Should Morals Play A Role In Scientific Progression?

garbanzo · 02-28-2009, 01:15 AM

no.

science is empirical. ethical philosophy is not. objective moral standards do not exist.

objectivism assumes that a thing's qualities are inherent in the thing itself. but moral values do not exist out there in the world. this is not to say they are purely subjective; rather, they subsist in the uneasy space between subject and object. they arise from a dialectical relationship between us and our experiences of the world.

stem cell research, cloning, and everything else simply are. intrinsically, they are neither good nor bad. so why should our experiental moral values get in the way of the progression of our knowledge and understanding of the world around us?

Guybrush · 03-02-2009, 03:54 AM

One thing about stemcell research that may be an interesting mention is that it seems to have a lot more opposition in USA than it does in Norway (perhaps this goes for anti-scientific ideas in general?). I'm guessing that the supposed trend generally extends outside norwegian borders as well ..

Less than half the population in Norway consider themselves religious, another bit of trivia that might be worth mentioning.

~~The Unfan~~ · 03-02-2009, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toretorden

One thing about stemcell research that may be an interesting mention is that it seems to have a lot more opposition in USA than it does in Norway (perhaps this goes for anti-scientific ideas in general?). I'm guessing that the supposed trend generally extends outside norwegian borders as well ..

Less than half the population in Norway consider themselves religious, another bit of trivia that might be worth mentioning.

This pretty much represents America fairly well. The majority consider themselves Christians, the Christians tend to be right leaning politically (in the neocon sense) and it is the neocons who typically oppose science in general be it stem cell research, evolution in school, or just putting more money into science programs.

joyboyo53 · 03-02-2009, 05:15 PM

because not everything in life is black and white.

so there was this guy named hitler and he thought that the only way germany was gonna rise back to power was by a cleansing of the race. now scientifically speaking, it might be considered genetic progress to eraddicate those who are diseased, deformed, retarted, diabetic, whathave you... but do you believe that those people should not be allowed to reproduce, or worse, not be allowed to live?

Nazi eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

without a standard code of morals, we would have destroyed ourselves over many times. it is easy to point to one place in which there has been controversy and say "this is stupid", only to overlook the many cases in which it made perfectly good sense.

garbanzo · 03-02-2009, 10:32 PM

^^ look around mate. we are destroying ourselves!

'science' as we know it is very, very young relative to the extent of human history. in the short time it's been in our hands, we have made extraordinary progress in destroying the planet. we are quickly consuming all non-renewable resources, driving new species to extinction every day, altering the climate, the ozone layer, and so forth. we're well past the half-way point. the global population is growing exponentially, and our need for resources grows with every passing day. at this rate, we won't make it another 200 years.

and we're doing it without a drop of remorse. shouldn't a responsible species' "standard code of morals" tell it not to **** in its own backyard?

boo boo · 03-11-2009, 04:38 AM

Yes, there's sh*t they're doing right now that's absolutely f*cked up and terrifying.

Stem cell research however is not one of them.

02-28-2009, 01:15 AM	#1 (permalink)
garbanzo Recommended by 4 out of 5 Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Budapest Posts: 137	no. science is empirical. ethical philosophy is not. objective moral standards do not exist. objectivism assumes that a thing's qualities are inherent in the thing itself. but moral values do not exist out there in the world. this is not to say they are purely subjective; rather, they subsist in the uneasy space between subject and object. they arise from a dialectical relationship between us and our experiences of the world. stem cell research, cloning, and everything else simply are. intrinsically, they are neither good nor bad. so why should our experiental moral values get in the way of the progression of our knowledge and understanding of the world around us? Last edited by garbanzo; 02-28-2009 at 02:07 AM.

03-02-2009, 03:54 AM	#2 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	One thing about stemcell research that may be an interesting mention is that it seems to have a lot more opposition in USA than it does in Norway (perhaps this goes for anti-scientific ideas in general?). I'm guessing that the supposed trend generally extends outside norwegian borders as well .. Less than half the population in Norway consider themselves religious, another bit of trivia that might be worth mentioning. __________________ Something Completely Different

03-02-2009, 05:15 PM	#4 (permalink)
joyboyo53 down the rabbit hole Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: the mountain called monkey Posts: 764	because not everything in life is black and white. so there was this guy named hitler and he thought that the only way germany was gonna rise back to power was by a cleansing of the race. now scientifically speaking, it might be considered genetic progress to eraddicate those who are diseased, deformed, retarted, diabetic, whathave you... but do you believe that those people should not be allowed to reproduce, or worse, not be allowed to live? Nazi eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia without a standard code of morals, we would have destroyed ourselves over many times. it is easy to point to one place in which there has been controversy and say "this is stupid", only to overlook the many cases in which it made perfectly good sense.

03-02-2009, 10:32 PM	#5 (permalink)
garbanzo Recommended by 4 out of 5 Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Budapest Posts: 137	^^ look around mate. we are destroying ourselves! 'science' as we know it is very, very young relative to the extent of human history. in the short time it's been in our hands, we have made extraordinary progress in destroying the planet. we are quickly consuming all non-renewable resources, driving new species to extinction every day, altering the climate, the ozone layer, and so forth. we're well past the half-way point. the global population is growing exponentially, and our need for resources grows with every passing day. at this rate, we won't make it another 200 years. and we're doing it without a drop of remorse. shouldn't a responsible species' "standard code of morals" tell it not to **** in its own backyard?