Technology and Ethics (moral, moral, verse, reform)

[Tau]

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

Everything has an equal propensity of good as for evil: science and technology are souless and without morals.

Consider nuclear fission. It can be used to light the world or to blow it up. It's the ying and yang of everything.

This is precisely the issue at hand.

Yet clearly something must be done, one way or another, or we will just blunder from one disaster to another, as we have done.
But as our powers grow the seriousness of what we are capable of intensifies with it.

[Bouncing Ball]

Originally Posted by Tau

our science is evolving quicker than we are, is technology to become our master/destroyer or our tool for survival?

I surelly do hope both..

I am sure that you understand even if you do not empathise, of course you know, you are included in the greater good

Yeah, so if you take care of that, I don't have to anymore

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Tau

But as our powers grow the seriousness of what we are capable of intensifies with it.

Such is discovery. Sometimes you don't know you are stepping into the abyss until it's too late. I don't feel we need to hinder research because we have unfounded fears of the unknown.

[TheHumanGod]

Originally Posted by Tau

I argue that in scientific research and development there must be a universal code of ethics, and a covenant that all scientists must swear to, much like the hippocratic oath that practioners of medicine are supposed to take.

I think the objective of a scientific covenant must be to protect humanity as a whole...

Thus for example the development of Viruses for warfare purposes, or preforming risky experiments that could have catastrophic consequences, would both be forbidden by the covenant, as they could be lethal if things go 'wrong' or that the very nature of the research is murderous, however the threat manifests...

I would not want to see a retardation of technological progress, I just think some types of research are simply morally and logically bankrupt for various reasons and that they all in various ways represent threats to the stability and future of our species.

This 'covenant' would be very hard to enforce I imagine, especially with arms manufacturers and fossil fuel developers in particular, may as well include the private sector as a whole....

Could we interpret the suffering of the animals used in biotech research as detremental to the well being and future stability of humanity?

All good cars have effective brakes...just a thought that popped in me head.

Any thoughts people?

The code of ethics already exists in metaphysics...

[Fluffy]

I don't think that a covenant is a useful tool for directing scientific progress. I believe that science is unbounded in the sense that controlling it is largely impossible. In order to direct science, the best way is to generate solutions to problems before we have to deal with them. For example, it is better to realise the inevitability of genetically altered diseases now and focus on ways of stopping them than to rely on the honour system and hope that nobody goes ahead and releases a genetically altered disease.

Essentially, there are two ways that science can be used to cause harm: direct intent and carelessness. However, a covenant only binds those who do not have an intent to cause harm and are careful enough to adhere by it.

[crystalonyx]

Originally Posted by Tau

The long term viability of unfettered research and rapid technological progress is questionable, our science is evolving quicker than we are, is technology to become our master/destroyer or our tool for survival?

I am sure that you understand even if you do not empathise, of course you know, you are included in the greater good

The problem of technology evolving much faster than homo sapiens emotional ability to handle it is a serious one. Our priorities may be centuries outdated compared to what is needed for long-term survival.

[Tau]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Essentially, there are two ways that science can be used to cause harm: direct intent and carelessness. However, a covenant only binds those who do not have an intent to cause harm and are careful enough to adhere by it.

That is the problem, enforcement.

Perhaps a type of international watchdog body with unlimited access to all projects, anywhere, staffed by scientists?

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

The problem is that, as I see it, science and technology are simply incapable of addressing (and hence, creating) ethical stances. They are excellent at what they do, but morality and ethics are beyond their domain and thus not directly addressable.

In contrast, this is where religion fits in very well, and IOV science and religion dovetail very nicely and are eminently compatible!

Further, the quickest way to get into trouble is to attempt to use either in the place properly occupied by the other.

Regards, :-)

Bruce