Is science moral?

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Science
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Here is a quote from one of my favorite songs "Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind"

I think this is very true. The more we analyze and try to rationalize, the more we de-humanize ourselves. I really like science, its a logical method to explain many things. But it is possible that some areas are not meant to be delved so deep into. Not only do i think the more we know the more one day we will be our own demise but i think that there are some areas that are not meant to be tampered with. Some sciences seem more moral than others but science in the field of humans and our minds can be a bit of a controversy. A speific example is cloning, the more we know the more "test-tubes babies" there will be. Is it moral to have a child with out any biological parents? Now this is one example but there are many other specifcs out there that illustrate my point. With today's medical science we are always trying to keep people alive as long as possible and i am not going to lie, i want to live the longest i can too but can it be that it might be natural for people to die when they do. I know the thoguht may be a little grim but i'm trying to show the various ideas that can be taken as immoral. I think over-observing humanity can really lead to issues and the future and make us out to be no more than a bunch of chemicals. So my main question is do you think science is moral? I'd like to hear what you all have to say.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,389 • Replies: 44

No top replies

@Yogi DMT,

Quote:

So my main question is do you think science is moral? I'd like to hear what you all have to say.

Despite the fact that I want to just blurt out that this question is stupid, I won't. Instead I'll just say that everything regardless of what ever it is has three opportunities or potentials and I'll display them so they are easy to understand.

1. Something (what ever it is) could be used in a beneficial manor.
2. Something could be used in a non-beneficial manor.
3. Something could be ignored, neither used in a beneficial nor non-beneficial manor.

What is beneficial? It doesn't matter for this argument so no need to make the claim that it needs to be explained in this instance. No matter what you label as beneficial it can still be used with the three possibilities regardless.

I'll probably still get complaints so I'll give an example.

You could say that your existence is the only thing that is important. So for you to maintain your existence you will need to remove any opposition to your existence therefore anyone else who comes near you would need to be killed. So according to a person with this mode of thinking to act in a beneficial manor would mean killing anyone with any method necessary to kill them. Silly example? Yes but now you see that beneficial is subjective.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

I think scientists are human and they can if not scrutinised overstep their boundaries.Science just is, its not moral or immoral but the execution of its findings could be considered immoral.Nazi Germany gives us examples where the means were not not justified.Its a double edged sword that needs all our moral views to decide its worth.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple wrote:

Despite the fact that I want to just blurt out that this question is stupid, I won't. Instead I'll just say that everything regardless of what ever it is has three opportunities or potentials and I'll display them so they are easy to understand.

1. Something (what ever it is) could be used in a beneficial manor.
2. Something could be used in a non-beneficial manor.
3. Something could be ignored, neither used in a beneficial nor non-beneficial manor.

What is beneficial? It doesn't matter for this argument so no need to make the claim that it needs to be explained in this instance. No matter what you label as beneficial it can still be used with the three possibilities regardless.

I'll probably still get complaints so I'll give an example.

You could say that your existence is the only thing that is important. So for you to maintain your existence you will need to remove any opposition to your existence therefore anyone else who comes near you would need to be killed. So according to a person with this mode of thinking to act in a beneficial manor would mean killing anyone with any method necessary to kill them. Silly example? Yes but now you see that beneficial is subjective.

Sorry, but i'm not really getting what your saying.

0 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

Quote:

Sorry, but i'm not really getting what your saying.

I guess I need to put it into terms you are more familiar with.

Some people think tool is great
Some people think tool is lame
Some people neither like nor dislike tool (maybe because they haven't heard tool)

All things are like this...
You can take any object, subject or morality and place it in these terms.

Is listening to tool beneficial?
Is listening to tool non-beneficial?
Is listening to tool neither beneficial or non-beneficial?

0 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

Woah :perplexed: ok. Well i actually think a lot of what Tool says is very plausible does having some legitimate. The thing is most of what this thread is about does not come from Tool, i actually have thought of this on my own and used a quote from Tool to illustrate my point. You can forget about the insert i used and just focus on my message. Yes i like Tool, no this post is not about Tool in any way and is an idea i've been thinking of. By the way, i take it your not a Tool fan, that's fine, im not one to judge.

0 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

Quote:

By the way, i take it your not a Tool fan, that's fine, im not one to judge.

