Totalitarianist

For how can knowledge be immoral? Unless you are a Christian, and hence support the supression of scientific knowledge, there is no reason to limit scientific research in, say, human cloning. This should be obvious.

Limiting scientific research, upon whatever grounds, always implies that the data procured are immoral. Clearly this is not the case.

fando

Knowledge itself may not have a 'morality', but the means of acquiring it might be ethically questionable. For instance, the Nazi medical experiments on concentration camp prisoners are considered to be horrible and unethical.

Totalitarianist

Only because there was a racial bias. If random people were selected, I ask you, what is the problem? It is for scientific research -- for the good of mankind! I do believe that you cannot seriously maintain your position if it were selected randomly, with no racial bias. And what of non-human animals? Are you seriously telling me that it is wrong to conduct experiments upon non-human animals when the knowledge obtained by such means is beneficial to makind?

Knowledge will prevail, whether you like it or not. Ethical beliefs, a collection of mankind's religious prejudices, will only hinder learning, but they will never stop it, no matter how ardent and fanatical the persons connected to such beliefs are.

lunachick

So, you'll be offering yourself, then?

fando

Ok, I have this miracle cancer cure which I made from concentrated rat poison. I need to discover the safte dosage margins, LD50 if you will. The Ministry of Science randomly chooses test subjects for my dosage experiments, and your number comes up. You're scheduled for the most extreme overdose. Care to swallow the rat poison pills? Is there a more ethical means of acquiring the dosage margins?

I said no such thing and I take no such position. Please read my post again and comprehend what I'm saying. I am not anti-discovery, as you seem to accuse me.

By the way, the question of whether ethics should limit scientific research is a very interesting and important topic. I believe your answer is that ethics should not ever limit science, but I believe that observation of ethics is a necessary condition for science to exist in the first place.

Totalitarianist

Would it be advisable, then, to randomly select persons from the criminal, insane, and feebleminded classes of people? I mean, we do not want great minds to be randomly selected. They simply have done too much for mankind.

fando

You have just supported the case for observing ethics in Science. If we do just the criminals and feebleminded, we are placing restrictions on obtaining knowledge. What if the smart folks have a lower tolerance to the rat poison?

Infinity Lover

Disembowelment of the absolute idea?

Discection of the absolute idea?

Disintergration of the absolute idea?

Hey, you never know what we might find out. Mankind may profit from it.

Philosoft

Nyet. Once you place limitations on the potential population of subjects, you are no longer doing experimental science. The degree to which you can generalize your results to the total population becomes further constrained.

Hugo Holbling

Yeah - all Christians do that...