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.

[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.

I think the facile answer is, science ought to be the tool we use to make effective decisions. We use morality to make good decisions.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

I read this and agree before I knew you wrote it. Yes I agree.

[LittleNipper]

I feel that unless the "science" is practical it's of little value. What I mean is I'm not impressed with all the theories about how they believe things originated. It serves no purpose but to furnish an excuse for those who don't wish to believe in GOD and imagine everything is of a "natural" origin. In that regard "science" is amoral. Those in control of the research are the ones who create the distortions and manipulate the public by various means to accept their concepts and translations of the data found...

On the other hand, the inventiveness of engineering brought us recorded sound, convenient lighting, photography, safer living conditions, healthier living, etc... ---- where it's applied with moral understanding...

[Purple Knight]

Those in control of the research are the ones who create the distortions and manipulate the public by various means to accept their concepts and translations of the data found...

So imagine you're in that position. Would you lie and distort facts to being about a moral result? This is what scientists think they're doing.

Let's say you discover magic. You discover how it is done. It requires only a brain and an understanding. You have unlocked this understanding. If you put it out, people will be using fireballs and cones of cold that can't be taken away when people are irresponsible with them, like guns can. So you have this spell sitting in front of you, verbal and somatic components laid out on a piece of paper. Anyone can do it. And I ask you, hey there, is that a spell? Do you lie and tell me it's not and magic doesn't exist? Do you tear up the paper, so fewer people will die?

I don't. I would tell the truth, for better or worse.

[LittleNipper]

Those in control of the research are the ones who create the distortions and manipulate the public by various means to accept their concepts and translations of the data found...

So imagine you're in that position. Would you lie and distort facts to being about a moral result? This is what scientists think they're doing.

Let's say you discover magic. You discover how it is done. It requires only a brain and an understanding. You have unlocked this understanding. If you put it out, people will be using fireballs and cones of cold that can't be taken away when people are irresponsible with them, like guns can. So you have this spell sitting in front of you, verbal and somatic components laid out on a piece of paper. Anyone can do it. And I ask you, hey there, is that a spell? Do you lie and tell me it's not and magic doesn't exist? Do you tear up the paper, so fewer people will die?

I don't. I would tell the truth, for better or worse.

No, I would not distort facts. And the fact is that CHRIST is GOD's SON and created the entire Universe, and died for the sins of the world, and arose from the dead so that whosoever will may have life everlasting.

[benchwarmer]

No, I would not distort facts.

Then proceeds to claim things as facts which are simply religious beliefs:

And the fact is that CHRIST is GOD's SON and created the entire Universe, and died for the sins of the world, and arose from the dead so that whosoever will may have life everlasting.

In this sub forum you are expected to support your claims, preferably with actual science if it is related to science. So, care to share with us the peer reviewed research on the above claims?

Regarding the OP, I think there are a couple things:

1) Science as a method itself is amoral. It's simply a framework with built in feedback to try and arrive at the best possible answer. The knowledge gained is open to update or even reversal.

2) How people conduct themselves while researching is when morals come in. i.e. should biologists simply kill every bird in the rainforest so they can study them in their labs? No, of course not. They should conduct themselves to do the least harm possible.

3) How people use knowledge gained from science is also subject to morals. Should we build nuclear bombs? No. Should we create safe nuclear energy plants? Maybe, since the object is not to kill people, though proper due diligence is required to not accidentally arrive at that.

So, not sure exactly what the OP is after, but I think science should be conducted by people morally. The information itself is amoral.

I think the only ones who find the information gained 'immoral' are the ones who have belief systems that don't match discovered reality.

[Purple Knight]

Then proceeds to claim things as facts which are simply religious beliefs

Everyone does this whether religious or not. Is it wrong to hurt people? Yes. Is it wrong to be racist? Yes. Nobody needs to support these things and yet everyone believes them.

There's always that thing, which is actually true, which hurts morality if learned, regardless of what you think morality is because you think it's something.

I think the only ones who find the information gained 'immoral' are the ones who have belief systems that don't match discovered reality.

Everyone is in this category because there's no way to map a should onto an is. But there are extreme examples. Let's say you think hurting people is immoral, but you find out that if you legit torture someone to death, your IQ goes up by 15 points. It's better to be smarter, right? You can use that extra intelligence to help people, right? But, if that information came out we'd have everyone murdering one another horribly, because everyone thinks they will just go ahead and gain more intellect and use it to help.

So let's say you discover this weird fact. I have real examples but they're all politically charged. So I'd prefer to stay in the realm of the hypothetical. Do you want to reveal this new fact you've discovered, or do you fudge your results and hide it?