Scientific advancement: Morality Changed by Research

Scientific advancement benefits society: stem cells researches, creation of the Internet and various technologies have substantially facilitated human life and daily performance. However, as we are approaching the limits of human scientific knowledge, new scientific discoveries put us into the whirl of moral and ethical debates.

In many instances, scientific advancement has given place to ethical dilemmas and has urged society to . Scientific advancement makes us re-evaluate our ethical standards and beliefs, and adjust our moral norms to the needs of scientific progress.

Scientific advancement: Morality Changed by Research

Science has for long been considered a virtuous “value-neutral” activity (O’Hear 29). Science represented the constant desire of people to find the truth, and to ground this truth on scientific proofs and facts. However, science cannot remain distanced from morality and ethical values.

The discovery of stem cells is the example of how science impacts our ethical and moral beliefs. Stem cells research has generated the arduous debate on whether it is moral to kill an embryo. For many religious sects, embryo represents a human life and its destruction is equaled to murder. For the majority of scientists, stem cells research opens new horizons in treating life altering diseases.

Fong writes that many scientists consider immoral to allow “select groups to decide which scientific advancements are to be explored, and which are to be discarded”. To decide, whether we support or reject stem cells research, we should thoughtfully re-consider our personal values.

Stem cells research is just the most recent and the brightest example of the way scientific advancement changes our values. The Internet vs. privacy, video games vs. violence are included into the list of the most relevant ethical issues. Aristotle said that “all men, by nature, desire to know” (Johnson 2).

Current scientific advancement has turned the desire for knowledge into the desire for “moral knowledge”. Science is becoming closer to ethics and morality. Scientists are compelled to weigh all possible moral and ethical consequences of their researches beforehand.

For example, stem cells researchers look for the methods of generating stem cells without destroying an embryo (Fong). We participate in these processes through personal re-evaluation of scientific discoveries.

Scientific advancement benefits society, but these benefits make moral dilemmas even more difficult and insolvable.

The most significant scientific discoveries turn into the most debatable ones, and divide society into the two large camps of those who judge immoral scientific approaches, and those who benefit from the recent scientific researches.

For example, the development of weapons of mass destruction has benefited those who live in aggressive military areas, but has also put humanity under the risks of self-destruction. Philosophers and religious leaders claim that “the sirens of science are dulling our moral sensibilities with the bewitching illusion of immortality” (Johnson 2).

For many, scientific advancement remains the sign of the social spiritual and moral degradation. For those who have already lost the hope to be cured, defended, or informed, scientific advancement gives a chance for long and full living.

Those who oppose to scientific advancement and view it as threatening to moral stability of society, may change their views as soon as they appear in different circumstances (e.g. face a life threatening state, participate in a military conflict, or need to use the informational benefits of the Internet).

This is why the balance of forces in such dilemmas is very vulnerable and is subject to changes. As a result, we watch how our values shift under the impact of scientific progress, and how our most precious views and beliefs are being shrunk by the speedy and sometimes threatening scientific advancement.

On the one hand, scientific advancement shifts our beliefs and values. On the other hand, the major portion of scientific ethical dilemmas is caused by the lack of scientific knowledge. There is no agreement on whether an embryo should be considered a live person, because we do not have scientific facts to prove or refute this assumption.

We argue whether the development of arms threatens society, because we do not have scientific means of neutralizing the effects of such arms on people. We cannot decide whether Internet is good for people, or whether it undermines the principles of personal privacy, because we lack scientific methods of protecting this privacy (Givens).

Scientific advancement is a positive and useful process; it makes our lives more convenient, and provides the grounds for re-evaluating our attitudes and beliefs. O’Hear writes, that “we are forced to contemplate issues that previous generations neither conceived of nor could imagine” (37).

It is an unavoidable scientific and social progress. Evidently, current scientific advancement has become more moral than ever before, as scientists constantly re-consider the morality of their discoveries. Society finds itself in the continuous process of re-evaluating values and standards, and adjusting them to the changing scientific needs.

Conclusion

Scientific advancement makes our existence “more convenient” but generates social disagreement on whether certain scientific discoveries are moral or ethical. Scientific advancement creates new subjects for moral and ethical dilemmas.

Our ethical values follow the scientific progress, and not vice versa. We shift our values to adjust them to the new scientific opportunities, but these opportunities are also driven by our growing social needs. Re-thinking values is continuous process, and is the inevitable product of the current scientific advancement.

Works Cited

1. Fong, K. “Stem Cell Advancement Touted, But Doubts About Effectiveness and Questions
2. About Ethics Raised.” 2006. The Stanford Daily. 24 April 2008. http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2006/8/31/stemCellAdvancementToutedButDoubtsAboutEffectivenessAndQuestionsAboutEthicsRaised
3. Givens, B. “Public Records on the Internet: The Privacy Dilemma.” 2006. Privacy Rights
4. Clearinghouse. 24 April 2008. http://www.cfp2002.org/proceedings/proceedings/givens.pdf
5. Johnson, D. “Whispers of Immortality.” London Daily Telegraph, 8 April 2000, p. 2.
6. O’Hear, A. After Progress: Finding the Old Way Forward. Bloomsbury USA, 2000.