By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Ethics holds science back

 

Do you believe ethics slows scientific progress?

Yes 44 62.86%
 
No 17 24.29%
 
Maybe 7 10.00%
 
Total:68
sethnintendo said:
kain_kusanagi said:
sethnintendo said:
kain_kusanagi said:


Would you really want your a cure if it meant innocent human life had to suffer or be destroyed for no other purpose but for "science"?


Sounds better than letting it be destroyed for profit, religion, war, etc...

 

 

What a cynical outlook on life you have.


Was just making a point that human life will be destroyed for many reasons.  Reread the post you just quoted I added more.  To believe one action is right or wrong has prevented/slowed down scientific knowledge for humans.

Galileo lived in the 16th century. Our secular society today doesn't even remotely resemble the church ruled world of his era.

You make it sound like ethics are arbitrary and meaningless. That's not true. Ethics are universal. I want you to reread what I wrote, becuase you seem to have focused only on my last statement. I want you to instead focus on my first statement.

"Ethics don't hold science back, they hold it accountable. The ends do not justify the means. Dr. Josef Mengele was a monster that we should hold in absolute contempt, not glorify. His "science" may have yielded results, but the cost was too high. That any good came from his atrocities is not proof that we should forgo our humanity for the possible advancement of science.

Stem cell research is not being held back by ethics or religion. The frozen embrios were never made illigal. In fact they were the only legal way to harvest embrionic stem cells. People don't want to destroy life even to save life. That's why we only harvest donor organs from those who's lives can't be saved. Because it's ethically wrong to create life just to destroy it, people were against embrionic stem cell harvesting. Nobody wanted to see fetus factories, and for good reason. Because of that stem cell research has switched to adult stem cells which research suggests may be better in the long run. In this case ethics' effect on science was both positive and effective.

Would you really want a cure if it meant innocent human life had to suffer or be destroyed for no other purpose but for "science"?"



Around the Network
RolStoppable said:

What has the church to do with ethics?

They decide what is right and wrong.



sethnintendo said:


Also, there are other cases where ethics hinders science (even when the research isn't harming any human). Take the church's position on Galileo.  They tried to prevent scientific understanding due to the evidence going against the church's claims.  The church claimed they were right and everyone else is wrong that disagreed based on zero science.

You had something of a point to begin with, but now you are confusing ethics with superstition. Are you sure you aren't Catholic?



sethnintendo said:
RolStoppable said:

What has the church to do with ethics?

They decide what is right and wrong.


No they don't. You have a very twisted viewpoint. I'm not going to argue ethics with you when you want to argue about morals and religion. What looked to be a discussion on ethics and science now seems to be religion versus science. You seem to dislike religion and blame the worlds ill's on it. I've learned that discussions with people who hold your opinion only lead to frustration and exasperation.

Good day to you.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele

I think i prefer ethics holding us back



PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB

Around the Network

I'd like to add a bit more to this thread with my opinion:

To whomever mentioned Joseph M, I fully agree with you, his research does not justify the atrocities he commited. (Towards mankind, I don't really care about what he did back then - Yes I know, I'm bad)

But there is still certain ethical resistance against stem cell research and the like.

I'm not saying we should create fetus farms to harvest them, definitely not. But the current mindset on the matter is definitely to narrow minded.

I think we can all agree it's a fine line between what is acceptable and what isn't.



kain_kusanagi said:
sethnintendo said:
kain_kusanagi said:
sethnintendo said:
kain_kusanagi said:


Would you really want your a cure if it meant innocent human life had to suffer or be destroyed for no other purpose but for "science"?


Sounds better than letting it be destroyed for profit, religion, war, etc...

 

 

What a cynical outlook on life you have.


Was just making a point that human life will be destroyed for many reasons.  Reread the post you just quoted I added more.  To believe one action is right or wrong has prevented/slowed down scientific knowledge for humans.

Galileo lived in the 16th century. Our secular society today doesn't even remotely resemble the church ruled world of his era.

You make it sound like ethics are arbitrary and meaningless. That's not true. Ethics are universal. I want you to reread what I wrote, becuase you seem to have focused only on my last statement. I want you to instead focus on my first statement.