Heh, not only am I a tool fan but I like a perfect circle too. Maynard is very talented and I am familiar with his messages especially inside tool lyrics. 46 and 2 is about transcending human evolution of mind or ego. Most modern music wouldn't even touch it but maynard did.

0 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

Yogi DMT;62774 wrote:

So my main question is do you think science is moral?

This isn't your main question. The whole preamble that leads up to this question of yours is not a matter of intrinsic morality in science. It's a meditation on the role of science in society.

So what really is your main question?

0 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

That is my main question. I don't see how you come to the conclusion that i'm focused on the role of science in our society, unless you mean that by focusing on some of what science plays in our society i can find out if some specific sciences are truly moral? Either way the two questions are interminglable but i'd like the question of morality answered not the observation of the various impacts of science.

---------- Post added at 11:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 PM ----------

Krumple wrote:

Heh, not only am I a tool fan but I like a perfect circle too. Maynard is very talented and I am familiar with his messages especially inside tool lyrics. 46 and 2 is about transcending human evolution of mind or ego. Most modern music wouldn't even touch it but maynard did.

Hey sorry for the DP but i'd be interested if you would ellaborate on that please Smile

. I like that song but haven't actually analyzed that song yet. I really would like to hear how you come to that conclusion.

1 Reply

@Yogi DMT,

this is just a wild shot in the dark but i think the answer is maybe

your question relies on a yes or no answer but the term science covers many different fields and morality depends on a person's views so your general question "is science moral?" has no answer unless you're asking people if they think science is moral to which my answer is maybe.

1 Reply

@Yogi DMT,

What about the method of science can be deemed "moral" nor "immoral"?

I believe Aedes is on the right track; you're asking of science's implications (or perhaps influences), as the method itself is outside the realm of morality. To call science "immoral" is to make a categorical mistake -- it's like calling a theory of mathematics "immoral" or formal logic "immoral". Not only is it not being specific as to exactly *what* is being judged, but methods are not actions (this means it's a mistake to apply a moral campus to a method or arbitrary concept or noun. Would you call the number 3 "immoral", or a plastic bag "immoral"? A gun is not "immoral", the killing with a gun is "immoral")

You must focus specifically on key issues, such as this:

Quote:

Is it moral to have a child with out any biological parents?

Is there ethical discussion regarding the actions following scientific research? Definitely, but unless you want to focus on specific points, I don't see this thread being productive.

0 Replies

@lovetothink,

Quote:

Hey sorry for the DP but i'd be interested if you would ellaborate on that please . I like that song but haven't actually analyzed that song yet. I really would like to hear how you come to that conclusion.

The song references an idea first conceived by Drunvalo Melchizedek. His idea is the possibility of reaching a state of human evolution at which the body would have two more than the normal 46 total chromosomes and leave a currently disharmonious state. The premise is that humans would deviate from the current state of human DNA which contains 44 autosomes and 2 sex chromosomes. The next step of evolution would likely have 46 and 2 chromosomes in their DNA, according to Melchizedek.

These changes in amount of chromosomes would effect how the person perceives the world by and large. We already see some people born with additional chromosomes and the impact it has on their perceptions makes the theory pretty convincing.

If the theory is correct then those who are born with the 46 chromosomes would transcend much of the way we view our existence but it is really hard to say if it is for a betterment or worse. I think Maynard likes to look at is in a positive step rather than a negative one.

It's not a topic that people discuss much because most people don't understand genetics at all.

0 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

Science is not about morality or moral judgements. There is not, and need not be, any 'scientific' reason not to kill, steal or hurt someone. Morality originates from a separate domain of existence. Apart from the very basic moral principles of not killing or harming, many of the finer points of morality used to be defined the domain that was described, in a general sense, by religious culture, or myths of the Origin, and so on. Western moral codes were ultimately anchored in the Bible, but also in 'the Classics' and in various historical forms of civil law and the like; the totality of The Tradition.

It is questionable whether there is such a domain any more, or certainly whether it means anything any longer. It is being dissolved in the acid of post-modernism, where moral judgement is a matter of individual opinion, and relationships are largely contractual. In the absence of truths which a whole culture honours and shares, about the only thing we can agree on any more are mathematical or scientific truths. Which is why, I think, you asked the question.

