The morality of science.

Originally posted by humy

So you would favor the eugenics of abortion to allow parents to terminate the inferior unborn children?

We are talking embryos here, not conscious human beings. It is obvious from your carefully contrived words what you imply here but killing an early embryo, certainly before it has formed any brain, would be no more a murder than killing ...[text shortened]... it sound like evil Nazism but it isn't because cabbages are mindless -and so are early embryos.

First of all, what is your definition of life? Does it require a brain? Do you think that plants are not living because they don't have a brain?

In addition, what of a cow? It has a brain. Is killing it to eat it murder?

That leads me to another moral question in science. What separates humans from the animals? Should animals have the same rights as we?

Originally posted by whodey
Nonsense. We all have a morality. That is what I'm saying, there is morality in every endeavor, including science.

Yes, there is morality in the endeavour of science. So why did you seem somewhat surprised that Darwin would talk of morality? What were you trying to say?
Do you think anyone here would dispute that morality may be involved in the endeavor of science?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, there is morality in the endeavour of science. So why did you seem somewhat surprised that Darwin would talk of morality? What were you trying to say?
Do you think anyone here would dispute that morality may be involved in the endeavor of science?

Morality implies that there is "good" and "bad".

Data in science is merely data. By itself, it has no meaning. It is only humans who assign such data value or meaning.

I find it interesting where people derive their morality. Although morality is involved in science, I don't see it explaining our moral code.

Originally posted by whodey
It most certainly has to do with science. First of all, it was written in the Descent of Man. He is showing us that there are moral concerns when it comes to science.

We could move on to other moral issues in science. Let's take global warming, for example. If global warming is destroying the world, then what moral obligations does that give society to ...[text shortened]... stop it? Must human freedoms be stripped to "save the world", no matter what that might entail?

It most certainly has to do with science. First of all, it was written in the Descent of Man. He is showing us that there are moral concerns when it comes to science.

moral concerns of how we choice to use science has nothing to do with what science is all about. How we choice to use science and what science is are two completely different things which is why this thread is inappropriate.

If global warming is destroying the world, then what moral obligations does that give society to stop it?

What has this got to do with science? Science can tell us if global warming is destroying the world and also tell us some of our options but not tell us which of those options is the most moral ones nor even whether we should do anything at all about it (even if it seem extremely intuitively obvious that we should do something about it ) because one thing science cannot determine is what we morally should do. What we morally should do is purely just up to us to decide. Science can tell us possible choices but not the morally right one.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, I do support it for very early abortions.
Currently, it is already possible to do some of the genetic tests I am talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_diagnosis
I believe it is also sometimes used for sex determination.

What is your opinion? Should parents be required to bring to term foetus' with Downs syndrome? What if the gene ...[text shortened]... ilable to the parents. (I don't think being gay is entirely genetic though, but suppose it was).

It might seem wise to continue to use abortion as a eugenic tool. After all, we can "fix" undesirable traits, such as being fat, or maybe even lazy. This would mean that the numbers of "defective" offspring would diminish and make those who are not defective stand out more as freaks of society, thus expanding their status as disadvantaged and disenfranchised from society.

It would also limit diversity within the species. We think we know what is ideal in terms of genetics, but just look at what they are doing with plants. The produce a genetically modified plant that is bug resistant only to find out that super bugs evolve as a result, causing them to use more chemicals that are stronger to kill bugs.

Of course, what if the state were in the drivers seat when it came to genetic selection. They may choose only those specimens that should be good healthy workers who are have a passive temperament. In short, they might prove good slaves.

Originally posted by humy

It most certainly has to do with science. First of all, it was written in the Descent of Man. He is showing us that there are moral concerns when it comes to science.

moral concerns of how we choice to use science has nothing to do with what science is all about. How we choice to use science and what science is are two completely differen ...[text shortened]... ely just up to us to decide. Science can tell us possible choices but not the morally right one.

Have it your way, it's not guns that kill people, it's people who have the guns that kill people.

Fine, quit being so nit picky. 😕

Originally posted by whodey
Have it your way, it's not guns that kill people, it's people who have the guns that kill people.

Fine, quit being so nit picky. 😕

it's not guns that kill people, it's people who have the guns that kill people.

exactly! Except science is not at all like a gun because it can just as easily be used to directly save life (guns can indirectly save lives by killing bad people that would otherwise kill many other people ) and HAS been used to save many lives so your comparison is grossly unfair to science. Because of this, you might have a case for banning or at least generally being against guns, but never science.

