The superiority of morality over science

[tdgesq]

I thought this thread would be appropriate for two reasons: (1) the failure of some to recognize the importance of morality (ethics) in day-to-day decision making and (2) the superiority (primacy in time) of ethics in relation to the specialized sciences. Let me set forth some definitions and ground rules for this discussion.

The type of morality we are discussing here are those actions we as human beings should do or ought to do (normative ethics). Ethics is the practical study of how human beings should act. It is fine to claim that there is no such thing as normative ethics, but reasons must be given or the post will be summarily dismissed. By “science” I mean the specialized sciences; those formal disciplines that deal primarily with quantifying or strictly classifying data observed in the world. This includes biology, physics, chemistry and psychology.

My claim is this: (1) Before a person engages in science he must first decide whether he should be a scientist and (2) before any scientific experiment is conducted the scientist must first decide whether he should perform the experiment.

I recognize that these decisions may be made quickly and without extensive reflection. Nevertheless, a decision is made. What are the reasons behind those decisions?

 

[Sair]

I thought this thread would be appropriate for two reasons: (1) the failure of some to recognize the importance of morality (ethics) in day-to-day decision making and (2) the superiority (primacy in time) of ethics in relation to the specialized sciences. Let me set forth some definitions and ground rules for this discussion.

The type of morality we are discussing here are those actions we as human beings should do or ought to do (normative ethics). Ethics is the practical study of how human beings should act. It is fine to claim that there is no such thing as normative ethics, but reasons must be given or the post will be summarily dismissed. By “science” I mean the specialized sciences; those formal disciplines that deal primarily with quantifying or strictly classifying data observed in the world. This includes biology, physics, chemistry and psychology.

My claim is this: (1) Before a person engages in science he must first decide whether he should be a scientist and (2) before any scientific experiment is conducted the scientist must first decide whether he should perform the experiment.

I recognize that these decisions may be made quickly and without extensive reflection. Nevertheless, a decision is made. What are the reasons behind those decisions?

I think engagement with scientific study is motivated, usually, by the same things that motivate a person to engage in the study of history, philosophy, art, information technology or any other field of endeavour - personal interest or even a passion for the subject. Now, it’s often the case that people who begin with this passionate interest may bump up against the day-to-day reality of working in their field, and then their decision-making may become more complex. There’s no doubt that a significant amount of scientific research is performed for profit-seeking or otherwise spurious reasons. My aunt, for example, having attained a degree in chemistry, went to work in a research laboratory, and after a couple of years found that the daily grind of performing experiments just to see what they could find was wearing her down. She made the decision to become a high school teacher, thus allowing her not only to maintain her passion for science and mathematics, but to impart this passion to others. I would tend to consider this not just a practical decision, but one that was ethically sound.

I would tend to agree with you that most people don’t deeply consider the ethical implications of their day-to-day decisions. Everything we do has effects upon other beings, from the products we choose to buy, to the interactions we have with people. How often do we make the effort to smile and be nice to a person we don’t know? It might not seem like much, but simple politeness - which comes down to respect - can really make someone’s day. How many people think twice about what they post to online forums or blogs? How often do we seriously think about where our food comes from and what is involved in its production?

There’s a potential impasse here, though - were it not for science, we would be unaware of the real effects of many of our actions and choices. To use a favourite historical example of mine, without grave-robbing and what many people considered the sacreligious practice of dissecting dead human bodies, the science of anatomy with its resulting benefits to medicine would not have got off the ground. So when it comes to decisions regarding science and discovery, it’s a question of weighing the potential benefits of the research against the conceivable harm that might be done in the act of researching. This is essentially the same decision-making process that should take place whenever we make an ethical choice.

 

[Prophesy]

I thought this thread would be appropriate for two reasons: (1) the failure of some to recognize the importance of morality (ethics) in day-to-day decision making and (2) the superiority (primacy in time) of ethics in relation to the specialized sciences. Let me set forth some definitions and ground rules for this discussion.

