View Single Post
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 06-12-2008, 08:23 PM
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Paul C. Anagnostopoulos is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,020
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David
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.
By agreement.

Quote:
2) How much suffering it is acceptable to subject an animal to in the cause of medical research.
By agreement. Our decision will be affected if we learn that an animal has aspects of consciousness similar to humans.

Quote:
3) Acceptable standards of sexual morality.
By agreement.

Quote:
4) Which (if any) kinds of military research are immoral.
By agreement.

Quote:
Science can't say anything about these questions - merely perhaps quibble with the choice of people brought in to answer those questions!
It can says some things: When does an embryo start having brain function? Are rats conscious in ways similar to humans?

Quote:
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.
Scientists can laugh at the Catholic church, but I'm not sure how much weight that carries.

Quote:
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!
It can provide information to add to the pool of information that we use to make our moral decisions.

~~ Paul
Reply With Quote