I note the response

Quote:

You must focus on key issues

This too is characteristic of the post-modern outlook, is it not? As we no longer have recourse to the idea of truth as something that is 'holy writ', in other words, a non-subjective and non-scientific basis for morality, then we can only make judgements procedurally, that is, with regards to this or that question or issue. There is no 'moral law' as such, only the morality of this or that action. Not saying this is incorrect, but it also reflects the general attitude of science towards 'truth', that there is no 'truth as such', only the truth of this or that hypothesis. So truth too has mainly an instrumental value, not something that one can aspire towards, personally.

(I guess I sound very nostalgic saying all this. I can see myself weeping into my brandy at a Gentleman's Club and mumbling 'Tradition'! Still, I don't think it hurts to consider this perspective.)

0 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

Morality: Of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical

Obviously, every person has their own view of right an wrong as it is an opinion. Cultures and societies often develop like-minded opinions on certain matters, creating common morals. In this way, a science could be morally right to one society, and wrong to another.
However, I would say most every culture defines its own morals based on whether or not certain actions harm people. In the case of the baby being born without biological parents. I assume that most of us would say that this was wrong if that baby developed mental issues because it had no biological parents. If he/she grew up and developed a "normal" personality and life-style, then I think most would agree that it wasn't a morally wrong act to have that baby without biological parents.

But then this idea comes under threat when we look at science in warfare. If we look at moral-science through the lens of the above method, then we would say that all science is wrong if applied in warfare. That would include the forging of swords, the ballistics of fire-arms, the technology behind nuclear weapons. Were these advances in science wrong because they brought harm to people?

0 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

Quote:

Obviously, every person has their own view of right an wrong as it is an opinion.

So morality is opinion.
So much, then, for Plato's distinction between 'opinion' and 'actual knowledge'.

0 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

Who was it that made the statement, "Civilization is just controlled chaos".

I think morals are very much subjective opinion. But it seems when people say the word moral they reflect on it as if it were universal, they are not. You only reflect on what you yourself accept to be moral. Weather or not the rest of society agrees with you, will eventually be something you will discover.

Does a serial killer who is a devout church goer who kills prostitutes think murdering prostitutes is bad? Probably not... If you think such a person doesn't exist and this is a hypothetical question, it's not. Do a search for Gary Ridgeway.

0 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

In that we have defined "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as we have, establishing what is moral and what is immoral is becoming a "non-topic". Let's just say for concersational purposes it means "what is right" to be moral, and "what is wrong" is immoral, in regard to science and the general autonomy we apply to the word itself, by the time we discover that which is "wrong" that comes from science, the damage has already been done.
William

0 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

Well I can't honestly say I know what is right and what is wrong. Can we seriously say we do? Doesn't this say that I purposely do wrong then because I know I shouldn't be doing it? This is not always the case...

The first time a woman asks you, "Do these pants make my ass look big?"

Dispite any answer there is only one correct answer, but I like to go off the cuff here is a sample reply.

"Well can I see what your ass looks like without the pants first?"

Is it the right one? It might work, it might not, but that is my point.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;65252 wrote:

Well I can't honestly say I know what is right and what is wrong.

I understand your dilemma. It is hard to determine, I whole heartedly agree. Let me give you an example as it relates the horrible economic structure that governs this world. Back in the 5o's polio was a major problem. It was a communicable disease that was due to the ingestion of fecal waste. Now what we did was absolutely right in that we devoted and enormous amount of reasearch into developing a cure. Now had we done the right thing in establishing a global effort to eliminate waste, that problem would have never arisen in the first place. We just can afford to do that. So science developed a vaccine. Now, thanks to science, we really don't have to worry about the original problem. We can eat all the crap we want and not get polio, but squallar still exists. We still can't afford to fix it. We desperately change the economic structure of this world that will allow us to do what we must do, rather than what we can afford to do. Sure, it may put a lot of scientists out of work, but it is better than eating s#$@. It was the moral thing to do, but in doing so the immorality of squaller still exists. Had we done what was right all along, the question of moral or immoral would have never come up.
In other words in this world in which money governs what we do, there can be no morality. IMO

William

0 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

If nothing got dirty there wouldn't be janitors... so what?

A person who never sees mud never gets muddy... so what?

If you don't care about the poor guy you never have sympathy... so what?

Quote:

In other words in this world in which money governs what we do, there can be no morality. IMO

Something needs to motivate. You think if there was no money things would be better? Ha, can I laugh again without insulting you? Ha...

If there is a mess and someone orders you to clean it up, youll probably tell them to f off, but if the guy hands you ten bucks you might consider it.

1 Reply

Is science moral?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know