Is science morally wrong?

Question

I read an article recently where someone aragued that scietific stuff like genetic engineering and evoloution was morally wrong. I know these arguments have been going on for a long time but could I have some of your opinions please. I don't really know what to think.

Answer 1

Morality is completely irrelevant to science. Science is merely the explanation of how nature works using observation, experimental facts and logical deduction.

The conclusions that come about from scientific exploration are neither moral nor immoral... they simply are.

There's nothing stopping a person from using knowledge obtained via science to do immoral things or to do moral things. However, morality is not a quality of science, but a quality of the person who would use that knowledge.

Answer 2

Science is the search for knowledge and understanding and I don't think that could be considered good or bad, however the questions of ethics come into play when considering how to search for and apply this knowledge. Your questions were on evolution and genetic engineering.

To take the evolution point this is a scientific theory not an absolute dogma. I assume you are asking whether it should be considered because it is contrary to the bible's (or some other religious scripture's) teachings, surely if the idea were to be banned that would be like sticking your head in the sand it is the current scientific theory, it is not perfect but it best fits the facts as we know them. Does that take anything from the faiths and beliefs people hold? Surely lying and hiding the truth is more unethical.

As to the question of genetic engineering, this to me is a more tricky ethical issue. I don't think anyone much likes the idea of eugenics,people deciding to create there perfect ultra intelligant baby with a particular eye colour and the ability to run 100 metres in 5 seconds (we are still years off from having this level of technology if we ever will, these traits are extremely complicated).
However if we could potentially cure diseases such as Huntingdons or Sickle cell anemia do we have the right to deny people life saving treatment just because it would be performed at a genetic level?

I think this is why it is important to have these sorts of debates and consider both the potential benefits and misuses of any technology and decide where the line must be drawn.

Answer 3

It depends what area of science it is. If a couple have lost their child and they want to genetically choose what traits their next child has, in order to make him/her similar or the same as the child they've lost, then yes, I believe it is morally wrong. I'm so glad this isn't yet legal. After all, if it doesn't work, does that mean they won't love their child?

However, if used for screening, it means someone can find out if they have a genetic disorder, or if, in the future, when they have children, if their children are at risk of gaining a genetic disorder. It can help prevent suffering.

I don't quite see how evolution can be morally wrong, because it's not science. It's considered to be a natural process. How can nature be morally wrong?

So overall, I would have to conclude, that some areas of science really are morally wrong, but others are a blessing. This is just my opinion. I realise there are people out there who disagree, but you have to decide for yourself, no one can make the decision for you. But in order to aid your decision, please think about a very simple question:

Is anything ever 100% good or bad?

Answer 4

Absolutely a daft question. "morality is "special" and doesn't need such scientific enquiry", you obviously know little about science. Have you not heard of psychology, Zoology, Sociology etc. All are far better guides than ancient books of myth and superstition (The Bible, the Qur'an etc.) Science tells a lot about morality. By observing other animals, we can understand so much about our own species. We can understand why we have pair bonding (marriage); we can understand why murder is so wrong; why we do not like theft; etc. ...And besides - atheism =/= science. Atheists are just as likely, (and a few answers here show so), to be interested in philosophy.

Answer 5

By saying that science/scientific research is wrong, you are saying that curiosity and need for knowledge is wrong. Science is all about finding out how the world works and how it came about. As a whole, science is very right. There are some very controversial aspects of science (stem cell research), which will more than likely always be argued. The human race has a lust for knowledge that will probably never be cured. We want to know why we are here and why we die. There is no way that we are morally wrong for being curious.

Answer 6

Science as such does not have morality.
People may have moral issues, and some may try to impose those on other people.
Evolution morally wrong? Evolution is not a science per say, biology is. Evolution is a complex series of events that are linked and produce a result; evolution is a phenomenon. Saying that evolution is morally wrong is just as strange as claiming that gavity is morally wrong. Laws of nature do not have moraliy.
Now, is research in some area morally wrong? Some people have such opinions. Byt those are based on *their* values, and some may be dead wrong (case in point: crationism. Some people hold that only the bible is perfectly right, even though it self contradicts on numerous instances -- quite honestly, I consider the bible shamfully ridicule).
So, in the end, do not take other people's opinion, build up your own. That is the only way to be free.

Answer 7

WE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM APES!!!!! THRERE IS NOOO PROOF WHATSOEVER!!!!! i can argue this point with anyone. it is impossible to gain genetic information throough chance random process. you will only ever lose information. mutations are ALWAYS either bad effects or not very harmful but NEVER helpful. darwin said clearly in his book that their should be MILLIONS of fossils proving the "missing links", and if their isnt, his entire idea is totally false. guess what, THEIR ARENT!, ONCE in a while, theyll come up on some pig bone and say its THE MISSING LINK, ONLY PROBLEM, ITS A PIG AND THERE SOULDVE BEEN MILLIONS OF THEM!!! but THERES NOT! this false philosophy is such a lie and so many people believe it! my mail is [e-mail] try and argue it. i do not believe science is wrong. but when you start messing with human life is where i have the problem. the bible states scientific proofs hundreds even thousands of years before they were "discovered" by scientists. all the evidence for 'evolution' comes from a flood that covered the entire earth,, dont think so? try to prove it wrong im out. God bless.

Answer 8

It is like asking if the gun is the murderer or the person who made it, completely ignoring the person who pointed and shot someone.

Science gives us antibiotics, telephones, cars, paper, beer, electricity, etc.

Even genetic engineering is just another tool that allows us to do things (like make environmentally friendly vegetables, or make insulin for diabetics, maybe one day cure cancer.)

Evolution can't be morally wrong any more than gravity or wind can be morally wrong. I am a devote christian and believe that God created the universe, but evolution is science not religion and they don't compete with each other any more than you can race apples against kangaroos.

Answer 9

Just believe in true science. Anything else is a load of old rubbish. It is morally right to think about other people's feelings and wellbeing. Religion only pretends to be about morals - it is really about people trying to get control over other people. If genetic engineering is going to cure people of terrible diseases, it must be right. Evolution fits all of the facts - religion fits none of them.

Answer 10

It is not science but things like genetic engineering, cloning and evolution are morally wrong. If cloning (anytime, anywhere) was legal & everyone on earth were twins, what fun it would be so you can take it as no. But I being a very (you can say my negative point) emotionally weak. I think it is morally wrong. People like me would be disheartened if people like those cruel scientists play a joke on the Homo sapiens by evolving or making someone's "double or triple role" in the earth as every person in himself / herself has his special role or part inthis world. If someone else is a mimic of you. You will naturally feel offended so for me it is yes.