Ethic

Mathias

Do you think that to satisfy his ambitions in terms of experimentation the scientist ignores ethics.
Ethic is a study of moral values and the principles we use to evaluate actions and specifically today it evaluate the science researches.
After the scientific revolution, a lot of discoveries has been shown such as cars laptop and technologie that has made our life easier. But science keeps growing to exceed the limits and break the rules of ethic.
Some examples are evident : Human clone that is considered a crime against human dignity.
I have watched recently a film named Three identical twins that proves that science aims its professional desires and ignores the human needs. Its the story of triplets twins that were been seperated at bith, and have been adopted by three different social class families. After 19 years old the triplets has accidently met to discover that they were just been Lab rats for the science research.
And have discovered lately that most of the seperated twins or triplets, suffers from a depression that caused for some their death.
The results of this study were never shown or published. And the host of this case never accepted to talk about this experiment.
It ended up having victims of this unknown research.
That prouves that science have no limits and exceed the rules of ethics just to develop and share a new discovery even if it is useless.
What do you think about it? Can you give me more argument about thia topic?

unenlightened

Do you think that to satisfy his ambitions in terms of experimentation the scientist ignores ethics. — Mathias

Yes, that happens. The twins case was a very sad case, and of course some horrific cases came from the German concentration camps.Scientists are humans too.

Some postmen are unethical and may steal your post or deliver it wrongly. But that does not invalidate the postal system. Most postmen and most scientists are fairly honourable.

I like sushi

You cannot ‘ignore’ ethics. You make a choice and act based on your ethical views as opposed to the moralistic landscape of society.

If someone believed cloning a human had the potential to cure several diseases maybe they’d deem the moralistic reaction against their position a burden they were willing to bear.

‘Science’ doesn’t care for humans. Scientists are another matter. Pointing the finger at science is a bit like blaming water for everyone who drowns. Neither water nor science care. Scientists do care, people do care (albeit to varying degrees).

That prouves that science have no limits and exceed the rules of ethics just to develop and share a new discovery even if it is useless. — Mathias

No it doesn’t. That is like saying a human killed a human once, therefore all humans are murderers! I’d have no serious argument against someone who says that all humans are capable of murder though.

What you’re saying lacks serious consideration. You cannot judge people based on the actions of someone else and expect them to match up 100%. Such thinking is incredibly myopic and potentially very dangerous.

Mathias

Besides that science really helped human to avoid risky things: medical or technologie that has made our life easier. And i know the scientist are human too But their success at some researches has made them fell that they have to expand their researches even if they will ignore ethic while doing It

camps.Scientists are humans too. — unenlightened

Mathias

I’d have no serious argument against someone who says that all humans are capable of murder though. — I like sushi

Maybe I didn't express what i mean by the right words, you're right Sorry

Mathias

I tryed several times to write an argumentative text for this question but i didn't have the right words to express what i really mean.
That's why i came here to get some detailed arguments
Sorry if I was offensive in my argument

Mathias

Can you guys give me more argument about this topic?

I like sushi

↪Mathias

Don’t be sorry! That’s the point of writing :)

We all make mistakes, ‘missword’/omit by accident. Just keep trying and keep expecting to fail.

The whole subject matter of science and ethics is a minefield strewn with corpses of religious know-it-alls and scientist know-it-alls. I don’t believe there is much more we can do - in regards to ethical disposition - other than ready ourselves for failure and to drive forward regardless.

Mathias

for

Don’t be sorry! That’s the point of writing :) — I like sushi

Thanks for your comprehension.
I hope i can get more arguments about this subject :(

Zophie

It's fairer to say this is an issue about individual people doing science, not scientists as a species.

There are already a number of ethical codes in place for scientific research, certainly in psychology, and applied ethics is a relevant field of philosophy with scientific implications. Particularly in medicine.

I generally avoid ethical discussions since they can't be properly falsified. Sorry.

I like sushi

Okay, I’ll put these ideas out there. Is it only the scientist that puts ethics aside in pursuit of their ‘art’? I think what is really under consideration here is the broader view of the obsessive specialist - by no means necessarily a scientist (just look at famous painters, rockstars, sportsmen or actors!).

I think there may be some weight in people ‘ignoring’, or rather sacrificing, more regular social habits in pursuit of their passions. Then the question is whether or not scientists are more prone to this or not and how this could possibly be discerned, if at all. Then there is the whole issue of lumping all the sciences together! Then there is the matter of the influence their work has. An obsessive painter may cut their ear off and cause distress to their immediate associates, maybe even instill a murderous intent in some if their work is powerful enough and those viewing it are ... well, ‘attuned’ to such severe reactions. An obsessive biochemical engineer may produce ‘ice-9’ (of Vonnegut fame) and bypass the effect of their work on the world because they are so absorbed with solving the puzzle.

If there is something too obsessive behavior causing people to ‘bypass’ their ethical norms then it is a matter of who is or isn’t in a field that is going to have a large effect on society at large.

I like sushi

↪Zophie

Why on earth are you on a philosophy forum?

You cannot ‘avoid’ ethical discussions. You make the ethical choice not to partake in them. It’s like you’ve just publicly announced “Look everyone!I’m going to bury my head in the sand!”

Very strange :D

Mathias

If there is something too obsessive behavior causing people to ‘bypass’ their ethical norms then it is a matter of who is or isn’t in a field that is going to have a large effect on society at large. — I like sushi

I really appreciate your help and your time
I really liked the way you think, so we can say that it's the situation that people live that influence the way he pratice ethic or not.

Zophie

↪I like sushi

I avoid ethics while recognizing ethics exist. Hope that's not a problem.

h060tu

Of course it is. Science isn't about ethics. Science is about studying the world. And, science in the context of society, is generally how the elites, politicians, ruling class use science to study the world to maintain their own power, conquest, authority and domination over other people.

So, of course they ignore ethics.

180 Proof

↪I like sushi

:up:

Whether a person - moral agent - is a scientist or not, to 'ignore ethics' (i.e. to forego reflective use of criteria applied to making value, or moral, judgments) is itself a 'moral decision', no?

Valentinus

The results of this study were never shown or published. And the host of this case never accepted to talk about this experiment. — Mathias

It seems you want to stand on both sides of a divide.

Say that science is not something or another but also use its language to lodge your complaint against it.

Ethic

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions