ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.Does ethics hinder innovation?

18 1954
rayoflight3
offline
rayoflight3
440 posts
10

I thought the answer to this question was obvious at first, but then I realized there were more complex components involved.

Bleak prognostications welcome!

  • 18 Replies
ATCaver
offline
ATCaver
69 posts
535

I believe that it does. I know they are fictional, but look at the progress made in both Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and also the background story for the Bioshock series. Though, in the end, this lack of regulation and ethics destroys the parties involved in both cases, I think society as a whole could benefit from less regulation and by graying the line of moral boundaries.

BRAAINZz
offline
BRAAINZz
797 posts
105

I think they hinder them greatly, sometimes even to a halt. Everyone has different values and ethics, and feel that they are right. And in being right, would want to impose them on everyone. Some people's ethics involve not changing the course of nature, for example, and are against genetic manipulation and what not. One founding of these kinds of ethics involve religion. Although not everyone values them, they still have large sway in progress. Whether scientific or medical.

If we're using video games as a prime example (Not to say they're wrong) Than in Mass Effect 1, they briefly touch on (In 1 side mission) how people feel that the human genetic's should not be altered too much, hence only allowing minor upgrades to the human body. Such as faster regeneration. While these are still alterations, they preserve the general abilities of normal humans.

I personally have no ethics that slow down progress. The ends justify the means.

rayoflight3
offline
rayoflight3
440 posts
10

Though, in the end, this lack of regulation and ethics destroys the parties involved in both cases, I think society as a whole could benefit from less regulation and by graying the line of moral boundaries.


Yes, this was exactly what I was thinking! Progress at first but eventual chaos. But I'll continue to ponder.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,418 posts
14,255

Depends what you mean by innovation, but if we're speaking in terms of progress in knowledge and stuff, then the best real example are still the nazis. Their experiments on deported people gave us important medical results and knowledge. Their ingenieurs and technicians were innovative and some have been employed by the Americans after the war, instead of executed or sentenced.

I also read recently about radiation experiments decades ago that some Russian scientists made on animals because they feared an American nuclear attack and wanted to know the effects of radiation. I read about this because now there are scientists who want to use the archived animal tissues to find out about weak radiation effects on molecules and DNA, to understand the risks and effects of radiology used in medicine; and they say that those old datasets of radiated animal tissues are the biggest ever made and noone could reproduce it today, for money and ethic issues.

On the other way, I think a certain ground set of ethics is necessary for our society as a whole to function; it needs a certain respect. Debating about ethics is of course an important part of finding out what makes sense and what not; but no ethics at all isn't the way to go.

BRAAINZz
offline
BRAAINZz
797 posts
105

Depends what you mean by innovation, but if we're speaking in terms of progress in knowledge and stuff, then the best real example are still the nazis. Their experiments on deported people gave us important medical results and knowledge.


The thing is though, a lot of the more useful data the Nazi's figured out were found out by human testing, and although the data is great and useful, nobody will use it, let alone make sure it's correct by dissecting 2 Jewish twins taken from a concentration camp.
thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
10,065 posts
620

Totally man, like I have this awesome schematic for a zombie laser baby and I totally was going to make it and use it for self-defense and companionship but then ethics was all like "bro what the **** you finna do to that baby" so I had to put all the cybernetics away

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,418 posts
14,255

The thing is though, a lot of the more useful data the Nazi's figured out were found out by human testing,

Thanks for repeating my point?

and although the data is great and useful, nobody will use it, let alone make sure it's correct by dissecting 2 Jewish twins taken from a concentration camp.

I have no example ready right now, but I'm pretty sure some of the knowledge gained by those experiments have been integrated in medicine, and you don't necessarily have to reproduce the experiment 1:1; it is enough to be aware of a certain mechanism to be able to track it using more ethical ways.

But on human testing in general, why do you think do we employ animals for new drugs and medicaments? To rule out the more grave side effects, before it can be given to test patients. If there were no ethics, people could enrole for primary tests; we could get results far more quickly this way, but there would be more complications which would lead to a huge law case blocking all the research on said medicament.
Graham
offline
Graham
8,352 posts
70

Say I somehow received human brains by the mail and somehow they found their way between two burger buns; would it be morally wrong to not put ketchup on this?

I say yes.

samiel
offline
samiel
431 posts
1,655

of course morals will hinder inovation its basic human nature to prevent certain goals from being achieved for the sake of moralty

case#1 the fictional Umbrela Corp of the resident evil series
do to the lack of human descency the corperation nearly ended the world in an attempt at the next step in pharmasutical innovation

case#2 stem cell research
its a love hate tragedy of a medical miracle and abortion if not for the moral afflictions we would most likely be funding the research but since abortion is dispised rather than take the best of a bad situation we scorn it

miniphu
offline
miniphu
72 posts
475

of course morals will hinder inovation its basic human nature to prevent certain goals from being achieved for the sake of moralty

That is definitely the point of ethics. The reason that ethics exists is so we can all get along well enough to not start World War 3 on a daily basis. Ethics tries to find the right way to keep everyone happy (enough) by guaranteeing that no one will ever have to undergo undue, inhumane suffering. After all, when backed into a deep enough corner, people turn into monsters bent only on survival at all costs.

While ethics certainly hinders certain kinds of "advances," I feel that many of those shady "advances" may only serve to produce unrest in the population. Sure we might miss out on some useful things, but at what price?
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,418 posts
14,255

Stem cell research has nothing shady about it, it would greatly enhance medical services, but people feel uncomfortable with it only because it includes living tissue. On the other hand, nanotechnologies are pushed and subventioned because it has many advantages in the industry, yet we know relatively few about the toxicity and other side effects of it.

Every innovation can be misused and manipulated, we should focus more on what actually makes sense or not. Though I agree with your first paragraph about ethics.

EnterOrion
offline
EnterOrion
4,366 posts
200

I've always been under the opinion that ethics and morality have no place in modern science. Sometimes we must take life to save life, and sometimes people have to be sacrificed for the greater good. The human race's attachment to individual people confounds and puzzles me. There are seven billion of us, why would a few dozen sacrificed in the name of science and progression of our race be held sacred?

And before somebody pulls out the "what if it was you" ad hominem bologna, I would be honored.

rayoflight3
offline
rayoflight3
440 posts
10

[/quote]I've always been under the opinion that ethics and morality have no place in modern science. Sometimes we must take life to save life, and sometimes people have to be sacrificed for the greater good. The human race's attachment to individual people confounds and puzzles me. There are seven billion of us, why would a few dozen sacrificed in the name of science and progression of our race be held sacred?[quote]

Well, we'd probably need more than a few dozen. And can you explain how the selection process for these individuals would work? Would it be like a simple random sample, or would we perhaps use certain kinds of people (e.g. prison inmates on death row)?

rayoflight3
offline
rayoflight3
440 posts
10

Goddammit. Disregard that post. Here we go:

I've always been under the opinion that ethics and morality have no place in modern science. Sometimes we must take life to save life, and sometimes people have to be sacrificed for the greater good. The human race's attachment to individual people confounds and puzzles me. There are seven billion of us, why would a few dozen sacrificed in the name of science and progression of our race be held sacred?


Well, we'd probably need more than a few dozen. And can you explain how the selection process for these individuals would work? Would it be like a simple random sample, or would we perhaps use certain kinds of people (e.g. prison inmates on death row)?
Spyton
offline
Spyton
63 posts
45

It does. But I would choose Morales over Advancement anyday.

Showing 1-15 of 18