So is being God basically the same as playing "The Sims"

[max-greece]

Two posters who are obviously ignorant of the difference between amoral and immoral.

2 posters who didn't assume you knew the difference.

[Lion IRC]

...All you've done is dismiss a reasonable question, which is very unreasonable.

What question have I dismissed?
The Op?
I didn't 'dismiss' that. I weighed INTO the topic.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

...All you've done is dismiss a reasonable question, which is very unreasonable.

What question have I dismissed?
The Op?
I didn't 'dismiss' that. I weighed INTO the topic.

Quite Clearly it was my question directed to you on the previous page regarding your evidence that scientists disregard ethics and are amoral (although through analysis I would actually say you're accusing them of immorality in some respects).

Do you want me to quote the post, which is just one click away on there previous page? It's post number 7, then followed by my next post where I further clarify the request.

I just want to nail down where there are scientists who are purely after accolades and where you've got this impression from, that's all. And then further how this relates to 'all cutting edge' scientists. Not sure what cutting edge means, so maybe we could examine that as well.

[Lion IRC]

"But on a serious note, why do you think what you write is true? "
That's the question you think I'm dismissing?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

"But on a serious note, why do you think what you write is true? "
That's the question you think I'm dismissing?

I'm asking why you made that assertion, yes.

[Lion IRC]

Because of the public and undisguised conflict between scientists who want to do embryonic stem cell research for example and non-scientist ethics/religious agencies who assert a moral position which doesn't hold any "scientific" status.

---

Did the scientist (physicists) who facilitated the creation of the atom bomb concern themselves more with the science or the morality of what they were doing?

---

If computer scientists could "create" a virtual being that felt what we would regard as "real" pain in an AI cyborg, would they compete to be the first official inventor or would they all say..."no way, that's immoral."

---

I would argue that society *imposes* ethics committees onto cutting edge science projects.
Left to their own devices, free from oversight by the morality police, science would push the boundaries, not to the limits of social ethics, but to the limits of WHAT IS POSSIBLE.
That's why we have laws prohibiting human cloning and stem cell research in many jurisdictions, Not because nobody wants to do the research but because they DO!

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Thanks for your reply, Lion.

Because of the public and undisguised conflict between scientists who want to do embryonic stem cell research for example and non-scientist ethics/religious agencies who assert a moral position which doesn't hold any "scientific" status.

I'm not sure of the relevence of this, so I may need clarification.

Using your previous claim of 'a'morality in this instance I think relies on a very specific opinion of the notion of stem cell research and what it entails, and further, using ones own morality to impose a judgement on the research.

Obvious, right? But in this isntance what I think you've done is (again, using your previous statement of 'a'morality) assume that folk involved in ground breaking stem-cell research have no morale sense of their work (Rather only see the the 'science' prima facie) whereas those opposed to it occupy a moral high ground by simply not being 'a'moral (indeed, I presume that you mean that those opposed to stem cell research on this basis have morals and are morally opposed because of those morals, automatically making them 'better' than the people conducting stem-cell research).

Naturally, I completely disagree. I think it comes down to moral standpoints. I think accusing people who conduct stem-cell research of having no moral compass when occupied with their research methodologies is slightly misguided. I don't think people conducting this type of research are immoral, amoral, or that they lack any sense of ethical perspective on their research.

I think the opposition to this kind of research is from those who view conception as the beginning of an actual human life, or rather, a human personality, despite evidence to the contrary.

But aside from this, this debate becomes an argument of opposing perspectives of morality, not morality over amorality (or even immorality).

But, even taking your assertion as a given (assuming you mean the morality of opposition to stem cell research trumps the preuspposed amorality of proponents of stem cell research), this does not thus equate to amorality being ubiqitous to all 'cutting edge' scientists. Indeed, I still don't know what that term 'cutting edge' means. So perhaps clarification on this issue would be a benefit.

Did the scientist (physicists) who facilitated the creation of the atom bomb concern themselves more with the science or the morality of what they were doing?

I cannot pretend to speak on the behalf of others, so I don't know what they were concerned with.

I can't testify to the Manhattan project, and neither can I testify to the thoughts of the researchers conducting atmic bomb research in other countries such as Japan, Germany, Russia/USSR and to forth.

