Science and morality seem to be incompatible things that can never intersect. The first is a whole series of ideas about the world around us, which in no way can depend on human consciousness. The second is a set of rules governing the behavior of society and the consciousness of its participants, which should be built taking into account the existing confrontation between good and evil. However, they do have intersection points that can be found by looking at these two things from a different angle.
Why do we need to study the interaction of science and morality?
The huge gap between the two spheres of life can significantly narrow even at the first approximation. For example, the immutable law on food chains cannot be considered good or evil, it is simply a well-known fact. But at the same time, there are cases when its participants for one reason or another refused to stick to it and eat weaker creatures. According to scientists, it is just possible to talk about the presence of morality, which exists in any relationship between two subjects.
Science also comes into contact with a huge number of interests that humanity has, and it is impossible to imagine it as a separate spiritual sphere. To understand how morality is combined with scientific research, it is necessary to highlight the most relevant areas of their use. First of all, it is about how to correlate the discoveries obtained as a result of this combination. It also includes rules and values with which you can regulate the behavior of researchers in the scientific community. Some scholars believe that the scientific and unscientific can meet each other in absolutely different areas of life.
What inventions may result from their interaction?
Upon closer examination of the discoveries made during the research, the scientist appears as a relay of objective knowledge about the existing reality. And in this case, it is impossible to say that science is outside of morality, since scientific knowledge is stimulated by a huge number of factors - financing, interest in discoveries by a scientist, development of the sphere under study, etc. Knowledge from a metaphysical point of view does not have any moral characteristics, it can not be called good or bad.
But the situation changes dramatically when the information received allows you to create something dangerous for human life - a bomb, weapons, military equipment, genetic equipment, etc. In this case, the scientist has to deal with moral problems, in particular, is it worth continuing his research in given direction, if they can harm people? In parallel with this, another question arises - can a researcher take responsibility for the negative consequences caused by using his opening for murders, sowing discord, as well as controlling the mind of other members of society.
The concepts of science and morality are often incompatible in this case, because most of the scientists in this case decide to continue their research. It is difficult to evaluate this from the point of view of morality, since the mind, striving for knowledge, wants to overcome all existing barriers and find secret knowledge about the structure of the universe and humanity. It doesn’t matter in which area the research will be conducted, choosing between the development of science and morality, scientists prefer the first option. Sometimes such a decision leads to the implementation of illegal experiments, while scientists are not afraid to act outside the law, it is more important for them to achieve the truth.
Thus, the main moral problem that arises here is that laws discovered by scientists can bring evil to the world. Many people on the planet are opposed to some research, in their opinion, humanity is not yet able to adequately perceive them. For example, we are talking about the possibilities of carrying out various actions with human consciousness. Their opponents argue that such methods can even prohibit discoveries that do not do any harm, and urge scientific treatment to be open-minded. Knowledge itself in this case plays a neutral role, but its use causes serious concern.
What subject does the study of morality in society?
Since there are phenomena that demonstrate morality, there must be a scientific direction that will study and describe them. That is how the philosophical science of morality appeared - ethics. In society, this term is often understood as a synonym for the word “morality”, and when assessing an act from the point of view of ethics, it refers to its worthiness and moral justification.
A very difficult subject to study is the relationship of morality and morality. Despite the fact that they are often considered synonymous, there are very serious differences between them. According to existing traditions, morality must be considered as a system of norms enshrined in culture, which follows a single society. Requirements and ideals in this case are transmitted from older generations to younger ones.
Morality in this case will represent the actual behavior of a person, which may comply with these standards. It may differ significantly from accepted standards, but at the same time comply with some other standards. The most famous example of such a collision is the trial of Socrates, which is a moral model for many generations, but has been convicted of behavior inappropriate to the morality advocated by the Athenian society.
According to the science that studies morality, the normative system functioning within society is an ideal that can never be fully realized. That is why all lamentations about the licentiousness of young people, which the older generation is famous for, should be considered as a major gap between moral standards and human behavior, in which all non-compliance with ideals are massive.
What does the world look like in terms of ethics?
The science of morality and norms of behavior studies how the universe should be arranged. Other disciplines are studying objectively existing things, not paying attention to whether humanity likes them or not, a similar approach to conducting scientific activity in ethics is unacceptable. Here the key importance is the assessment of the fact from the point of view of worthiness, as well as its compliance with the existing parameters of good and evil.
This science is obliged to explain the attitude of mankind to existing phenomena and facts, to describe it in the most detail. To some extent, ethics is similar to epistemology, the purpose of which is to study the relationship of a person to realities in terms of fidelity or fallacy and aesthetics, where they are divided into beautiful and ugly. Ethics is based only on two categories - good and evil, and this fact must be taken into account when conducting research.
How are valuation relationships embodied here?
At first glance, it seems that the science of morality is not ethics at all, but psychology, but this is not so, since the impact of the latter on the environment is minimal. In ethics, the situation is completely different, there will always be a subject who is obliged to carry out a certain action aimed at a specific object, and only after its implementation it will be possible to talk about any assessment.