"Ethics don't hold science back, they hold it accountable. The ends do not justify the means. Dr. Josef Mengele was a monster that we should hold in absolute contempt, not glorify. His "science" may have yielded results, but the cost was too high. That any good came from his atrocities is not proof that we should forgo our humanity for the possible advancement of science.

Stem cell research is not being held back by ethics or religion. The frozen embrios were never made illigal. In fact they were the only legal way to harvest embrionic stem cells. People don't want to destroy life even to save life. That's why we only harvest donor organs from those who's lives can't be saved. Because it's ethically wrong to create life just to destroy it, people were against embrionic stem cell harvesting. Nobody wanted to see fetus factories, and for good reason. Because of that stem cell research has switched to adult stem cells which research suggests may be better in the long run. In this case ethics' effect on science was both positive and effective.

Would you really want a cure if it meant innocent human life had to suffer or be destroyed for no other purpose but for "science"?"


You points are valid and I agree pretty much all of what you are saying.  However, the world isn't a pretty place and even with "high" ethical standards, USA has done some very questionable scientific research.  Basically, I am just going to point out even within a modern society many people are oblivious of what their government is doing behind closed doors.

http://www.naturalnews.com/019189.html



sethnintendo said:

I just wanted to make this thread because I thought it would be a good thread for discussion.  I am mainly referring to the huge scientific explosion that happened during the Nazi regime for my argument.  While I disagree with almost everything regarding Nazi ideology, it is pretty obvious that with little moral value towards their research subjects that they were able to make many scientific discoveries.  The Nazi were also highly advanced in aeronautics, rocketry, remote controlled missiles, etc... 

Stem cell research is also a good example of how people's ethics are holding back research.  Now the USA is behind most major countries due to Bush not allowing federal aid for stem cell research.  Sure, private companies could do the research but those companies are behind foreign companies now without the help of government research money.  What are your thoughts about this subject matter?


I'm gonna say yes, ethics do hold science back. But I do find it pretty inconsiderate to mention the Nazi experiments as an example of ethics holding science back. And what the hell does the bolded have to do with this discussion? Are you saying that Nazis happened to be ahead technologically just because they bended ethics? That makes no sense at all.

Humans should never (except certain volunteers) be used for experimenting.



kain_kusanagi said:
sethnintendo said:
RolStoppable said:

What has the church to do with ethics?

They decide what is right and wrong.


No they don't. You have a very twisted viewpoint. I'm not going to argue ethics with you when you want to argue about morals and religion. What looked to be a discussion on ethics and science now seems to be religion versus science. You seem to dislike religion and blame the worlds ill's on it. I've learned that discussions with people who hold your opinion only lead to frustration and exasperation.

Good day to you.


Sorry, I am not as smart as you but according to wikipedia ethics involves morals....  What else is ethics? 

"Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior

Major branches of ethics include:[2]

    Meta-ethics, about the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions and how their truth values (if any) may be determined;
    Normative ethics, about the practical means of determining a moral course of action;
    Applied ethics, about how moral outcomes can be achieved in specific situations;"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

Let me see I see the word moral 3 times already....

 



IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
sethnintendo said:

I just wanted to make this thread because I thought it would be a good thread for discussion.  I am mainly referring to the huge scientific explosion that happened during the Nazi regime for my argument.  While I disagree with almost everything regarding Nazi ideology, it is pretty obvious that with little moral value towards their research subjects that they were able to make many scientific discoveries.  The Nazi were also highly advanced in aeronautics, rocketry, remote controlled missiles, etc... 

Stem cell research is also a good example of how people's ethics are holding back research.  Now the USA is behind most major countries due to Bush not allowing federal aid for stem cell research.  Sure, private companies could do the research but those companies are behind foreign companies now without the help of government research money.  What are your thoughts about this subject matter?


I'm gonna say yes, ethics do hold science back. But I do find it pretty inconsiderate to mention the Nazi experiments as an example of ethics holding science back. And what the hell does the bolded have to do with this discussion? Are you saying that Nazis happened to be ahead technologically just because they bended ethics? That makes no sense at all.

Humans should never (except certain volunteers) be used for experimenting.

Massive slave labor for the V1 and V2 rocket progams.  Without the slave labor the projects probably wouldn't have even gotten close to even using the V2.  Do you know of any Allies that used this technology during WW2?