!!
#26–Angel==I’m sorry to hear its true. I don’t see any reason to test any thing so obvious–or to fail to use skulls from dead animals (people in this case?) if the info is deemed needed.
Animals are to be used to our best advantage (which often is to let them live in their natural environment) but there is never justification to be cruel.
Thanks.
#19–Mustard==funny you would equate “the most thrilling thing in the universe” to sex and you are right. Its when you confuse religion with sex that you veer off.
#21–shubee==better ask the eds to delete your post. Its blasphemous to think atheism “might” be wrong, meaning that god might not exist. tsk tsk.
If god did exist, why would you “worship” him? Isn’t he nothing but an all powerful tyrant? Do you worship his power because his goodness other than allowing us to exist is not demonstrated anywhere.