For example, a doctor can alleviate the suffering of his patient in a variety of ways: give an injection, give a pill, in some countries even offer euthanasia. And if the first two acts from the point of view of morality can be considered as good, the latter will raise a large number of questions: “Is this decision a blessing for the patient?”, “Why should the doctor carry the good?”, “What obliges him to act in a certain way? " etc.
The answers to them are in one way or another connected with legal norms and are clearly reflected in the legislation; non-compliance with the latter may result in various sanctions. In addition, the obligation of one person to commit an act in relation to another may be of a non-legal nature, the science of morality takes this into account.
Absolutely everyone can give their moral assessment to certain actions, however, its perception will be subjective. So, a girl can listen to the opinion of her friends regarding this or that act, and listen only to one of them. As a rule, they listen to those people who have a fairly high moral authority. In some cases, the source of the assessment may be some scientific organization that condemns the act of its employee.
Why is it important to maintain an ethical ethics?
A huge number of contradictions have always accompanied science and morality, the ethics of science is a rather complicated and cumbersome concept, since scientists can not always be responsible for the consequences of the research, and they practically do not make decisions about their use in real life. As a rule, after any scientific discovery, all laurels belong either to the state or to private organizations that sponsored the research.
At the same time, a situation may arise when the inventions of one scientist can be used by others involved in research in applied fields. What exactly they will want to receive on the basis of someone else's discovery - no one knows, it is quite possible that we will talk about designing devices that can harm humanity and the world as a whole.
Are researchers thinking about morality?
At the same time, every scientist is always aware of the size of his own influence on the creation of systems and objects that can harm people. Quite often they work in reconnaissance and military organizations, where during the course of work they perfectly understand what their knowledge is for. Different types of weapons can be created only after lengthy research, so scientists can’t say in any way that they are used in vain.
The points of contact between science and morality become quite obvious in this case, the ethics of science here often remains in the background. The designers of the atomic bombs that destroyed Nagasaki and Hiroshima hardly thought about the consequences of using their creations. Psychologists believe that in such a situation there is a human desire to rise above the usual concepts of good and evil, and also admire the beauty of their own creation. Thus, any scientific research should be carried out with a humanistic goal, namely, to achieve good for all mankind, otherwise they will lead to destruction and serious problems.
Where do scientific and unscientific meet?
Quite often, the relationship between science and morality makes itself felt in applied fields, in research fields specializing in the implementation of scientific innovations. As an example, consider the painful issue of cloning, which is prohibited in many countries around the world. It can help to grow the organs that people need so much because of illnesses or various accidents, and then it should be considered as a good that can significantly extend human life.
At the same time, cloning can be used by governments of different states to form numerous individuals possessing the necessary qualities for certain work. From a moral point of view, using oneself as slaves for humanity is unacceptable. Nevertheless, cloning is secretly carried out in various countries, despite the prohibitions.
Similar questions arise in a detailed examination of transplantation problems. Science and morality are closely intertwined here, even if the first one takes a serious step forward and learns to move the brain between the bodies of different people without physiological consequences, from a moral point of view this will be a rather strange process. It is not known how exactly the consciousness that wakes up in a new body will feel itself, how close people will relate to such an operation, scientists and these other questions are unlikely to be solved.
Is this relevant for inaccurate areas?
The relationship between science and morality is also found in the humanities, for example, in psychology. Putting existing postulates into practice has a powerful effect on people, and inexperienced psychologists can seriously harm their patients by instilling in them the wrong attitudes. A person who provides such consultations is required to possess the skills of a practitioner and theorist, have high moral ideals and be as sensitive as possible, only then his help will be really effective.
A fairly high level of responsibility lies with historians who are engaged in the creation of collective memory, it is their decency that significantly affects the correct interpretation of past events. Honesty - it is precisely this quality that a scientist must possess who undertakes to interpret historical facts. He should be engaged in the search for truth and not succumb to fashion trends, including the desire of politicians to correct the facts.
If a scientist does not share the need to use the concepts of science and morality in research, he can create serious chaos in the minds of a large number of people. In the future, this can turn into a serious conflict of ethnic or even social type, as well as a misunderstanding between generations. Thus, the influence of history on moral consciousness seems very serious.
How to make a difference?
Since the assertion that science is outside of morality is completely false, scientists need to develop new rules for research. If earlier the principle “The end justifies the means” was used everywhere, then in the 21st century it is necessary to abandon it, since researchers shoulder a huge responsibility for their discoveries and further consequences. It will be useful to consider scientific values as a social institution that needs strict control.
Thus, science and morality cannot exist without each other, the first requires significant modernization and the inclusion of values in the functional of the scientist. The latter should be taken into account when setting research objectives, determining the means to solve them, and testing the results obtained. It seems effective to include social and humanitarian expertise in scientific activities, with the help of which you can determine how useful and beneficial a new invention will become for humanity.