Morality and Science
Scientists generally gain new knowledge through experiments. Those experiments can sometime be harmful to other individual. However, new knowledge can be earned through it. Then, is morality necessary in science? or does morality need to be valued in science?
My answer is,
morality doesn't have a role in science.
With molarity, there won't be a process in science. If scientists care too much about morarity or ethics, there wouldn't be as much experiment as there is today. For example, in the case of Dr. James Marion Sims, many women were being used for Sims to figure out how female body work. Those women were enslaved, so they had no rights to reject. The experiment harmed them, but Gynaecology was born, which helps women today through medication. If Sims valued morality or ethics, he wouldn't harm those enslaved women and in result, the world wouldn't know about female reproductive systems. In that case some women today will suffer with their pain without knowing why and how it is painful and the treatment for it.
On the other hand, when a harmful experiment was conducted without the confirmation from the "victim", then there is no different with rape or torture.
Concerned that, there should be a line that should not be crossed.
In my opinion, this line is the scientist's responsibility to determine it. Scientists should have not done the experiment if they KNEW how it would go. However, if they had no idea about the content, then it is worthy for them to conduct the experiment. Otherwise, the world have not known new knowledge. For example, Robert Oppenheimer (or the U.S.A) shouldn't have thrown a nuclear bomb to Japan, because he KNEW the effect of it. In the case of Dr. Sims above, he had no idea how female reproductive system works, so his experiment was worthy. It is worthy also because the discovery is helping many women since then.
My answer is,
morality doesn't have a role in science.
With molarity, there won't be a process in science. If scientists care too much about morarity or ethics, there wouldn't be as much experiment as there is today. For example, in the case of Dr. James Marion Sims, many women were being used for Sims to figure out how female body work. Those women were enslaved, so they had no rights to reject. The experiment harmed them, but Gynaecology was born, which helps women today through medication. If Sims valued morality or ethics, he wouldn't harm those enslaved women and in result, the world wouldn't know about female reproductive systems. In that case some women today will suffer with their pain without knowing why and how it is painful and the treatment for it.
On the other hand, when a harmful experiment was conducted without the confirmation from the "victim", then there is no different with rape or torture.
Concerned that, there should be a line that should not be crossed.
In my opinion, this line is the scientist's responsibility to determine it. Scientists should have not done the experiment if they KNEW how it would go. However, if they had no idea about the content, then it is worthy for them to conduct the experiment. Otherwise, the world have not known new knowledge. For example, Robert Oppenheimer (or the U.S.A) shouldn't have thrown a nuclear bomb to Japan, because he KNEW the effect of it. In the case of Dr. Sims above, he had no idea how female reproductive system works, so his experiment was worthy. It is worthy also because the discovery is helping many women since then.
Comments
Post a Comment