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

FaSho · 02-18-2009, 03:28 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, 03:32 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, 03:34 PM

But how can you judge what those things are?

Terrible Lizard · 02-18-2009, 04:10 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.

TheBig3 · 02-19-2009, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FaSho

But how can you judge what those things are?

They took bets, when they bombed Japan in WWII, that the after effect would rip the atmosphere off of the planet.

Science is a rampant curiosity. Those in the field often ask "will it work" and nothing else.

Science should be guided, not controlled, but we really ought to ask ourselves if its benefitting us.

anticipation · 02-18-2009, 03:54 PM

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

FaSho · 02-18-2009, 04:11 PM

Agreed.

sleepy jack · 02-18-2009, 10:09 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.

dac · 02-28-2009, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepy jack

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.

QFT. I've been saying this for years and people always look at me like some kind of monster...

FireInCairo · 02-19-2009, 12:09 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 ****.

02-18-2009, 03:32 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

02-18-2009, 03:54 PM	#6 (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, 10:09 PM	#8 (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.