Do Scientists Have Any Special Moral Obligations? Essay

1. Topic Consider the extent to which companionship turn outs in ethics ar similar to those in at least integrity other area of noesisDo scientists arrest each special clean obligations? Or should cognizance search to be allay from any values and righteouss? This has been a popular topic that has been discussed end-to-end non all this century just also, centuries previous to us. While tone at natural sciences and ethics we elicit receive that these two areas of knowledge are quite similar, specifically when looking at theories of ethics and how it can be implemented towards natural sciences. Using reason we can post this and emotion in secernate to determine that scientist do not commit a moral obligation and should not seek to be openhanded from any values and morals.This will be proven by compare scientist that aro routine used moral obligations such as the Arabs during the Islamic halcyon Age and this is proof that science can prosper when scientists hav e a moral obligation. unless there are also several(predicate) perspectives of this termination with some people arguing that we are in a different century when the backbone of club has shifted towards science and that we must give science freedom in order to prosper more in the future(a).This is unvarnished in real life from an article in the Daily Mail, which say that a scientist took a sapling from Norway, which was infected with a ailment in order to grasp a science experiment. The result was that the disease has spread throughout England killing around 200,000 trees in the process. This article is evident about the opening that scientists read to have a moral obligation such as everyone else in society has to oblige to. The reason being that if scientist get to vacate obligations then this will go against the ethical glide slope of Kant which states that no soul should be inclined preferential treatment.This is demonstrated in the wedded fashion model by showin g how a scientist got a sapling into a country with a disease in order to accomplish an experiment and did not wish what would happen to other people in society. This demonstrates that to a authentic extent ethics does concern to natural sciences because scientists must take away ethics when doing a science experiment. By using differentapproaches to ethics such as Kant and utilitarianism, which both agree on the fact that no person is supra everyone else, which to a legitimate(p) extent is evident from some scientists such as the one from the example above.The example about the scientist getting a disease for trees into England for an experiment may seem obvious that scientist should have a moral obligation to a received extent. But the fact is that this data is from one scientist or organization and that the whole science community should not be judged for the mistake of one of its sectors. This goes with Kants approach to ethics to a certain extent because Kant theory state s that the moral value of an act is determined by the motive and not the consequences of the act. This can relate to the article to a certain extent because the scientist may have been trying to find something that would benefit society more then it would impact it negatively.Another issue that would go against the spirit that scientists need moral obligation is the fact that scientists believe they have the calling to explore the universe and try to find answers to their questions. This works with the belief of affair ethics, which states that for a scientist, science is a matter of doing your duty and fulfilling your obligations. The only issue to this cause is that all of the scientists should not be blamed is the fact that this has given a bad image towards scientists to umteen people not only in England unless the world. This illustrates that to a certain extent their should be a rule that will place a moral obligation all over the heads of scientist all over the globe, corresponding everyone else in society.Can science co equal when they are under moral obligations that relate to religion. Well some(prenominal) people in society would disagree with this theory, but when looking at history it is evident that religion and science have existed in concert and have prospered unneurotic in history. An example of this would be the Islamic Golden Age, where many important areas of science were studied quite meticulously, such as astronomy where Muslims used their moral obligation, which was the Quran in order to further their studies of astronomy and chemistry.This displays that despite popular claims science and religion can work together to a certain extent and this is displayed through scientists using a moral obligation or following their ethicalbeliefs before doing an experiment. This can relate to the example about the scientist who brought the diseased tree to England because that by chance if scientist were in constrained to follow a moral o bligation that is followed by people in society, he might have not brought that plant. The reasons being is the scientist might have considered the utilitarianism approach to ethics (which was also used by the Muslims during the Golden Age) and consider the fact that he might not believe that this decision would seek the greatest happiness of the greatest number.The only issue with this belief is that we are now in a new century where science inappropriate in the past is firmly the backbone of society. Because if this we must to a certain extent break the shackles of scientist and free them of values or morals. This is firmly tell in the ted video starring Michael Specter, who states that we are in current station that has not been seen before in society. The reason being that we are fit to do so much for society by using science, but the only issue is the fact that people do not hope to believe the results obtained by scientist because it is chastely wrong to alter food in or der to have more of it. In the video Michael Specter argues that scientist should not have a moral obligation in order to do an experiment, which may help society more, than hurt it.Such as the use of genetically enhanced food which to some people would seem morally incorrect because this is altering natures food. But on the other hand if we keep open with genetically enhancing food we could end world hunger in the nigh decade, since we would be able to send food to countries that could not grow a big amount of food like the countries in Africa. This would become ironic because if we do not believe this then we are going against the utilitarianism approach of ethics, which states that we must try to utilise the nigh happiness from any given situation. For this situation it can be argued that Michael Specter is right to a certain extent that in some occasions maybe scientists should be allowed to do by their moral obligations in order to pursue their goals in science.The signif icance of this argument is that scientists are holding a major(ip) hand in the future of society as we know it, and as we can see in many events in society we are already learning that maybe science needs to have amoral obligation like the rest of society. The reason why this would be true is that scientist could affect the world in a negative aspect such as the scientist in England who killed nearly 200,000 trees in order to accomplish a single experiment. This could take on to a problem that maybe science and religion cannot work together and one of them must conquer the other, but to me this is false because we have seen that throughout history we have used religion in order to accomplish science.This is evident in the Islamic Golden Age, which gives hope that people in this century do not need to fight which one is right, but work together in order to prosper in the future. But the other side of this argument would be the fact that scientist cannot have a moral obligation becau se if this occurs then they would not be able to do their experiment in order to benefit society. Also the fact that science is slowly becoming the backbone of our society and that in order to mount further in the future we must remove the chains mangle scientists and release them in to the wild in order to have the most success out of science.From the evidence presented in this essay we can see that this questions has many different perspectives that we must take into account. But the fact is that the major evidence in this essay states that science must have a moral obligation because it is evident that science can co exist with ethics, values and morals and that scientists even if they do not like it need to have a moral obligation in order to exert the most happiness in society.