I think you hit the nail in the head there. The fact that an institution made for scientific purposes has to depend on politics and the like to even exist, is the root of the problem.

Like you said, I doubt there's an easy way to fix this. Personally, my problem with this is that one is forced to consider politics and the random whims of society even when they choose to work with something that is supposed to be purely scientific. CERN, or any other institution for that matter, is not disconnected from these matters.

Actually I think I would be much better off working for something outside the realm of science altogether. At least there, all of this is par for the course. Humanity as of now is incapable of creating a purely scientific environment.

OK, there's a lot of different responses here but let me try to address some of the main points.

First of all, a "native" language simply refers to the language a person learned first, it does not mean the person can only truly express themselves with that language. I learned English when I was around 16 and I am as fluent as any native speaker, I have been told that by native speakers themselves.

Second, the new language I proposed wouldn't be nearly as complex as any existing language as it would be only used for scientific communication and not for self-expression. Many here mentioned Mathematics and that's the basic idea. The problem right now is that we do not have a universal way to pronounce mathematics without using a second language that comes with too much baggage.

And on that note, TheMadFool noted that you can use any language used scientifically has precise definitions. Two problems with this: First, if that were true, you could put scientific articles through Babel (like some idiot mentioned) and get a fully comprehensive text, which is simply not true. And second, non-universal languages that are used professionally outside of scientific articles, for instance a debate about a logical system, is spoken without regard for being translatable in a one-to-one fashion and just reflects how the person is used to speaking.

Some mentioned Esperanto. That is not a language created with logic in mind, as just like any other language it has multiple words to signify similar concepts and its rules are not 100% consistent either. Besides that, phonetically speaking, the language has to be as simple as the simplest language so that anyone can become completely fluent in it without having to be born speaking it.

Gus Lamarch mentioned how language is not still, but it changes. That's because every language created so far lacks a consistent set of rules, allowing them to change and "evolve". Languages evolve to be able to better communicate human aspects such as culture. A language used for science does not need to evolve, it can be created with all that is necessary for cohesive communication.

In short, the creation of a new, cohesive, language is something perfectly feasible. And so is becoming fluent in it. So far the only convincing argument I have for scientific and professional institutions to keep using culture-based languages is because people are too lazy to adapt. The same way we keep using the word "atom" (lit. indivisible) for something that is not indivisible.

Then again, the whole "new language" idea was a mere proposal as to a possible fix, but everyone here decided to focus on that apparently. It would already help a lot if the current universal language, English, was more forcefully required for professional work.

I have to mention again how surprised I am that I do not vehemently disagree with any of your points. For me, they all seem to have something in common, they respect an individual's choice, even if that choice can seem by many to be immoral. That's something I can get behind.

I was under the impression that there was a general consensus in which an individual's opinion is not as valid as the opinion of the many. And while I understand the need for cooperation and sharing, I still believe a person is nought without the ability to choose for themselves. And choice is meaningless if one is to be completely morally bound to certain choices. The possibility of the opposite path has to exist.

I don't want to get into the argument of the existence of a "general morality" because that's a whole other can of worms, but I want to mention how Pfhorrest argues toward charity by using logical arguments instead of simply "because it's the right thing to do". And I appreciate that.

All and all, thank you for all the comments. If anything it's good to see that my view of morality, although particularly extreme at times, does not necessarily clash with everyone else's. It may be a matter of finding people who will listen.

It's interesting how most people here did not decide to argue towards saving the truck accident victim. Instead, the general consensus seems to be that the choice is yours to help or not, and neither is necessarily good or bad. Helping could make the situation worse same as it could make it better, and not helping is not in itself a display of amorality.

That's... Surprising to say the least. Most people I know would immediately jump to try to help, as if trying to prove to themselves that they are on the right side of "good and evil". It is nice to see people having different opinions.

Pfhorrest, I suppose I overstated how much of the population have a surplus of money, but regardless my point was about the people that do, and we seem to be in agreement. Later though, you mention an "omissible good" and while I see where you are coming from, I don't understand how the opposite isn't considered "good". You are basically saying that not helping the truck accident victim is a valid, although morally weaker choice. It seems that helping others is a consistently more "moral" than helping yourself. I don't understand why that is.

Philosophim, "Inconsistent implementation is not a contradiction of what one considers moral". This is basically saying that not only does one decide what is moral or not for themselves, they can also decide whether to follow that morality or not. And I do agree, in a solipsistic point of view, but this doesn't work when applied to a society. Law, for one, is supposed to have a consistent and logically sound code of morals so that we can extrapolate a solution to grey-area situations from it. It may not, and will not, be what everyone agrees on, but it first and foremost cannot be contradictory otherwise, by principle of explosion, anything can be extrapolated to be legal.
Basically my point is, inconsistency is not a contradiction to an individual's morality, but it is for a legal system's code of morality.

And finally, tim wood, you make an interesting consideration about how helping others at the expense of oneself can lead to misery for both sides if not done properly. And I agree, however, regardless of my specific argument, my point was more like "assuming you are able to help at a minor expense, are you morally obligated to?"

Thank you for the thoughtful responses. I've been having... Trouble in dealing with people lately, and I thought maybe trying to understand other people's points of view would help me better understand them. So far I believe it has worked.