Absolutely. You can't simply disregard the well-being of others for the sake of greater knowledge that you're not even certain you'll obtain.
Should ethics restrain science?
- Thread starter Lord George
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I really dont think that the whole cutting peoples arms off then sewing them back on was a very significant discovery. I think that scientists back then already knew that it wouldnt work. Or testing the effects of poisonous gas over and over again, to see if the jews would magically develop an immunity to it.
I suppose the method in which it is done is significant. For example, using people on death row against, say, european immigrants.
I suppose the method in which it is done is significant. For example, using people on death row against, say, european immigrants.
What about volunteers? Or people who would pay to be improved?Skeleon said:
Like you want some new bodyparts (mechanical or organic) which you can control in the same way you control you natural bodyparts. This could be an addition to your body or as a replacement for other bodyparts which you may have lost, not been born with or simply not functional enough for what you want to do (like a mechanical hand which can freely rotate).
EDIT: Or even as a scientist experiment on yourself.
I think it would depend on what we were trying to find out.
For example, if we're trying to find a disease that will kill everyone, then I say we should do no unethical research, or ethical for that matter, to discover how.
Though, if it requires us to hurt a few people to save many, it would be worth it.
As long as it wasn't me being tested on, of course!
For example, if we're trying to find a disease that will kill everyone, then I say we should do no unethical research, or ethical for that matter, to discover how.
Though, if it requires us to hurt a few people to save many, it would be worth it.
As long as it wasn't me being tested on, of course!
No. Science should only be restrained when it has clear negative consequences, not because someone says it's not "right."
Yes, like that, but also if you need to be stronger to do your job, or need mechanical/digital eyes with functions like zooming or night-vision. So you don't need to carry around binoculars or microscopes all the time...Skeleon said:
EDIT: or just to improve your eyesight if you don't see very well or are blind.
Hmmm... yes and no. I believe individual human rights (as we have defined them) should trump all practices, and in that respect I would oppose forcibly sacrificing anyone on the altar of science, even the most egregious criminals. If someone volunteered for a radical and dangerous experiment, then so be it. I believe that all animals also have some basic rights, and should at least be treated humanely, and at best should be free from experimentation.
By that same token, I would allow some things that are presently considered unethical. I would find research on human genetic engineering permissible so long as we don't begin pre-determining the fates of engineered men and women. Human cloning would be OK too, with the caveat that we afford clones the same rights as we do all human beings.
To paraphrase my point, ethics should not restrain science, but it should prevent it from trampling essential human rights. Beyond that, the concerns of society are immaterial.
By that same token, I would allow some things that are presently considered unethical. I would find research on human genetic engineering permissible so long as we don't begin pre-determining the fates of engineered men and women. Human cloning would be OK too, with the caveat that we afford clones the same rights as we do all human beings.
To paraphrase my point, ethics should not restrain science, but it should prevent it from trampling essential human rights. Beyond that, the concerns of society are immaterial.
Depends on what you mean by ethics. It's a very difficult subject, and something i would prefer to talk about in a debate, and not in a single post
Ethics should restrain SOME science... This is all sujective though, depending on what you mean by ethics and experimentation.
For instance: what happened to Galileo? That was STUPID. However, the Nazis were ripping people apart against their will. Kind of different from Galileo.
For instance: what happened to Galileo? That was STUPID. However, the Nazis were ripping people apart against their will. Kind of different from Galileo.
Yes, it should. However, the things in science are not discovered because it is necessary (or even a good idea), they are discovered because it was possible to do so. That, above all is what guides science.
Human experimentation is only okay if the person who is being experimented on knows the entirety of what is involved (especially the possible risks) and still fully agrees to the experiment.
Experimenting on people by force like the Nazis were doing is definitely not acceptable, no matter how great the scientific implications are.
Experimenting on people by force like the Nazis were doing is definitely not acceptable, no matter how great the scientific implications are.
Yes. Science is good because it advances humanity, and using ethics makes sure you don't do something that hurts more than it helps. Stem cells fine, taking people hostage and injecting them with chemicals not fine.
I personally believe that science shouldn't be bound by ethics, because within science lies the key to humanity's survival. There should naturally be restrictions, but not as strict as what we see today. As long as it's open and honest, and not a "government secret project", then there shouldn't really be any restrictions. One could test medicine on clones, for example. Some people might object, but it's for the greater good. I know that said line probably has been said before pretty much any ethically disgusting scientific experiment ever done, but that doesn't change the fact that it's true.
Within this question lies a dilemma - science can provide what we need to survive as a species, but at what cost? Will technological advances lead us to a reality much like '1984'? Everything is monitored by tracking our biometrics, our lives are confined and we are deprived of free will. It's a possibility that the advance of technology and science brings with it. But what are the options? The only way to feed a growing population, to take care of pollution and ensure our survival apart from through advanced science and technology is by drastically decreasing the amount of people on this planet. Find an ethical way of doing that, and you'll be awarded the Nobel prize posthumously. So it seems that if we neglect the option of mass extermination of humans, drastic steps forward in science are the only way. And how can one let ethics decrease the chance for our survival as a species?
Within this question lies a dilemma - science can provide what we need to survive as a species, but at what cost? Will technological advances lead us to a reality much like '1984'? Everything is monitored by tracking our biometrics, our lives are confined and we are deprived of free will. It's a possibility that the advance of technology and science brings with it. But what are the options? The only way to feed a growing population, to take care of pollution and ensure our survival apart from through advanced science and technology is by drastically decreasing the amount of people on this planet. Find an ethical way of doing that, and you'll be awarded the Nobel prize posthumously. So it seems that if we neglect the option of mass extermination of humans, drastic steps forward in science are the only way. And how can one let ethics decrease the chance for our survival as a species?
Rapture didn't end up too well though. Still, unrestricted scientific research could create many interesting things...Cpt_Oblivious said:
I think bioshock was a very nice example of exactly what would happen if ethics didnt retrain science. I have no doubt that science wouldnt improve faster, but at what cost?