Hi Everybody.

I am currently taking this class in school called Islamic Science. One of the objectives in this class is to makes the students understand that Science and Ethics have a relationship. In other words Science and ethics are dependent on one another.

i supposed this is true when the issue of cloning is debated.

But what say all of you? Do you believe that ethics should be mixed in science? Or you think science you be independent on everything else?

Yes and no.

Ethics is again not definitive. It is based on individual, cultural, and society's acceptance of a certain behavior.

Cloning based on my ethics or moral principals is not unethical and I am all for it. Also, while I find the action of experimenting on animals inhumane and cruel, I regard it as being in a gray area of my personal ethics. I wouldn't perform those actions myself yet I am not against such actions being carried out by others if the end justifies the means. Testing has to be done, and though I would rather have humans volunteer to become test subjects and leave animals alone, that is not happening, so we take what we can get.

A lot of ethics and morality is just a mask and a rationalisation of what is acceptable behavior.

However when it comes to science, and the technology it brings, a proper examination of morality and ethics is vital and critical.

On the one hand you have cause and effect and science does not exist in isolation from this.

On the other hand you have the issue and question of what it means to be human, which a lot of people either already lose touch of, or take for granted.

The latter is especially important when it comes to science and technology which has post-human or transhumanist potential.

Ini kebodohan maksimum, but that is expected from a school dropout. I"ve suggested it before, start studying again, and reading more books.

To a certain extent yes. There should exist boundaries defined by society as to how far we can take science.

While this may seem rather subjective as a whole, since ethical, is merely a man-made definition of what is right and what is wrong, it does make sense to say when to stop. Some things should be left alone, or not experimented on.

science is to help us solve unethical problems by unethical scientists

well.. if you want to argue about ethics... there are medicines and those medicinal technology that you are using now, are the born from previous sacrifices.

so if you were to not support living test subjects, then you should not take whatever the result is as for your own benefit.

Just one question. If your school is really concern with the ethics in science, why name the subject Islamic Science? Why not ethical science? No problem with science and ethics mixed together. But religion and science is a big no go.

It seems you have something against me. But lets say you're not. Which part of my post expresses "kebodohan maksimum" and why if you may.

you can ignore him, to him, almost everyone here is stupid and he's the only one smart enough.

No matter how you see it, it will be inhumane. Test on volunteer subjects and people will tell you to do it on animals. Do it on animals and people will say, people should volunteer.


Either way, its boils down to the same thing : Progress cannot happen without sacrifice, no matter how unethical it is, if it benefits everyone in the long run, then meh.

@Alone
Thank you. ^^

@Zeratos
I'll have to agree. I might find it hard to accept it we were to experiment on humans too, even if it were with their consent. But at least humans are able to give their consent, while with animals we are just doing as we please.
Ultimately though, as you said, if it is beneficial for humankind, then lets just turn a blind eye.

@TS
It would be very informational to know what is defined as being ethical and unethical based on the subject you are currently taking.

This is a course I am taking in college actually... Its just like an extra course.

Yes, the course is about Islam and Science, but the course just got me thinking about ethics in general and the relationship with science.

I believe that the advance of technology has enabled use to experiment on man-made orgarnism such as the MetaChip. Thus would be wise to reduce the amount of experimenting done on animals or humans?

Also, I know ethics is very subjective. So I supposed it is kinda hard to judge the correlation between science and ethics.

rather than dependent, i would say ethics and science are conflicting matters. ethics inhibit scientific progess and to progress in science, some form of ethics may sometimes need to be compromised

therefore, islamic science in itself is a term fraught with conflict as islam is a religion which propagates strong ethical idealogies.

the subject ur studying my friend, is a joke.

This post has been edited by b3ta: Jan 15 2010, 06:52 AM

If you are talking about them in their mutually exclusive arenas... then obviously science is well, science and ethics is part of philosophy.

I wouldn't go so far as to agree that science and ethics are dependent on each other. Science MAY partially be dependent on ethics, but I hardly see where it is necessary in ethics studies to incorporate science (the subject, not the abstract notion of scientifically studying ethics because one cannot scientifically study an abstract notion). I think a more appropriate word would be 'related'.

Science is partially dependent/related to on ethics because firstly, science is conducted by human beings. On a social level, what we do or how we behave is largely regulated by what is acceptable in society.

Because science deals (more often than not) with things that affect human life, human life is therefore largely at the mercy of what science can produce. This is where it is important for people in the scientific field to understand that there are consequences to their actions and if it is overall detrimental to humanity, then a limit has to be imposed to prevent further harm. This can also be seen in the ethics code that doctors have to abide by.

This post has been edited by teh tarik satu: Jan 15 2010, 11:22 AM

those ppl who are against animal testing should protest to volunteer to be a subject for drug testing instead of voicing how 'cruel' animal testing is.( for your info: testing a drug, without prior toxicity testing on animals, on human subjects is very unethical and irresponsible; very high chances of killing the subjects. puppies are too expensive to experiment on and they are not common for testing anyways)
the view on experimental science by laymen is always in a bad light mainly being projected by the media. scientists have to abide by ethical code in using animals for experiments, for ex. subjects should not be in prolonged pain and killing of subjects must be quick.

dont take your religious view as us . Islam encompasses all human life and deeds . eat drink run math play jump science all got something to do with Islam trust me.

for ts, in islam , GOD has given us outline and guideline on how we run our life. thus, science should be considered after the view of religion (strictly islam). this subject is not a joke . at least give awareness for someone who are putting away religion in their worldly affair

What a contradiction, on 1 side you tell b3ta not to assert his religious view on you, and yet in the next sentence you assert your own belief on others.

Anyway, the role of ethics in science seems rather difficult to standardize to me. The fact that ethics are totally subjective and inconsistent from 1 individual to another seems the total opposite of science, which is an exact and definitive study of the universe around us. The 2 seem like water and oil to me, and I don't think they will ever merge harmoniously. Someone somewhere will always have a set of ethics in his own mind totally different from the norm

ethics in science is in 2 category;

1. science is by its own neutral. all knowledge can be used or abused. so dont abuse science knowledge.

2. does the end justify the means? if curing cancer involves extensive human testing that may end up killing hundreds or thousands, would you agree?

Comes back to the point that ethics are very subjective from person to person. You and I might not agree, but someone wracked with cancer out there might just say ok.

Those with like just 2-3 months to live will happily volunteer for such experimental treatment. I know my late uncle did, and considering his condition then, the rest of the family agreed with his choice too.