For century’s man-kinds insatiable thirst for knowledge has pushed the boundaries of morality. Whilst certain ethical lines may be crossed however, there always seems to be some scientific justification. It is this that I intend to examine; to what extent does ‘scientific justification’ balance the crossing of those moral boundaries.
I will begin by looking at one of the most extreme examples I can find in recent history. At the University of California researchers led by Dr. Yang Dan chemically paralyzed and anesthetized a cat, secured it to a surgical frame and then glued its eyes open forcing it to watch a short film over and over again. As horrific as this experiment sounds, the technology that could be developed as a result of this could be huge. By inserting fiber electrodes into the vision processing centre of the cats brain, the scientists were able to view the images (albeit very blurrily) exactly as the cat was seeing them. Whilst this technology could be commercially massive, realistically this is not for some sort of ‘greater good’; this is solely to satisfy mans need for an easier and more advanced lifestyle. However it is definitely incredibly exciting to imagine the impacts this technology would have on our culture, as it would potentially give us the ability to see exactly as others do. I can already see issues arising however. The main one in my opinion being privacy; with the ever-increasing amount of wireless connectivity in our daily life, how long will it be until someone can hack directly into your brain?
That is an extreme example of where the pursuit for technological greatness over looks questions of ethics and morals, as in more recent years scientists deliberately avoid creating ethical debates and arguments. A good example of this is an article on BBC news about searching for the origins of life. The article talks about the use and development of the technology that allows scientists to see into the far reaches of space searching for life other than ourselves, putting them in a better position to answer that question. They claim that as they are not creating life, it avoids any ethical concerns. In my opinion it doesn’t totally avoid this, as they are attempting to turn theories into facts that directly conflict with certain religions. However, it could be said that the ethical arguements created by the use of these technologies can be countered by one of the positive uses. Apparently, searching for alien life is incredibly similar to trying to detect a virus in a human. In this instance, all ethical concerns are minor in comparison to the positive impacts of technology; however it is important to know where to draw that line.At the same time as this article was published there was another interesting one from BBC news that talks about the development of technology with a lot of ethical issues surrounding it; the attempt to grow meat without the killing of any animals. This is done by using stem cells from live animals to create what is essentially ‘test-tube’ meat. In the article Professor Post justifies his experimentations by outlining current issues surrounding farming, such as the fact that 18% of greenhouse gases come from livestock and of course the animal welfare argument. These are valid points, as the use of this ‘fake-meat’ would prevent those problems. However, what are not mentioned in the article are the negative impacts. The most important of these has to be what will this meat potentially do to the farming industry, a sector that is already struggling as it is? Also will it ever be as good as the real thing? These two important questions have both been overlooked by the article. In my opinion, and this may be slightly biased as I come from a long line of farmers, it will take away countless jobs and not actually solve anything. The laws surrounding the ways animals are treated on farms in the UK at the moment are incredibly strict, and despite the animals eventually being killed they live a very decent life. Food is not the issue that I believe needs tackling, instead try and come up with a solution for more morally gray industries such as leather? Saying that however I do not think the world would ever allow one its oldest trades, farming, to become extinct.
The diagram above is a diagram often referred to by philosophers of the basic components that make up a moral system. One philosopher in particular who commonly focuses on ethics and technology is Hans Jonas who gave this statement as a moral code; ‘Act so that the effects of your actions are compatible with the permanence of genuine human life.’ By looking at this quote and the diagram it should provide an decisive rule of thumb when trying to see where to draw the line of pursuing technological greatness whilst upholding human morals. Or so you would think…
References:
1. Elephants on Acid by Alex Boese, published in Orlando, Florida by Harvest Publishing in 2007
2. Ethics and Technology Third Edition by Herman T. Tavani, published in the USA by RDC Publishing Group in 2007.
Images:
3. Ethics and Technology Third Edition by Herman T. Tavani, published in the USA by RDC Publishing Group in 2007.
