The Scientific Miracles

[mdwh2]

Karlos wrote:
"Humanists recognize that it is only when people feel free to think for themselves, using reason as their guide, that they are best capable of developing values that succeed in satisfying human needs and serving human interests"

Well, when you use only reason as your guide, you can justify an awful lot of things which may make scientific sense but are clearly unethical.

What it comes down to is that a lot of ethical things are a matter of opinion.

In your example, it's not the case that you have shown that one can reason something "clearly unethical". I would say that it's not clear which way is ethical. As you said, you can reason that we should sterilise. But equally, we can reason that it is unethical.

Reason is a tool that allows you to deduce what follows from an original set of statements or ideas, but you still need to have some way of deciding how we measure what is best, what is ethical. As long as the person making the argument is able to explain what his way of deciding whether things are ethical or not, along with his reasoning, then that is fine.

If you think that someone has used reason to suggest something that you feel is "clearly unethical", then there ought to clearly be an alternative set of reasoning to prove your point, and counter the original argument.

"There is nothing scientifically unreasonable about this approach."

There are plenty of of things unreasonable with your point. *I* can come up with plenty of reasons why what you describe should not be done, but I'm curious that you seem to hold a belief that you seem to simultaneously believe is ethical but unreasonable. I'm also not sure what you mean by "scientifically unreasonable" - I don't think science itself makes any ethical judgements (a nuclear bomb can be made using science; obviously scientific things are not always ethical), but science can be used when reasoning.

That's not to say that I think people should give in if someone is a better debater than you are - I realise that sometimes, people have a gut feeling that something should be unethical even if they can't explain why. But just because they are unable to explain it doesn't mean that there is no way to explain it.

[mdwh2]

Karlos wrote:
Hey dude, that wasn't actually my opinion, it was supposed to provoke some thought on the idea that if one uses only what seems to be a logical and rational approach to all matters, you can justify an awful lot of things that many people (myself included) feel are clearly wrong/unethical.

Well that's what I was arguing at - something is only "clearly" wrong because there exists some logical and rational argument supporting that viewpoint.

There probably exists some kind of argument to exist all sorts of things, but I should hope we can come up with counter-arguments for anything which we think is "clearly" unethical.

For example, the suggestions made were to improve future generations physical well being by attempting to remove what could be demonstrated scientifically to be defective genes from the species. That's what I meant by "not scientifically unreasonable" (which wasnt the best turn of phrase, but meant to imply makes sense logically). I also state that there probably isnt a sane person who would be comfortable with that suggestion, but why?

I don't think science makes any ethical suggestions at all. It may give facts - such as this gene causes that, or throwing two lumps of uranium causes a rather big bang - but I don't that automatically gives us any argument that we should go ahead and do those things (be it trying to prevent a gene from propagating, or setting off atomic bombs). I think you're confusing the scientific statements that make sense, and the ways in which people might use that information - they are two different things.

In order to support the idea that people shouldn't be able to reproduce, you also have to combine the scientific facts with the opinion that removing defective genes overrides someone's right to have a child. Also this is very much a matter of probability - usually AIUI there isn't a certainty that genes will be passed on that cause a condition, only a possiblity. Not to mention that a "defective gene" is a subjective and non-scientific opinion. A government might decide that all sorts of traits are undesirable, and try to breed them out. Cultures could also be wiped out by preventing them from having children (Nazi Germany and Jews?)

Simply because it is unethical, was the answer I was hoping for...

Something is unethical, because it is unethical?

The question arises, where do ethics come from? How do you define what is ethical and what is not?

Well, it's all a matter of opinion. But I prefer it when people can at least explain why they think it is wrong (either by describing effects of it that I might not have forseen, or reasoning from some initial set of axioms that I might agree with), rather than just saying circular things like "it's wrong because it's immoral", or statements like "it's wrong because God says so" (which are useless, because you can simply say "it's right because God says so").