However, the history of radioactive research, or specifically, the splitting of atoms to create energy, has a much longer history than simply the formation of the atomic bomb. Indeed, I don't think it's fair to accuse the early researchers of atomic research, such as perhaps Marie Curie, of being 'a'moral in their investigation. They wree simply analysing a new school of science, using human nature to investigate and udnerstand things to look at this potentially brilliant new source of energy (which, of course, is what it has been).

Marie Curie et al certainly didn't know before hand that their research would ultiamtely lead to an atmoic bomb being developed.

And that's bracketing out any sort of debate on the moral and ethical issues of developing an atomic bomb in the first place. I am undecided on the issue, but I'm certainly not sad that Hitler and the Japanese never developed an atomic bomb, which they were of course actively attempting.

If computer scientists could "create" a virtual being that felt what we would regard as "real" pain in an AI cyborg, would they compete to be the first official inventor or would they all say..."no way, that's immoral."

I have no idea. Depends on the individual, as generalisations are absurd and easily dismissed.

But I still don't see where 'a'morality comes into play for all 'cutting edge' scientists in your reply. There's a lot of debateable points above, none of which I thik lends weight to one side being 'moral' and one side lacking any perspectives in morality.

I think the point I want to make it morality is not objective and is as fluid as society. I know, naturally, that you will probably disagree, but this only points to a debate about morality within a context of both sides understanding the debate as moral agents. It does not mean that one side has morality (of whatever degree) and the other lacks it.

A lot of people are opposed to the genetic modification of cells (GM) in every form of research, whether it be from crops to bacteria. However, without GM research, the development of new anti-bioitics would be almost impossible. Synthetics would be a pipe-dream, and the analysis of new gram negative bacteria would be stymied because it would be impossible to accurately assess the capabilities and resistances of said bacteria.

Would it thus be reflective of 'a'morality in a person who wished to GM a bacteria in a controlled lab environment in order to assess strength's and weaknesses against old and untested anti-biotics, 'natural' and synthetic? Without it, the human race could be facing a serious problem in the future as resistance grows in relatively common bacteria.

EDIT:

I would argue that society *imposes* ethics committees onto cutting edge science projects.
Left to their own devices, free from oversight by the morality police, science would push the boundaries, not to the limits of social ethics, but to the limits of WHAT IS POSSIBLE.
That's why we have laws prohibiting human cloning and stem cell research in many jurisdictions, Not because nobody wants to do the research but because they DO!

Naturally there are always restrictions on research, and ethical review boards of new (and old) research. Ethical research when it comes to animals for example in the UK is extremely strict, as it is with the rest of the EU. You can be kicked out of academia for not filing the correct paperwork and not providing evidence that the research you're conducting has some tangible benefit as an outcome.

But again, I think we're talking about competing moral perspectives, not the amorality of proponants of stem cell research vis the morality of opponents. I am 100% for stem cell reesarch. It is the new frontier of medical research, and will one day lead to countless new treatments and cures for currently untreatable diseases and ailments. I for one am a T1 diabetic. The only way I would ever be cured is if stem cells could be used to regrow the islets of langerhans that my own immune system has destroyed. But that's a minor example. The potential benefits of SCR coudl expand to countless diseases, from cancer to alzheimers. I'm quite lucky to live in a country (UK) where stem cell research is not prohibited, and is indeed allowed to flourish.

I think you're also glossing over the fact that ethical review boards are not made up of some mystical, 'morality police'. They are generally made up of other scientists and experts in numerous fields that wish to see that the research being conducted within the boundaries of the legislative frameowkr imposed by the state (or intra-state as it is with the EU). It is also true that policy on this area is formulated with the advice and input of scientists, Univeristy's and research councils/charities as well.

I'm in 100% agreement with you that there should always be oversight, and always be a rigorous framework for ensuring ethical adherence and ultimately that the research is controlled and safe (Whatever it might be). Where I suspect we disagree is on what the research actually is, and why it's being conducted. Naturally this can only be assessed on a case by case basis, and only on subjects you and I know something about (which in my case, is rather limited).