RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Tuesday, January 7, 2003 - 7:21am

Help needed with constructing a system to determine which knowledge is ethical. Anyone?

Tuesday, January 7, 2003 - 7:47am

May, I think that allowing anybody to determine that some knowledge is ethical and others are not is itself immoral, as telling a person that his knowledge is evil is only a small step away from telling him that his thoughts are evil. I do not accept that knowledge by itself can be anything but morally neutral or good. The means by which knowledge is obtained can be judged, and the uses to which knowledge is put can be judged, but to judge the knowledge itself comes too close for my taste to judging thought and reason.

Tuesday, January 7, 2003 - 8:12am

Hi Matthew, are you saying that we can't decide which knowledge should or should not be pursued, because all morals are relative? I do see a problem in separating knowledge from the means by which it is obtained. If we want to do research on human cloning, we have no other choice but to clon human. How do we know if it's right or wrong?

What premises do we hold that lead to our conclusions about what knowledge to seek? Even if knowledge itself is value-free, there're often economic constraints attached to the production of knowledge. Should we do AIDS research or should we do space research? How do we decide?

Tuesday, January 7, 2003 - 11:57am

No, May, I am saying that you cannot judge knowledge itself to be either "good" or "evil", and that to trust any one person or group with the authority to make such a judgment is to ask for trouble.

I personally see no problem is separating knowledge from the means of obtaining knowledge. Treat knowledge as an end and ask if the end justifies the means. If the end justifies the means, then anything goes. However, I do not accept the premise that the end justifies the means, even in pursuit of knowledge.

Considering your example of cloning, as an example, I would not say that the knowledge itself is right or wrong, but instead I would ask if it is right to actually clone a human in order to learn how to do it. In such a situation, I would say that such an experiment is moral as long as the person being cloned has given her informed consent (informed consent being a requirement for ethical medical research), and as long as the results of the cloning operation are taken care of. If a scientist clones a human and that clone is mentally or physically defective, then the scientist has a moral responsibility to care for his creation. If the clone is of normal physical and mental ability, then it is entitled to the same human rights as the person being cloned.

Don't judge knowledge itself as moral or immoral, but the means by which it is obtained. The end never justifies the means, May.

Now, regarding the economic constraints. You ask how "we" should decide whether to do research on AIDS or space exploration. As far as I am concerned, the only people who have any right at all to decide what research should be done are the scientists themselves, and the people handing out research grants.

If I have a billion dollars and I want to spend it all on research connected with making nuclear fusion a viable power source, then I have every right to do so. Why? My money is my own property.

If a scientist wants to hunt down a cure for AIDS and can persuade people to fund his research, then he has a moral right to do so. Why? His life and mind are his own property.