Is Science Morally Neutral?

Posted by our Chronicler, Brendt M.

           How does science affect our everyday lives?

           We listed some of the different scientific fields that seem to make an impact on one's everyday life. To name a few:

> Astronomy
> Chemistry
> Physics
> Metaphysics
> Psychology
> Meteorology

           We also said that science ought to glorify God.

           A few years ago, during a long speech about health policy, President George W. Bush spoke about a society increasingly empowered by science.  He warned:

           "The powers of science are morally neutral - as easily used for bad purposes as good ones.  In the excitement of discovery, we must never forget that mankind is defined not by intelligence alone, but by conscience.  Even the most noble ends do not justify every means."

           The president implied that science only provides tools that give us raw power and it is up to us to determine the right ways to use that power and to proscribe the wrong ways.

           The notion that science is morally neutral is widely held by scientists.  Many wear this as a badge of honour, presenting themselves as disinterested servants of truth.  They supply society with facts and tools and its up to others how to use them.

           Einstein once said: "Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be and outside of its domain value judgement of all kinds remain necessary".

           Do you agree or disagree?

           Our philosopher this week was Francis Bacon.

           He was an English philosopher, statesman, scientist, jurist, orator, and author. He has been called the creator of empiricism and his works established and popularized inductive methodologies for scientific inquiry, often called the Baconian method, or simply the scientific method. He was knighted in 1603 and died in 1626 by contracting pneumonia while studying the effects of freezing meat. He was also a friend of Thomas Hobbes, one of the other philosophers we have studied.

           Finally, he said that anything can be made evil in the hands of evil men.

           I would argue that this is not the most essential moral challenge posed for us by modern science.

           Modern science is much more than a source of technology and scientists are far more than mere investigators and toolmakers.  Modern science is a grand human endeavour.  Its work employs the best and brightest from all over the world and its way of thinking has come to dominate the way mankind understands itself and its place.

           The modern scientific project was not conceived or born as a morally neutral quest after facts.  On the contrary, launched in the 17th century, it was a profoundly moral enterprise, aimed at improving the condition of the human race, relieving suffering, enhancing health and enriching life.

           Francis Bacon argued that a search for knowledge driving solely by a natural curiosity would be misguided and inadequate.  He said that the true aim of a genuine science should be "the glory of the Creator and the relief of man's estate".

           Rene Descartes had an equally moral purpose in mind.  His mathematical science aims not at neutral knowledge or the creation of frivolous mechanical toys but principally at "the conservation of health, which is without doubt the primary good and the foundation of all other goods in life".

           We concluded with a discussion of the book The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson.

What is a Lie?

Posted by our Chronicler, Brendt M.

           A lie is an untruth or false statement with intent.

           Is it ever okay to lie? Is lying ever morally required?

           John Stuart Mill was an English philosopher who many people regarded as being "the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century". He was a very smart man who strongly believed that philosophy could improve society. He knew Greek by age three and Latin and Algebra by age eight. He was known as the father of Utilitarianism.

           Utilitarianism is a theory centered on the idea that the moral worth of an action depends on its results. In other words, of the possible actions open to you, you should choose the one that will do the greatest good for the greatest number, that is, the one that will maximize happiness.
           Deontology, on the other hand, is a theory that says we are required to perform certain moral duties regardless of the consequences.

           Our other philosopher was Immanuel Kant. He was a German philosopher who believed that Deontology was the correct theory of the two. He also disagreed both with Socrates' view that we are born with knowledge, and with David Hume's view that all knowledge comes from experience.

           Consider the following example:

           A girl has a date for a formal dance. She dresses up in her finest clothes and greets him when he arrives at the door. He asks, "How do I look?". The truth is that he looks foolish. His suit does not fit right - the sleeves are too short, and the pants are too long. Furthermore, his hair is totally overdone.

If you were in her position, what would you tell him? If you were in his position, would you want to know the truth?