Morality- A barrier to science

[Baron Max]

Morality is nothing more than an instrument to prevent us from destroying ourselves. I.E. prevent hitler like characters from killing us all. By aspiring to notions of good and evil, and right and wrong, we prevent ambition, ego and our inherent desire to control from destroying us.

No, the morals don't do that, the enforcement of laws do it. Morals are just ideals on which our laws are sometimes/often based. Without laws and enforcement, morals ain't shit.

Did morals prevent Hitler from killing people? If you think so, you should join forces with James R!

Baron Max

 

[Challenger78]

No, the morals don't do that, the enforcement of laws do it. Morals are just ideals on which our laws are sometimes/often based. Without laws and enforcement, morals ain't shit.

Did morals prevent Hitler from killing people? If you think so, you should join forces with James R!

Baron Max

Had hitler had a stronger sense of Morals, then he would have killed less people. As it is, morals are easily corrupted by others, and it takes a strong individual to resist them. But without them, we'd be corrupted by ourselves. my point is, morals are something society invents to protect us from ourselves.
I understand your point about Law enforcement, and how that's preventing us from killing each other...

But we're taking about science here. (yes.. I know, I shouldn't have brought up hitler..)..

How about Victor Frankenstein ?, Whose lack of morals and overwhelming egotism and ambition leads him to create something without comprehending the consequences.
Or Eldon Tyrell (Blade Runner), whose greed and ambition creates an inherent disregard for the consequences of his actions ?

 

[(Q)]

Had hitler had a stronger sense of Morals, then he would have killed less people.

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." ~ Mein Kampf

 

[Baron Max]

How about Victor Frankenstein ?, Whose lack of morals and overwhelming egotism and ambition leads him to create something without comprehending the consequences.

Interesting. And I think it brings up something that someone told me a long time ago ... "People use morals to show others what they should or shouldn't do ..while holding themselves above those same morals!"

And your thoughts about Hitler and the good Doctor Frankenstein bear that out to a large extent. Both actually had a decent moral sense, and they both used those morals in their daily lives. But when they needed to, they both simply ignored those morals so as to do what they wanted to do.

And I think basically all humans are exactly the same ...morals are good for others to follow, because they help me. But I don't really have to follow them if I don't want to.

In fact, that societies have so fuckin' many laws is almost proof that people don't give a shit about morals ....except to use them to criticize others!!

I would also wonder why there's so many freakin' laws if those morals were actually of any use to anyone?? If morals are so universally accepted, then why not just drag the violator before the court and try him on violating those morals?

Baron Max

 

[Asguard]

james i can give you one, there is no evidence as to the efficasy of drugs in cardiac arest yet we concider NOT giving adrelinilin to be unethical because there is good pharmoclogical modeling that its benifical. At least ONE good randomised controled trial could be benifical (if not more, comparing doses ect) yet this cant happen because of the risks to the pts. In pediatrics there is so little resurch on any of the drugs we are using to the point that we could inadvertantly be doing more harm than good yet again we dont belive that with-holding the drugs is ethical.

I honestly couldnt say which would be the right course to go on, the evidence would be invaluable to A&E doctors and nurses and to the paramedics in the field but i wouldnt like to be the person who rocked up at an arest and let the pt die because we were testing adrenilin

 

[lightgigantic]

I agree, but people apply morals to science and that limits what they are willing to do in the pursuit of knowledge and enhancement, which is obviously a problem.

Would you have a problem if I took one of your kidneys, one of your eyes and half your liver for medical research?

Or at the very least, would you feel a need to introduce a moral framework for using such things in medical research?

 

[swarm]

In what way could morality shackle science?

By having it prohibited. The fundimentalist take over of islam comes to mind. What had been one of the most promising cultures came to a crashing halt and never really progressed again.

Or, to put it another way, can you suggest a scientific result or outcome that would be good, and yet only be achievable through immoral means?

Having sat on the reseach review commitee for the university I was at I can assure you that there are scientifically interesting questions which are not pursued because of moral issues with the reseach, particularly when human subjects are involved and most especially if those subjects are minors.

One of the more controversial scientific questions from wwII is whether or not people should use the information gathered by the nazi scientists via torture, often to death, of prisoners. As an example, one experiment involved putting cataleptics in ovens and burning them to death to see if they would react before they died.

On the other hand much of the information they gathered is not available any where else and could possibly lead to beneficial advances.

 

[swarm]

How about Victor Frankenstein ?, Or Eldon Tyrell (Blade Runner),

you do realize these aren't real scientists?

 

[copernicus66]

In what way could morality shackle science?

What could be morally bad yet "good for science"? Or, to put it another way, can you suggest a scientific result or outcome that would be good, and yet only be achievable through immoral means?

Well, that really depends on what one defines as 'immoral' now, doesn't it?

Perhaps the better question is: What right do third parties have to impose their moral judgements on a scientist and willing research participants?

 

[lightgigantic]

Well, that really depends on what one defines as 'immoral' now, doesn't it?

Perhaps the better question is: What right do third parties have to impose their moral judgements on a scientist and willing research participants?

and that doesn't require a definition of immoral?

 

[Challenger78]

Interesting. And I think it brings up something that someone told me a long time ago ... "People use morals to show others what they should or shouldn't do ..while holding themselves above those same morals!"

I agree, Everyone thinks that, no, that couldn't have happened to me.
It takes a deep thinker to be able to stop his rationalisations before they become rampant.