Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Lydianeko2 t1_iv5x8nh wrote

I feel using science as a moral system would lead too much towards utilitarianism where what is moral would be based on the amount of good to come out of the results of scientific experiments etc. There was and is still a lot of anti-moral things going on in the world is science since before the Nazi's and Japanese used science to do tests on prisoners of war or disabled people. A lot of science is reliant on animal testing which is often lethal or debilitating to animals putting the needs of humans above animals.
There are other forces which use science as a way to justify their actions, companies can gain the results they need by adjusting statistics to make for example fast food look healthy, smoking to be beneficial etc. Therefore if science was to be a totally impartial moral system, it would have to be implemented by totally impartial people who were 100% dedicated to their integrity no matter the results. I don't feel we are at this stage at all right now as most science is funded by, charities, governments, companies and enterprises with some motive to the results and outcomes.

44

astro-kiki t1_iv61t15 wrote

Without integrity the scientific pursuit is flawed. Science cannot be run by business if its to be science.

5

heresyforfunnprofit t1_iv6dgux wrote

Huh? Science is a tool, not a ascetic priesthood. Businesses are historically one of if not THE greatest utilizers and drivers of science. Claiming otherwise requires a ridiculous amount of gatekeeping as to what constitutes “real” science, and that just makes one sound like a bitter mathematician who gets angry because someone figured out a real-world application for a “pure” theoretical model.

32

throw4jklfj t1_iv7f1uh wrote

I think they're mostly talking about situations where companies find out that whatever they're producing or researching has negative impact towards either the environment or the populace and the company buries the evidence of said negative impact to protect the business. One example is how Syngenta has attempted to silence Dr Tyrone Hayes when he discovered that the chemical Atrazine, which Syngenta produces, is an endocrine disruptor that is negatively impacting wildlife in areas where the atrazine has been applied and washed away into local water sources.

11

MyNameIsNonYaBizniz t1_iv6bwvh wrote

But sometimes we cant escape utility, some situations simply call for it, such as the trolley problem.

I dont think morality can be pure utility or pure virtue/values, it depends on the situation, sometimes its more utilitarian, sometimes its more virtuous, different circumstances require different tools to solve.

4

WrongAspects t1_iv918e1 wrote

Why would you demand things from sciences that you don't demand from religion or philosophy?

−1

tianavitoli t1_iv8a7qu wrote

it's basically a long winded way of saying the ends justify the means. "we have good intentions so indulge us regardless of whatever foresight you might have, we have good intentions, so if you don't agree with us, you defacto have bad intentions, so we can kill you"

−2

tianavitoli t1_iv8adhk wrote

in before:

"follow the science" and later on "I am the science"

"now is the time to do as you're told" - anthony fauci

0