Detractors of science have been vehemently chastising it for its inventions which go against ethics, which are understood as moral values that people agree upon. These opponents claim that science, with the creation of nuclear weapon which has caused great damage to mankind as well as genetic modification which questions the sanctity of life, is unethical. Thus, it is believed among them that science and ethics cannot find a consensus, and they do not mix well, similar to water and oil, which always remain separated no matter how hard we try to mix them together. These arguments may be seemingly true, however, by looking at the issue profoundly, we find that it is too overgeneralising and myopic to be so certain that ethics and science cannot integrate as there are cases where a consensus is achievable and science is indeed amoral and thus,
To be fair, we should acknowledge that there exist cases in history where science is has been used for inhumane acts which are unquestionably cruel and unethical. The Jews who suffered during World War II would never forget the fear they had when they heard of Dr. Josef Mengele, (who was also known as Angel of Death). He was the one who injected dye into Jewish prisoners’ eyes and performed vivisections and forcible conjoining on Jewish children in order to find out the way how to create the superior Aryan race. We also would not forget how the pilot of Enola Gay, upon witnessing the calamity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki unleashed “What have we done?”. Such exclamation reminds us how science can be used against mankind, against ethics to kill a large number of people and leave behind a devastating state with traumatizing experiences for those who survived. By citing these examples, detractors of science seem to be apprehensible to claim that science and ethics do conflict.
However, while the act of Dr. Mengele is definitely barbaric and gruesome which have gone beyond the limit of ethics and humanity, we are still having difficulty condemning Einstein’s formula of E=mc2 which has led to the creation of nuclear bombs. This is similar to the case of Alfred Nobel’s invention of dynamite which has caused the sufferings and destruction during wars and conflicts. These scientists when discovering these inventions did not think that they would use their inventions for such purposes which contradict with ethical values. Their pursuit of science is, at heart, to improve the life of mankind. Science is amoral, and these scientists have constantly sought to use it for moral purposes. The splitting of the atom yields nuclear power and dynamite today is being used for industrial purposes like what Alfred Nobel envisioned when he first invented it. It was indeed the people who decide to use these inventions for either moral or immoral purposes as Thomas Hobbes has said in his theory. It is never the gun that kills a person, but the person who pulls the trigger. If it is the case, it would be superficial to say science and ethics are like water and oil, since science is itself neutral and it is not unethical by nature.
It is also controversial when it comes to the issue of the sanctity of life. Ethical values indicate that all lives are sacred and no one can take others’ lives away. Meanwhile, scientists believe that 7-day embryo displays none or little traits of a human being. According to them, as the embryo lacks sentience or any conscious life, it is acceptable to remove it in the case of abortion or to do an experiment and discard it in the case of genetic engineering. It is an ethical concern that genetic engineering, by allowing genes and traits to be predetermined before births, it may lead to a slippery slope where there is a possibility that there would be discrimination between non-designed and designed babies who are produced by the new technology which allows screening and selecting embryos due to their genes. People who were born naturally with a disability will feel inferior towards those who are genetically modified to be perfect and have better health. This would cause a great impact on the societal structure as the idea of “superiority” as well as “eugenics” reemerge and people who are designed babies will stand a higher chance of employment as well as higher positions in the society due to their good appearances and health. As a result, it has been a long-lasting disagreement between science and ethics.
However, to not be extreme, we should scrutinize the issue by taking a step further by looking at what determines something ethical or unethical. Ethics, in the end, is not a universal set of rules and regulations that everyone believes in. It varies in different cultures according to the theory of cultural relativism and in different religions as well. One issue can be ethical to one person but may not be so to the other and vice versa. While some people may think that abortion is undoubtedly wrong, to others, to allow abortion is more ethical since it releases raped victims from the traumatic memories and allows them to turn a new leaf for their lives. As there is a disagreement between moral absolutism and moral relativism which judges the rightness of the actions by looking at each situation, ethics itself is not absolute and not unanimously agreed on by everyone, science and ethics though may conflict to some people, they instead can mix well to others. Therefore, we should not reach the conclusion too fast that science and ethics are like water and oil.
To affirm the claim that science and ethics are not water and oil, we can look at cases where science and ethics are actually convergent as science serves to improve life of mankind and for humanitarian purposes. In the area of environment conservation, science has developed alternative sources of energy such as solar, nuclear and hydro power to lessen the dependence of human on oil and thus reduce pollution. Besides, we should take into consideration the fact that thanks to science, many lives are safe with the invention of drugs and vaccines to combat diseases from easy to treat illnesses like polio to more complicated ones like AIDS, SARS and the recent COVID19. In the latest incident where the Chilean miners were stuck underground, they would not survive after a few months without sunlight without the help of technology. Few people know that it is the Centre Rock drill bit that made way for the miners to be pulled up to the ground, it is the flexible, fiber optic communication cables that helped them talked to the rescue team and their family members. If it were not these technology advancements developed by science, many lives would be lost. As science helps save life and contribute to the better humanity, we would say science and ethics are mixable.
In conclusion, it seems that science and ethics do contradict with one another at times, just like oil and water. However, as ethical philosophy may be caught in moral battles, with absolutes and conundrums, it is possible for science and ethics to reach a consensus. We should not be too fixated to say that science and ethics can never agree with one another, as this will impede the progress of mankind since it denies the development of science which may save lives or help human to progress.
Seems like you have rushed through this essay Uyen. Your original expression and flair is grossly missing from this essay. Good points, but there are parts where you could have expanded. There are also parts where grammar and expression could have been better presented. Can you find those areas?
C: 18
L: 14