Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos  Values and science do mix, because values have origins and laws of operation. I'm just not sure people want to see science as the arbiter of morals. I should say, as the final arbiter. It will be an arbiter.
~~ Paul |
Do they really! So how do we derive:
1) The length of time a human embryo can grow under research conditions without violating ethical values.
2) How much suffering it is acceptable to subject an animal to in the cause of medical research.
3) Acceptable standards of sexual morality.
4) Which (if any) kinds of military research are immoral.
Science can't say anything about these questions - merely perhaps quibble with the choice of people brought in to answer those questions!
It is sad really, if, say the church says contraception is wrong, even in an overcrowded world, there is nothing that science can say against that - except to enumerate the practical consequences.
Never mind whether people want to see scientists as the absolute arbiter of morality, what can science as currently formulated possibly say about such questions!
There is a morning current affairs radio program called 'Today' in Britain. One day, they had a 'scientist' on the show, who claimed to have proven that homosexuality was wrong! Fortunately the interviewer was quick to pick up on the irrationality of such a claim, and the guy lost the argument - but it also makes my point!
David