Should Science be Moral?

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Should science be moral?

It's my opinion that science should proceed amorally. In other words, if someone has a good reason to think something is true, studying it, learning whether it is true or not, should not be held back by considerations of whether it is moral or not; it is the business of science only to tell us what is true. It is also the business of science not to proceed with any oughts. Science can discover that some gene leads people to be serial killers. To me this is just information and that's how a scientist should treat it. No rounding people up, no exterminating or imprisoning them, if politicians take the information and do that, letting the information fall into their hands can certainly be said to be a moral fault, but it is the business of science to reveal and not hide information. If we do that, most of the results will be good, and if we hide, deceive, or misrepresent whenever we feel like we can achieve a more moral result, most of the results will be bad.

The opposite position is that the scientist ought to be moral. If the result of research might harm people, even if it's just information, then either don't do the research or falsify it if you get that result. Information is power and thus those on the cutting edge have the same sort of responsibility with that power as anyone else who has power for any reason. Maybe don't invent the gun, or the atomic bomb. Don't help people kill each other. Don't enable them to make war even more brutal. The scientist should make should his business. Do research that makes the world better, protects the vulnerable, and helps people live peaceful lives, and if something is true that might easily hurt people, at least don't pursue it; it is better they don't know.

[The Barbarian]

In the sense that mathematics should be done amorally. There is no moral aspect to science or math. Like any other methodology, they can be used for good purpose or evil purposes, but they have no intrinsic moral value.

[LittleNipper]

I might suggest considering this line: "It's my opinion that science should proceed amorally. In other words, if someone has a good reason to think something is true, studying it, learning whether it is true or not, should not be held back by considerations of whether it is moral or not."

Think about it for a moment ---- Is that what creationists consider. If someone has a reason to study something, should the reasoning be held back if indeed it is founded upon "religious" considerations? You see such logic must go both ways. It seems to me that many, if not all creation scientists, are being held back by various institutions simply because their research is based on biblical evaluation. Isn't all input worthy of research where those involved are seeking truth? Where an institution is limiting research to only that which is amoral, they are indeed demonstrating a limiting bias.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's like the gun not being to blame, but the user. Science is a tool, not a religion. We may do nuclear fusion, stem cell research,body transplants, GM crops. Like the man said in Jurassic park Just because science can do it, should it do it?

Nobody says human morality is easy. Science should, in principle, be free to research anything. But when the cat is out of the bag, can it be put back and forgotten about? Problems admitted, it is for moral codes to decide whether science should go ahead, or rather whether the moral code should let the discovery of science pass into human use. It is not for science to police itself, but for others to police science.

[boatsnguitars]

Question for Debate: Should science be moral?

It's my opinion that science should proceed amorally. In other words, if someone has a good reason to think something is true, studying it, learning whether it is true or not, should not be held back by considerations of whether it is moral or not; it is the business of science only to tell us what is true. It is also the business of science not to proceed with any oughts. Science can discover that some gene leads people to be serial killers. To me this is just information and that's how a scientist should treat it. No rounding people up, no exterminating or imprisoning them, if politicians take the information and do that, letting the information fall into their hands can certainly be said to be a moral fault, but it is the business of science to reveal and not hide information. If we do that, most of the results will be good, and if we hide, deceive, or misrepresent whenever we feel like we can achieve a more moral result, most of the results will be bad.

The opposite position is that the scientist ought to be moral. If the result of research might harm people, even if it's just information, then either don't do the research or falsify it if you get that result. Information is power and thus those on the cutting edge have the same sort of responsibility with that power as anyone else who has power for any reason. Maybe don't invent the gun, or the atomic bomb. Don't help people kill each other. Don't enable them to make war even more brutal. The scientist should make should his business. Do research that makes the world better, protects the vulnerable, and helps people live peaceful lives, and if something is true that might easily hurt people, at least don't pursue it; it is better they don't know.

Reminds me of this skit.

[William]

Question for Debate: Should science be moral?

It's my opinion that science should proceed amorally. In other words, if someone has a good reason to think something is true, studying it, learning whether it is true or not, should not be held back by considerations of whether it is moral or not; it is the business of science only to tell us what is true. It is also the business of science not to proceed with any oughts. Science can discover that some gene leads people to be serial killers. To me this is just information and that's how a scientist should treat it. No rounding people up, no exterminating or imprisoning them, if politicians take the information and do that, letting the information fall into their hands can certainly be said to be a moral fault, but it is the business of science to reveal and not hide information. If we do that, most of the results will be good, and if we hide, deceive, or misrepresent whenever we feel like we can achieve a more moral result, most of the results will be bad.

The opposite position is that the scientist ought to be moral. If the result of research might harm people, even if it's just information, then either don't do the research or falsify it if you get that result. Information is power and thus those on the cutting edge have the same sort of responsibility with that power as anyone else who has power for any reason. Maybe don't invent the gun, or the atomic bomb. Don't help people kill each other. Don't enable them to make war even more brutal. The scientist should make should his business. Do research that makes the world better, protects the vulnerable, and helps people live peaceful lives, and if something is true that might easily hurt people, at least don't pursue it; it is better they don't know.

Should Science be Moral?

Wouldn't the real question to ask be "Should those who practice science, do so morally?"

Science is happening naturally all around us and in that, there is nothing to point to which we can positively identify as either moral or immoral.
The question is only raised re human science and therein the question is focused upon the motivations of those involved in scientific practices, and how - collectively - those practices impact the world and re that, whether those impacts are positive for the world or not.

[Purple Knight]

Wouldn't the real question to ask be "Should those who practice science, do so morally?"

Science is happening naturally all around us and in that, there is nothing to point to which we can positively identify as either moral or immoral.
The question is only raised re human science and therein the question is focused upon the motivations of those involved in scientific practices, and how - collectively - those practices impact the world and re that, whether those impacts are positive for the world or not.

I actually thought of a better way to phrase this, and the question is just whether truth is a laudable consideration in itself, or whether moral concerns override it.

[LittleNipper]

Science should be founded entirely on TRUTH/fact and not speculation. Speculation certainly should in no way be taught as probable when it comes to science. An HONEST answer of plausible or hypothetically should always be the reasonable response where an absolute cannot be observed nor repeated.

[William]

Science should be founded entirely on TRUTH/fact and not speculation. Speculation certainly should in no way be taught as probable when it comes to science. An HONEST answer of plausible or hypothetically should always be the reasonable response where an absolute cannot be observed nor repeated.

How does that answer the OPQ? Are you saying morals are speculation?

[LittleNipper]

Science should be founded entirely on TRUTH/fact and not speculation. Speculation certainly should in no way be taught as probable when it comes to science. An HONEST answer of plausible or hypothetically should always be the reasonable response where an absolute cannot be observed nor repeated.

How does that answer the OPQ? Are you saying morals are speculation?

No, I'm saying that TRUE science is not what is speculative. Speculation may come into play in some attempt to discover the truth; however, speculation isn't the foundation for FACT. Speculation cannot be regarded as TRUTH. What is moral is totally true. Speculation remains simply an opinion until it can be totally proven.