Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Does ethics hinder innovation?

Posted Jul 22, '12 at 4:01pm

miniphu

miniphu

72 posts

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?

 

Posted Jul 22, '12 at 5:49pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,075 posts

Knight

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.

 

Posted Jul 22, '12 at 7:28pm

EnterOrion

EnterOrion

3,615 posts

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.

 

Posted Jul 24, '12 at 12:02am

rayoflight3

rayoflight3

435 posts

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)?

 

Posted Jul 24, '12 at 12:04am

rayoflight3

rayoflight3

435 posts

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)?

 

Posted Jul 27, '12 at 10:37pm

Spyton

Spyton

50 posts

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

 

Posted Jul 28, '12 at 2:01am

EnterOrion

EnterOrion

3,615 posts

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)?

Inmates on death row have nothing to lose. So yes, they would be preferable.

 

Posted Jul 28, '12 at 3:13am

Masterforger

Masterforger

1,633 posts

Yes, ethics does hinder innovation. Which is why we've developed the A-Bomb, H-Bomb and Bio-hazardous  weapons. We have no real ethics that are strong enough to stop us.
"Thou shalt not kill"
That went well.

 

Posted Jul 28, '12 at 8:47am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,075 posts

Knight

Yes, ethics does hinder innovation. Which is why we've developed the A-Bomb, H-Bomb and Bio-hazardous  weapons. We have no real ethics that are strong enough to stop us.
"Thou shalt not kill"
That went well.

Military has always kinda been exempt from the ethics barrier, but as soon as you turn to medicine people suddenly feel bad about it...

 
Reply to Does ethics hinder innovation?

You must be logged in to post a reply!