Has technology outstripped the evolution of sense of right and wrong?

Answer 1

This is a great question in my view.

Yes, our slavery to, and worship of technology is outstripping our sense of right and wrong...... the fault though lies in us and not in technological advances as such. If we decide to use nuclear Tech for destructive purposes, it is the fault of our attitude rather than the capability provided by the technology.

Technology inherently demands objectivity. Since we are focusing more on physical comforts and materialistic progress, we are knowingly or otherwise steeling our mind to remain neutral to our humane qualities which demand subjectivity and which form the basis of our sense of right and wrong.... the concept of right and wrong is derived from the ideal of maximum wellbeing of all the people in the society and this is necessarily based on a subjective or people-oriented outlook... in order to progress materialistically, we need to concentrate on technology and in order to enhance our efficiency in terms of technological thinking and output, we are training our mind to be more and more objective which is resulting in our becoming less and less sensitive to the feelings of people.
Indeed our focus on technology is taking us away from each other notwithstanding all the new techniques and gadgets for communication.... we have multiplied our capability to communicate with each other, but in the process forgotten what exactly we do want and need to communicate with each other so as to maximize collective wellbeing!!!

Answer 2

Outstripped sounds so dramatic.

With every new technology one would expect a period where we don't quite know what to do with it, or haven't really explored all the implications.

I also really don't think our 'sense' of right and wrong is being outstripped. Right & Wrong is simply what is good or bad for us. Sometimes we might be unaware of a side effect, but as the totality of a technology becomes clear, we usually figure it out.

If you grasp Evoloutionary theory, you realize almost every new thing nature tries is ruthlessly and brutally eliminated by natural selection.

So technically speaking, if 99 out of every 100 new ideas turns out to be a mistake, as long as we keep hanging on to those good ideas, we're doing better than nature.

Answer 3

No. To me that's been a convenient cop out for years. Just because there are technological advances that does not mean we have the right to bury our humanity underneath them and start manipulating everybody. The coldness found in technology is done by design by people to make people feel inferior and subservient. Advances in technology have also, however, saved lives, improved living conditions and brought us into the space age( not to mention the current web site you are on ). It will be up to the post baby boomers as well as everyone else who is concerned to put forth the effort to re-humanize the world. This can be done in many ways -eg.: work environments; developments in secondary school curriculums; alternative living environments etc. As an individual you can just express your feelings to others so as to create a networking chain of communication.

Answer 4

It does seem to have a hard time keeping pace thus we see a slow response to Stem cell research I think in part due to what has been done in the past to research subjects in even non-totalitarian countries. Thus I see perhaps more caution in the use of technology in some areas and a rush to seek a panacea like solution in other areas of social concern with technology...e.g. military etc

Answer 5

Yes and no; religion is religion, but the sense for protection for property is mans actuality, man being the property protection for man and against man. Right and wrong are notional concepts as a technology, they are technology before technology, but this does not mean we recognize them as such innately but in the evolution for science for logic.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/prconten.htm

'On the contrary, the spiritual universe is looked upon as abandoned by God, and given over as a prey to accident and chance. As in this way the divine is eliminated from the ethical world, truth must be sought outside of it. And since at the same time reason should and does belong to the ethical world, truth, being divorced from reason, is reduced to a mere speculation. Thus seems to arise the necessity and duty of every thinker to pursue a career of his own. Not that he needs to seek for the philosophers’ stone, since the philosophising of our day has saved him the trouble, and every would-be thinker is convinced that he possesses the stone already without search. But these erratic pretensions are, as it indeed happens, ridiculed by all who, whether they are aware of it or not, are conditioned in their lives by the state, and -find their minds and wills satisfied in it. These, who include the majority if not all, regard the occupation of philosophers as a game, sometimes playful, sometimes earnest, sometimes entertaining, sometimes dangerous, but always as a mere game. Both this restless and frivolous reflection and also this treatment accorded to it might safely be left to take their own course, were it not that betwixt them philosophy is brought into discredit and contempt. The most cruel despite is done when every one is convinced of his ability to pass judgment upon, and discard philosophy without. any special study. No such scorn is heaped upon any other art or science.'

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/preface.htm#xx

'§ 3

Right is positive in general (a) in its form, since it has validity in a state; and this established authority is the principle for the knowledge of right. Hence we have the positive science of right. (b) On the side of content this right receives a positive element [a] through the particular character of a nation, the stage of its historical development, and the interconnection of all the relations which are necessitated by nature: [b] through the necessity that a system of legalised right must contain the application of the universal conception to objects and cases whose qualities are given externally. Such an application is not the speculative thought or the development of the conception, but a subsumption made by the understanding: [c] through the ultimate nature of a decision which has become a reality.'

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/pr/printrod.htm#PR3

Answer 6

no. for if the sense of right and wrong were not participating we would have already destroyed ourselves. but not to say that time isnt around the corner.