Should Morals Play A Role In Scientific Progression? (dancing, fan)

FaSho · 02-18-2009, 04:28 PM

In my science class, we've recently been learning/debating about topics such as stem cell research, and I've been thinking it over, and why should scientific matters be decided by morals?

The way I see it so any people have such different ethics when it comes to what is "Right and Wrong", and I understand that we shouldn't do things that are "wrong", but who decides that? If there are so many different thoughts on the matter, why is that how it's decided?

Take for exampe stem cell research, I understand where people are coming from when they say it's ending human lives and what not, but why should that matter if it's subjective? I personally don't consider it "murder", and neither do most of the scientists behind it. If you can save all these lives then do it!

Thoughts?

Terrible Lizard · 02-18-2009, 04:32 PM

Excluding morals from science would fall under the category of critical thinking. But as any deep thinking wanderer as myself should do, there are things in the vast universe that it's better man never set foot upon.

FaSho · 02-18-2009, 04:34 PM

But how can you judge what those things are?

anticipation · 02-18-2009, 04:54 PM

i'm all for doing whatever the fuck science wants, you only live forever right?

Terrible Lizard · 02-18-2009, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FaSho

But how can you judge what those things are?

Well let's see, a sleeping lifeform the size of several suns being kept asleep by singing planet-sized horrors dancing around it would be a good sign to lay off.

FaSho · 02-18-2009, 05:11 PM

Agreed.

sleepy jack · 02-18-2009, 11:09 PM

The thing about stem cell research is it's not like they're going out and deliberately aborting babies purely for research...I mean we have the aborted fetuses why not use them? I think using our resources to the fullest extent IS a very moral thing to do.

As far as increasing the scope, I don't really think science should be guided by strict morals as it's an amoral thing for the most part. I'd be against like...human testing (unless the subject was fully aware of what he was getting into and gave consent) and I'm not a fan of animal testing unless it was for something of a greater importance than a couple lab mouses lives.

FireInCairo · 02-19-2009, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FaSho

In my science class, we've recently been learning/debating about topics such as stem cell research, and I've been thinking it over, and why should scientific matters be decided by morals?

The way I see it so any people have such different ethics when it comes to what is "Right and Wrong", and I understand that we shouldn't do things that are "wrong", but who decides that? If there are so many different thoughts on the matter, why is that how it's decided?

Take for exampe stem cell research, I understand where people are coming from when they say it's ending human lives and what not, but why should that matter if it's subjective? I personally don't consider it "murder", and neither do most of the scientists behind it. If you can save all these lives then do it!

Thoughts?

In science just as in life you need a common establishment of right and wrong, otherwise stuff goes way wrong.
Basically, if you ignore morals in relation to science you can end up with crazy nazi science ****.

Guybrush · 02-19-2009, 05:38 AM

There is a lot of morals in science. Science as a whole may seem like a big, cold thinking thing but it's made up by scientists and they are just regular people. My girlfriend is doing experiments on chickens and so she spends a lot of time where they keep research animals. As an example of morals in science - they have a lot of rats there. All the lab rats get handled and cuddled with every day because experiments show that it makes them happier and they live longer because of it. The size of the cages is also determined in a similar way. They even keep "regular" animals the alongside the lab animals just so they have others to socialize with.

Sometimes you have to think utilitarian to do science. Maybe some reindeer will have to die so that we can study them and find out what we can do to help many populations of reindeer from now and generations to come. You pay the price because in the end, it's worth it.

It's the same thing with fetuses. I don't think it's immoral to use them, but some scientists probably do. However, what we can gain from this research, not just extended knowledge but practical use which likely goes far beyond just helping people like you and me, makes it worth it.

Just think a little utilitaristic and most science becomes perfectly moral ..

The Robot Hunter · 02-19-2009, 09:22 AM

I think it's irresponsible to say that science should not use ethics in their experiments/research. I don't think you can say that science is amoral because it's done by people, and people will always have morals, ethics, and principles that can be violated. I think that ethics in science is something that is always evolving because we have to answer new questions, like "is it ethical to use aborted fetuses to help other people?"

