Short in short, should science be held back because of common moral standards?

Or should, in the name of science, we be able to look past these social norms to further our knowledge (leading to potential breakthroughs for medicine/technology)?

I'm not as good as Hyde when finding articles but this was a neat one that delved into the matter a little: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/280/5367/1200.full

As we discussed last time; no it should not be. However it is impossible to have science independent of society (since the members performing the science will be members of society, etc). Besides, a scientist would not do something they deemed immoral, obviously. So unless you have robots performing science in an independent environment, you cannot even have such a situation. Oh, and be careful how you program the robot too.

Thou wants that which is impossible to attain.

inb4Godwin's Law

I'd have to agree with Gurman, my reasons being that without the advances of science we would be left without answers, without medicine, the list goes on.
The advance of science has helped the progress of our species, and sure there are some consequences, but in the long run, the benefit outweighs the cost.

probably no cuase science is the key to our survival , unless you wanna endanger the life of your future kids you have to give way to it but also the moral standards keep us sane and not insane ,so we better give way but only a little so we can keep sane

Thats the topic that you pick? This is the Internet bro. Everyone in the community favors the evolution of science over religious morals.

It had the most votes. I was going to pick more, but this was all the time I had.

Stay on topic. If you have a problem, PM me or post on the seminar topic suggestion thread.

I love science and want to see the expansion of human knowledge, but there have to be some limits.

• No person should be subjected to experimentation against their will
• Experiments should be designed to eliminate all unnecessary pain/waste/dangerous byproducts

There are two things I feel must be clarified before I can ask or comment on this question.

First, what are morals? Sid put it quite bluntly that morals, in his opinion, are religious. Should morals also be taken from a secular point of view? Are morals a societal thing, or a personal thing?

Thorn defines morals as

War defines his scientific morals as



This clarifies only a portion of the question, but I'll continue regardless.

Second, does what science needs in order to advance threaten our morals?

Is there something inherently wrong with human testing, when applied to corpses and willing volunteers? How about with fetuses? We have the technology to take eggs from women who are willing to donate them, and to place those eggs into a cow or even into a false uterus. Again, these are moral questions that are answered in many ways by different moralities. The religions of the Book call this type of "farming", so to speak, immoral. However, atheist and non-religious groups may see it as perfectly fine. Scientists would see it as acceptable as long as every volunteer was willing, which agrees with Gurman's note:


I'll leave the discussion open, as I only wanted clarification and a point to get in my response. I thoroughly enjoy this topic, and since many members have NOT seen it or discussed it, I urge Gurman and the others who have already discussed it to apply your previous arguments and thoughts once more, for the sake of the advancement of Toribash's societal knowledge.

Cheers

ShadoDance, I enjoy your writing style, it was quite pleasant to read.

I am too tired of this topic to discuss it yet again; but let me point out that the greatest periods of time in which morals are disregarded have the highest yield of scientific breakthroughs (once you adjust for exponential technological advance). I guess the real question should be, "is sacrificing our morality too high a price to pay for advances?".

For me, morals are a personal issue, different people have different "levels" of moral obligations.
But as for defining it in religious or secular manner, I would say religion should not be taken into it as it only has a set list and must be interpreted by an individual to gain a ruling where the secular morals can be maintained, worked on, and agreed upon by the general population until we have a working system that most will approve of.

With that, I doubt most people would have a problem with experimentation, given that the volunteers are willing and informed.

So to go back to my previous statement, I'll say that I haven't changed my view. There will still be consequences, underground immoral running of experiments, but that is the price we pay for advancement. In certain circumstances, the outcome is worth bending the moral standards for.