| Data Realms Fan Forums http://45.55.195.193/ |
|
| Discussion - Scientific progression and morals http://45.55.195.193/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=21516 |
Page 1 of 5 |
| Author: | Acarii [ Thu Feb 17, 2011 10:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Discussion - Scientific progression and morals |
Hey there. I'm Thorn (from the Toribash community, if you know of it). I'm a moderator of the Discussion board there (among other things) and I thought I'd bring some of it here. The purpose of this is, and I can't stress this enough, solely to have further discussions outside of my normal environment. So without further ado: Quote: 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 -from my topic in Discussion I'm approving this under the expectation that we can keep discussion civil. Please do not disappoint me DRL. -Duh |
|
| Author: | Duh102 [ Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Discussion - Scientific progression and morals |
I'm not quite sure I understand the question. Science currently operates under several ethical principles, you're asking if it should not be beholden to any? Would this include allowing the falsification of findings to acquire grant money? |
|
| Author: | Tomaster [ Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Discussion - Scientific progression and morals |
I'm going to assume he means more like "Let's do it like the Nazi's/Japanese in WWII era, and do things that would be considered crimes against humanity, because we can." You should clear it up a bit though. |
|
| Author: | Tomaster [ Thu Feb 17, 2011 11:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Discussion - Scientific progression and morals |
Nonsequitorian, how exactly is the government being "blackmailed" into stopping stem cell use? Also, again, what "moral blocks" are you referring too? Lack of compassion? Obviously that's not it, but I think this would be much easier if you were specific, instead of using vague terms. Sunuvabitch. Double post. |
|
| Author: | Lizardheim [ Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Discussion - Scientific progression and morals |
Ethics keep us from making flesh eating viruses, though it also hinders us from knowing more about organs such as the brain. |
|
| Author: | Commodore111 [ Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:51 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Discussion - Scientific progression and morals |
Being a Christian, my view is fairly obvious. However, I do approve of using science to get the most out of the world. Man has the capability to manipulate the world to his own needs. Thus I have no problem with science. Stem cells is a tricky topic. I have no qualms with the use of stem cells themselves. Stem cells can revolutionize medical advances today and the potential to reverse deafness and blindness, just to name a few examples, cannot simply be ignored. The main moral issue here is where the stem cells come from. According to my personal beliefs, getting these stem cells from human embryos is morally wrong. However, I've read an article discussing a new possible method to revert any adult cell back into a stem cell. I absolutely do not oppose this as long as it lies within moral bounds, and I do not see any way this could offend anyone other than those against the killing of animals for science itself. Furthermore, this method is a lot more efficient than solely acquiring stem cells from human embryos. If you search "reverting cells back to stem cells" in google you'll get a whole list of articles about this. |
|
| Author: | caekdaemon [ Fri Feb 18, 2011 12:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Discussion - Scientific progression and morals |
Commodore111 wrote: The main moral issue here is where the stem cells come from. I imagine this is the main issue with stem cell technology, but what about bone marrow, it produces stem cells, and would most likely be easier to obtain then converting adult cells back into stem cells. I personally think that science should be unrestricted, let them do what ever they desire, no moral questions asked. As long as it does not harm human rights, I am all for it. Hell, prisoner testing/organ farming I'm also in support of, but that's a different issue. |
|
| Author: | Tomaster [ Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Discussion - Scientific progression and morals |
caekdaemon wrote: I personally think that science should be unrestricted, let them do what ever they desire, no moral questions asked. As long as it does not harm human rights, I am all for it. Hell, prisoner testing/organ farming I'm also in support of, but that's a different issue. Now that's the wrong way to go. Volunteering, sure. Prisoner testing? Not so much. I'm all for animal testing, since I don't really care much about what happens to another species, but just because some guy ♥♥♥♥ up and went to prison, doesn't mean they should start harvesting his liver, and/or injecting him with chemicals, just to see what happens. |
|
| Author: | Natti [ Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Discussion - Scientific progression and morals |
I've always seen Nazi Germany in the way that it was technologically a lot ahead of the other countries of that time BUT at the cost of the evilness. |
|
| Author: | Tomaster [ Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Discussion - Scientific progression and morals |
Natti wrote: I've always seen Nazi Germany in the way that it was technologically a lot ahead of the other countries of that time BUT at the cost of the evilness. How were they technologically ahead of any other of the other prominent countries at the time? |
|
| Author: | Roast Veg [ Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Discussion - Scientific progression and morals |
We would have next to no knowledge on the biomass of our species if it weren't for them. Nobody had previously, or has ever since been, immoral enough to replicate what they did. |
|
| Author: | Tomaster [ Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Discussion - Scientific progression and morals |
Roast Veg wrote: We would have next to no knowledge on the biomass of our species if it weren't for them. Nobody had previously, or has ever since been, immoral enough to replicate what they did. You're using biomass incorrectly. Also, that's not technology at all. That's medical knowledge. |
|
| Author: | Roast Veg [ Fri Feb 18, 2011 1:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Discussion - Scientific progression and morals |
I was using it as an example of advances they made immorally. By biomass I mean the mass of the human body without water. |
|
| Author: | caekdaemon [ Fri Feb 18, 2011 2:12 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Discussion - Scientific progression and morals |
I meant by that prisoner testing thing that only worse criminals end up with it. Think of it as a extra punishment for murderers and the such. EDIT: Modern day rocketry and computers aswell I believe. |
|
| Author: | Tomaster [ Fri Feb 18, 2011 2:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Discussion - Scientific progression and morals |
So some guy gets drunk, comes home and finds his wife cheating on him. In a rage, he kills both the wife and the cheatee(?). As soon as he sobers up, he instantly regrets the decision. But it's too late. He's now facing 25-life. And goody, he also gets to look forward to being a test animal for scientists, who aren't sure if the new drug they have will cause intense internal pain, ulcers, and possible death. But really, who cares. He's a murderer, convict and a piece of skum, right? |
|
| Page 1 of 5 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|