Should ethics restrain science?

[Lord George]

I've been looking into the Nazi's experiments and though it was of course very ethically unsound, but it did allow the doctors to uncover many interesting things. So I began to think, should ethics stand in the way of science?

Because if morality and ethics were thrown aside, who knows what could happen. Perhaps with more invasive surgery and radical treatment a cure for cancer or Aids could be found?. Looking at the bigger picture it could even be good for humanity as a whole, for example what if 1000 people die to find a cure that saves 10 Million.

So my question to you, should ethics stand in the way of scientific advancement?

 

[bue519]

Well yes. Like its okay to research stem cells, but not to engineer people.

 

[SharPhoe]

Very nice 1000th post, George, I gotta say. I can only hove mine is as thoughtful.

That said, I think that you have a point, but there still has to be some kind of limit on what science and cannot do with/to people. It's just a matter of sacrifice, you know?

 

[NovaStalker]

Depends entirely on what you consider ethical. In general I say no it shouldn't but what I think is ethical and what you do could be worlds apart and you won't ever get everyone to agree.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

Sorry, but the Ref says "NO".​

 

[Emeli]

Ethics is always a very touchy subject, particularly in medical science. But yes, ethics should stand in the way. It's true, if we cast aside morality we could do many amazing things, but ethics are enforced for a reason. To make people live two hundred years or cure cancer or something only to have those survivors live in a society which is willing to sacrifice their rights and dignity... well that's not much of an advancement at all, is it?

 

[blackcherry]

It depends. The line between research being useful for the advancement of humanity and the pointlessness of research for researches sake is a fine one. A code of ethics exist for a reason, and to just ignore them completely would put too much power on the side of scientists.

Though I am sure that many would agree that the ethics code at the moment is a bit too stringent it is that way for a reason. People have abused the lenience of it in the past, to the point that we those who make the rules have been forced to made them overly stringent.

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

Everyone's ethics are slightly different. Science will progress as there will always be people who will have looser morals than others and push the boundary.

No, ethics are a detriment to humanity and should be banished so science can prosper. I'd like the world to be like Rapture, except without the compromising of values and exploitation of the market.

A Rapture-like city / country would work wonders for the world. I pick Antarctica as the host continet, it's only home to scientists and penguins right now.

 

[ExodusinFlames]

Science + Religion Alliance!!!

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

I have yet to encounter a case in which ethics held us back from obtaining precious results or breakthroughs.

And yes, I know about stem cell research, but they managed to solve that problem anyway.

 

[Lavi]

Science only ever has to remember empathy. It has to remain empathetic to humanity. Mengele is a warning against such a thing; he was the perfect example of science without morals.

However, ethics themselves also have to advance with science. Empathy is the one thing that humans generally can't lose or we'd just kill one another off with no repercussions so we could meet our selfish desires. However, when science ends up discovering, say, alien life, we need to extend our empathy to another sentient species... assuming it is not something like the Borg or the Zerg (not getting into details, just an example).

EDIT: Stem cell research problems come from a lack of an unified definition of life.

 

[razer17]

if your up for using murderers, paedophiles, rapists, chavs for this medical and scientific studying, then i think that ethics should be chucked out the window. so yes we should disregard ethics and test on the above mentioned people.

i also think we should do psychological experiments, but they are quite cruel, so no one will. till i become dictator of the world.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

No, ethics are a detriment to humanity and should be banished so science can prosper. I'd like the world to be like Rapture, except without the compromising of values and exploitation of the market.

A Rapture-like city / country would work wonders for the world. I pick Antarctica as the host continet, it's only home to scientists and penguins right now.

Don't forget Ozymandias and Bubastis.

 

[pantsoffdanceoff]

Nope, people complain about genetic experiments and genetic manipulation but since it turns out we will soon (10 years) be able to use our genetics as a cure to AIDS they should shut the fuck up.

 

[Skeleon]

Well yes. Like its okay to research stem cells, but not to engineer people.

Agreed.
Science is important.
But there are limits.

 

[lleihsad]

If yes, then we minimize science's ability to do good. If no, then we maximize it's ability to do evil.

In the end, simply saying "ethics" doesn't really tell me much. Are we talking Christian ethics?

 

[VTSK]

Yes. If we're willing to perform atrocities to advance science, I don't think we really deserve the fruits of the labor.