I think that as long as there are human scientists that are part of a culture, science will always, and should always have ethics. There has to be some line drawn (in pencil, because like I said science is always evolving but there has to be discussion as to whether the research being done is ethical before it can be allowed to continue) because what if you have a drug that you know would be dangerous or fatal to a person taking it but the fastest way to figure out how to improve it was to give it to someone who is sick? What ratio of people dying to the drug : people being saved by the drug is acceptable?

And I think fireincairo brought up a good point about the nazis, because they thought they were acting amorally by creating horrific experiments on the jews because they didn't see the jews as human beings.

02-18-2009, 04:32 PM	#2 (permalink)
Terrible Lizard **ER OF HOLES Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Butt**, Nebraska Posts: 1,211	Excluding morals from science would fall under the category of critical thinking. But as any deep thinking wanderer as myself should do, there are things in the vast universe that it's better man never set foot upon. __________________ “YOU ARE SCUM SLUT.” -John Martyn

02-19-2009, 05:38 AM	#9 (permalink)
Guybrush Juicious Maximus III Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Scabb Island Posts: 6,525	There is a lot of morals in science. Science as a whole may seem like a big, cold thinking thing but it's made up by scientists and they are just regular people. My girlfriend is doing experiments on chickens and so she spends a lot of time where they keep research animals. As an example of morals in science - they have a lot of rats there. All the lab rats get handled and cuddled with every day because experiments show that it makes them happier and they live longer because of it. The size of the cages is also determined in a similar way. They even keep "regular" animals the alongside the lab animals just so they have others to socialize with. Sometimes you have to think utilitarian to do science. Maybe some reindeer will have to die so that we can study them and find out what we can do to help many populations of reindeer from now and generations to come. You pay the price because in the end, it's worth it. It's the same thing with fetuses. I don't think it's immoral to use them, but some scientists probably do. However, what we can gain from this research, not just extended knowledge but practical use which likely goes far beyond just helping people like you and me, makes it worth it. Just think a little utilitaristic and most science becomes perfectly moral .. __________________ Something Completely Different

02-18-2009, 04:54 PM	#4 (permalink)
anticipation Music Addict Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 3,565	i'm all for doing whatever the fuck science wants, you only live forever right?

02-18-2009, 11:09 PM	#7 (permalink)
sleepy jack isfckingdead Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 18,967	The thing about stem cell research is it's not like they're going out and deliberately aborting babies purely for research...I mean we have the aborted fetuses why not use them? I think using our resources to the fullest extent IS a very moral thing to do. As far as increasing the scope, I don't really think science should be guided by strict morals as it's an amoral thing for the most part. I'd be against like...human testing (unless the subject was fully aware of what he was getting into and gave consent) and I'm not a fan of animal testing unless it was for something of a greater importance than a couple lab mouses lives.

02-19-2009, 09:22 AM	#10 (permalink)
The Robot Hunter Music Addict Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 65	I think it's irresponsible to say that science should not use ethics in their experiments/research. I don't think you can say that science is amoral because it's done by people, and people will always have morals, ethics, and principles that can be violated. I think that ethics in science is something that is always evolving because we have to answer new questions, like "is it ethical to use aborted fetuses to help other people?" I think that as long as there are human scientists that are part of a culture, science will always, and should always have ethics. There has to be some line drawn (in pencil, because like I said science is always evolving but there has to be discussion as to whether the research being done is ethical before it can be allowed to continue) because what if you have a drug that you know would be dangerous or fatal to a person taking it but the fastest way to figure out how to improve it was to give it to someone who is sick? What ratio of people dying to the drug : people being saved by the drug is acceptable? And I think fireincairo brought up a good point about the nazis, because they thought they were acting amorally by creating horrific experiments on the jews because they didn't see the jews as human beings.