The type of morality we are discussing here are those actions we as human beings should do or ought to do (normative ethics). Ethics is the practical study of how human beings should act. It is fine to claim that there is no such thing as normative ethics, but reasons must be given or the post will be summarily dismissed. By “science” I mean the specialized sciences; those formal disciplines that deal primarily with quantifying or strictly classifying data observed in the world. This includes biology, physics, chemistry and psychology.

My claim is this: (1) Before a person engages in science he must first decide whether he should be a scientist and (2) before any scientific experiment is conducted the scientist must first decide whether he should perform the experiment.

I recognize that these decisions may be made quickly and without extensive reflection. Nevertheless, a decision is made. What are the reasons behind those decisions?

Why just science? Why not business, entrepeneurship, politics, law enforcement, etc. etc. etc.

-A Chemist

 

[Teresita99]

My claim is this: (1) Before a person engages in science he must first decide whether he should be a scientist and (2) before any scientific experiment is conducted the scientist must first decide whether he should perform the experiment

(1) is almost a tautology. It applies to any field of endeavor. Before a person engages in prostitution she must first decide whether she should be a prostitute. Before a person becomes a priest he must first decide whether he should be a priest.

(2) The moral law governs all our actions. If an experiment requires a fresh cadaver, one must not murder living human beings to obtain them. That, too, is basic common sense.

 

[Sair]

The moral law governs all our actions. If an experiment requires a fresh cadaver, one must not murder living human beings to obtain them. That, too, is basic common sense.

Absolutely. Burke and Hare can’t be given a free pass just because their murderous efforts provided corpses to medical students…

 

[tdgesq]

I think engagement with scientific study is motivated, usually, by the same things that motivate a person to engage in the study of history, philosophy, art, information technology or any other field of endeavour - personal interest or even a passion for the subject.

Thank you for this observation. It is the motivation and the reasons that I want to consider. Passions and personal interests are two separate concepts I think. Although “passions” can be defined in different ways, one contemporary popular meaning is that they are simply emotional responses to external stimuli. There are some ethicists who believe that this is the motivation for all moral decisions. While it is true that some of our actions are purely reflexive based on instinct and emotion, it isn’t what most of us would consider a moral decision; particularly not the type of decision people make when they choose to become scientists. Not many would willingly concede that their decision to become a scientist is akin to the reaction of a dog to a thrown tennis ball.

Personal interest is arguably different. That phrase implies that there is some reasoning process involved. It may be that a person is interested because he wants to gain knowledge, wants to help heal others, wants to become financially secure, wants to impress his friends, etc. These are reasons a person decides he ought to be a scientist, presumably because he believes these things are good - at the very least good for him.

There’s a potential impasse here, though - were it not for science, we would be unaware of the real effects of many of our actions and choice

I don’t see an impasse, but I understand what you mean. The specialized sciences are immensely important for the good of society. Nevertheless, even the scientist who robs graves had to first decide whether he should rob graves. That decision may have been made in a split second with little reflection. He may be mistaken in his moral judgment, but it came prior to the doing of science.

Why just science? Why not business, entrepeneurship, politics, law enforcement, etc. etc. etc.

I could have extended it to all those disciplines, but I thought it would make the discussion unmanageable. Your point is well taken though. Morality is the practical study of how people ought to act. The end of human action is the good.

(1) is almost a tautology. It applies to any field of endeavor. Before a person engages in prostitution she must first decide whether she should be a prostitute. Before a person becomes a priest he must first decide whether he should be a priest.

I don’t think something can almost be a tautology, and the comments here don’t really demonstrate one. My assertion does apply to a wide field of human action, but that doesn’t make it a tautology. I don’t believe it would apply in the initial perception of sensory data. I perceive objects without necessarily making decisions about them, although it may be there is some type of unconscious judgment I make about their reality. I agree with your statement about murder to gain a cadaver.

 

[tonyrey]

According to Edward O. Wilson, the “father” of sociobiology:

“Scientists and humanists should consider together the possibility that the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologicized”.