Originally posted by whodey
Morality implies that there is "good" and "bad".

Data in science is merely data. By itself, it has no meaning. It is only humans who assign such data value or meaning.

I agree.
I am surprised that you appear to have only just realised this.

Although morality is involved in science, I don't see it explaining our moral code.
Well, it does explain our moral code. And the data that explains it, is neither good nor bad.
There are two parts to our moral code.
1. Evolution has caused us to have certain behaviours for the preservation of our genes. These behaviours are not necessarily moral, but we frequently confuse them with morality, or allow for them in our moral code.
2. A moral code arises from consciousness and awareness of the suffering and happiness of others and empathy.
Science can explain all of the above and be used to study it in detail.
Science itself does not assign the good and bad any more than science makes the moon go round the earth.

Originally posted by whodey
Of course, what if the state were in the drivers seat when it came to genetic selection. They may choose only those specimens that should be good healthy workers who are have a passive temperament. In short, they might prove good slaves.

Yes, I am sure you can find a slippery slope argument in there somewhere.
But you haven't answered my questions, have you? Why not?

Originally posted by twhitehead
There are two parts to our moral code.
1. Evolution has caused us to have certain behaviours for the preservation of our genes. These behaviours are not necessarily moral, but we frequently confuse them with morality, or allow for them in our moral code.
2. A moral code arises from consciousness and awareness of the suffering and happiness of others and ...[text shortened]... itself does not assign the good and bad any more than science makes the moon go round the earth.

I would say you are on to something here.

Our moral code is used for self preservation. Put another way, those who are considered our equal should obey the Golden rule, which is to do unto others as you would have them do to you. This is a law that is mutually beneficial to both parties. However, it all goes out the window when someone is not considered an equal. For example, the Jews in Nazi Germany were not considered an equal to the German people. The slaves in the US in the 1800's were portrayed as glorified apes, and the unborn child in called a "fetus". These mental gymnastics accomplish two things. They allow people to be mistreated for financial gain and, at the same time, allow the Golden Rule to still apply so as not to expect similar treatment.

Make no mistake, all three examples boil down to money. The Jews were robbed and then killed, the slaves were free labor, and most abortions are chosen due to financial reasons.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, there is morality in the endeavour of science. So why did you seem somewhat surprised that Darwin would talk of morality? What were you trying to say?
Do you think anyone here would dispute that morality may be involved in the endeavor of science?

I was merely surprised that Darwin would talk of "evil". What is "evil" in science? It seems to me that he acknowledges evil to exist, but has not scientific basis for believing it exists.

Originally posted by whodey
I was merely surprised that Darwin would talk of "evil". What is "evil" in science? It seems to me that he acknowledges evil to exist, but has not scientific basis for believing it exists.

I think you are confused about what the word 'evil' means. You seem to think it is a substance. You also seem to think it is tied to religion. Neither is true.

Edit: Next you will be telling us about how when Darwin said he loved his wife, you were surprised that he acknowledged that love exists.

Originally posted by whodey
I was merely surprised that Darwin would talk of "evil". What is "evil" in science? It seems to me that he acknowledges evil to exist, but has not scientific basis for believing it exists.

I am sure Darwin wouldn't have claimed nor pretended "evil" was a scientific term so I don't know what your are getting at here. Just because a scientist uses a word doesn't mean he implies that it is a scientific word. Scientists can also speak outside the scientific context as well you know! They are just as human as everyone else and not every statement they make is supposed to be a purely scientific one.

So none of you wish to touch the topic of morality with a 10 foot pole, who could blame you.

Moving on then. So what of this quote by Darwin?

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world."

As we all know, Darwin viewed black people, for example, as being racially inferior. Although I'm sure everyone would reject that notion today, simply because of it not being a popular notion as it was at that time, would everyone here assume that evolution of the race of mankind has stopped or is it still continuing?

Originally posted by whodey
So none of you wish to touch the topic of morality with a 10 foot pole, who could blame you.

Moving on then. So what of this quote by Darwin?

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world."

As we all know, Darwin view ...[text shortened]... veryone here assume that evolution of the race of mankind has stopped or is it still continuing?

It's continuing for sure. Why would we stop evolving?