• Sociobiology: The New Synthesis

This amounts to regarding ethics as a branch of science! I wonder why he - inconsistently in my opinion - used the word “temporarily”…

 

[tdgesq]

According to Edward O. Wilson, the “father” of sociobiology:

“Scientists and humanists should consider together the possibility that the time has come for ethics to be removed temporarily from the hands of the philosophers and biologicized”.

• Sociobiology: The New Synthesis

This amounts to regarding ethics as a branch of science! I wonder why he - inconsistently in my opinion - used the word “temporarily”…

Thanks tony. I am even more interested in why he uses the word “should.” I wonder what moral content Wilson believes that statement contains.

 

[tonyrey]

*According to Edward O. Wilson, the “father” of sociobiology:

I overlooked that! I suppose he uses it from a practical rather than moral point of view. Even so it amounts to a value judgment. If you don’t value science you wouldn’t be a scientist!

 

[Sair]

Thank you for this observation. It is the motivation and the reasons that I want to consider. Passions and personal interests are two separate concepts I think. Although “passions” can be defined in different ways, one contemporary popular meaning is that they are simply emotional responses to external stimuli. There are some ethicists who believe that this is the motivation for all moral decisions. While it is true that some of our actions are purely reflexive based on instinct and emotion, it isn’t what most of us would consider a moral decision; particularly not the type of decision people make when they choose to become scientists. Not many would willingly concede that their decision to become a scientist is akin to the reaction of a dog to a thrown tennis ball.

I’m not sure it’s an easy matter - nor even necessarily desirable - to separate the intellect from the passions, at least not when it comes to ethical decisions. On the one hand, we have situations in which we find that our passions are aroused, either in a positive or a negative way, and then there follows the conscious decision to either actively seek out or avoid such situations based on the feelings they generate in us. Part of that conscious decision comes from examining the consequences of the situation in question. To use a simple example, it might feel very good to drink large quantities of alcohol, initially, but the next morning it can give cause for deep regret. So one might then make the conscious decision either to drink again and damn the consequences, or to avoid alcohol because the consequences are not worth the fleeting pleasure it brings. This is an ethical decision that is motivated by passions and conscious reflection.

Personal interest is arguably different. That phrase implies that there is some reasoning process involved. It may be that a person is interested because he wants to gain knowledge, wants to help heal others, wants to become financially secure, wants to impress his friends, etc. These are reasons a person decides he ought to be a scientist, presumably because he believes these things are good - at the very least good for him.

Arguable, certainly. One would need to examine the cause of the interest, which may not be cleanly separable from the passions. What leads a person to decide that something is ‘good’? Is this a purely intellectual process, or is it because doing certain things makes one feel good? For example, one may hear doctors speak of the deep satisfaction that comes from successfully treating a patient, particularly if the condition was life-threatening. This surely isn’t a matter of cold, hard cogitation. One sometimes hears scientists - at least those who have not become jaded from working long years in commercial laboratories - speak of the ‘thrill’ of discovery. I think it’s fair to say that in order to continually engage the intellect, despite the mundanity of many aspects of doing science (or working in any field, for that matter) the endeavour must also engage the emotions.

I don’t see an impasse, but I understand what you mean. The specialized sciences are immensely important for the good of society. Nevertheless, even the scientist who robs graves had to first decide whether he should rob graves. That decision may have been made in a split second with little reflection. He may be mistaken in his moral judgment, but it came prior to the doing of science.

That is true. If we examine the conditions in which the enterprising anatomists of the 16th century made such decisions, though, we can see that they had reached something of a crossroads. For centuries, doctors had relied upon ancient medical texts in order to diagnose and treat patients. It was clear that this just wasn’t working, but in order to make progress in medical science, ancient taboos had to be broken. From the point of view of ethics, the decision to perform dissections on human corpses required a certain cold, clear-headed rejection of the gut reaction that one imagines many people had to the idea of cutting up human bodies. In this case, the intellect - and the practical necessity - won the day.