Science and morality seem to be incongruous things that can never cross. The first is a whole series of ideas about the world around us, which can in no way depend on human consciousness. The second is a set of norms that regulate 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 have points of intersection, which can be found if you look at these two things from a different angle.
Why study the interaction of science and morality?
The huge gap between the two spheres of life can significantly decrease already at the first approximation. For example, the immutable law of the food chain is not good or evil, it's just a well-known fact. But at the same time, there are cases when its participants, for one reason or another, refused to adhere to it and eat weaker ones.creatures. According to scientists, here we can just 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 present 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, we are talking about how you can correlate the findings obtained as a result of this combination. It also includes rules and values that can be used to regulate the behavior of researchers in academia. Some scientists believe that scientific and non-scientific can meet each other in completely different areas of life.
What inventions could result from their interaction?
On 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 morality, since scientific knowledge is stimulated by a huge number of factors - funding, interest in discoveries from a scientist, the development of the sphere under study, etc. Knowledge from a metaphysical point of view does not have any moral characteristics, it is neither good nor bad.
But the situation changes dramatically when the information received allows you to create something dangerous to human life- a bomb, weapons, military equipment, genetic equipment, etc. In this case, the scientist has to face moral problems, in particular, is it worth continuing his research in this direction if they can harm people? In parallel with this, another question arises - can the researcher accept responsibility for the negative consequences caused by using his discovery to kill, sow discord, and also control the minds of other members of society.
The concepts of science and morality are often incompatible in this case, because most scientists in this case decide to continue their research. It is difficult to assess 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 does not matter in which particular area 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 the laws discovered by scientists can bring evil to the world. Many inhabitants of the planet oppose 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 variousactions with the human mind. Their opponents argue that even those discoveries that do not carry any harm can be banned by such methods, and they call for an unbiased attitude to scientific progress. Knowledge itself in this case plays a neutral role, but its application causes serious concerns.
Which subject studies morality in society?
Since there are phenomena that demonstrate morality, there must be a scientific direction that will study and describe them. This is how the philosophical science of morality and ethics appeared - ethics. In society, this term is quite often understood as a synonym for the word "morality", and when evaluating an act from the point of view of ethics, it means its worthiness and moral justification.
Very difficult to study the issue is the relationship of morality and morality. Despite the fact that they are quite often considered synonyms, there are very serious differences between them. According to existing traditions, morality must be considered as a system of norms enshrined in culture, followed by a particular society. Requirements and ideals in this case are passed on from older generations to younger ones.
Morality in this case will represent the real behavior of a person that can meet these standards. It may differ significantly from accepted standards, but at the same time comply with certain other norms. The most famous example of such a conflict is the trial ofSocrates, who is a moral model for many generations, but was condemned for behavior that was inconsistent with the morality preached by the Athenian society.
According to the science that studies morality and ethics, the normative system that functions within society is an ideal that can never be fully realized. That is why all the lamentations about the promiscuity of youth, which the older generation is famous for, should be seen as a major gap between moral standards and human behavior, in which all non-compliance with ideals is massive.
What does the world look like ethically?
The science of morality and behavior studies how the universe should be arranged. Other disciplines are engaged in the study of objectively existing things, regardless of whether they like humanity or not, such an approach to the conduct of scientific activity in ethics is unacceptable. Here, the assessment of the fact in terms of worthiness, as well as its compliance with the existing parameters of good and evil, acquires key importance.
This science is obliged to explain the attitude of mankind to existing phenomena and facts, to describe in as much detail as possible. To some extent, ethics is similar to epistemology, the purpose of which is to study the relationship of a person to realities from the point of view of fidelity or fallacy and aesthetics, where they are divided into beautiful and ugly. Ethics is based on only two categories - good and evil, and this fact must be taken into account when conducting research.
How are evaluativerelationship?
At first glance, it seems that the science of morality (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 perform a certain action aimed at a certain object, and only after it has been completed can one speak of 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 actions from the point of view of morality can be considered as good, then the last one will raise a large number of questions: “Is this decision good for the patient?”, “Why should the doctor be good?”, “What obliges him to act in a certain way? » etc.
Answers to them are somehow related to legal norms and are clearly reflected in the legislation, failure to comply with the latter may entail sanctions of a different nature. In addition, the obligation of one person to perform an act in relation to another may be of a non-legal nature, the science of morality and morality takes this into account.
Absolutely every person can give their moral assessment of one or another action, but its perception will be subjective. So, a girl can listen to the opinion of her friends regarding this or that act, and listen to only one of them. Usually,listen to those people who have a sufficiently high moral authority. In some cases, the source of evaluation may be some scientific organization that condemns the act of its employee.
Why is it important to observe intrascientific 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 cannot always be held responsible for the consequences of their 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 engaged in research in applied fields. What exactly they want to get on the basis of someone else's discovery - no one knows, it is quite possible that it will be about designing devices that can harm humanity and the world as a whole.
Do researchers think about morality?
Each 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 intelligence and military organizations, where in the course of work they perfectly understand what their knowledge is for. Various types of weapons can only be created after lengthy research, so scientists can never claim that theyuse in the dark.
In this case, the points of contact between science and morality become quite obvious, 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, as well as to admire the beauty of their own creation. Thus, any scientific research must be carried out with a humanistic goal, namely to achieve the benefit of all mankind, otherwise it will lead to destruction and serious problems.
Where do scientific and non-scientific meet?
Quite often, the relationship between science and morality makes itself felt in applied fields, in areas of research specializing in the implementation of scientific innovations. As an example, consider the painful issue of cloning, which is prohibited in many countries of the world. It can help grow organs that people need so much due to illness or various accidents, and then it should be considered as a boon that can significantly extend human life.
At the same time, cloning can be used by governments of different countries to form numerous individuals with the necessary qualities for certain jobs. In terms of morality, use yourselfsimilar as slaves for humanity is unacceptable. And yet, cloning is carried out clandestinely in various countries, despite bans.
Similar questions appear when considering the problems of transplantation in detail. Science and morality are quite closely intertwined here, even if the former 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 exactly how consciousness will feel when it wakes up in a new body for itself, how close people will relate to such an operation, scientists are unlikely to be able to solve these and other questions.
Is this relevant for inaccurate spheres?
The ratio of science and morality is also found in the humanities, for example, in psychology. The application of existing postulates in practice has a powerful effect on people, and inexperienced psychologists can seriously harm their patients by instilling in them the wrong attitudes towards life. A person providing such consultations must have the skills of a practitioner and a 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 rests 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 - this is the quality that a scientist who undertakes the interpretation of historical facts should have. Heshould 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 an ethnic or even social type, as well as a misunderstanding between generations. Thus, the influence of history on moral consciousness seems to be very serious.
How to change the situation?
Since the claim that science is beyond morality is completely wrong, scientists need to develop new rules for conducting research. If earlier the principle “The end justifies the means” was used everywhere, then in the 21st century it must be abandoned, since researchers take on their shoulders a huge responsibility for their own discoveries and further consequences. It would 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 functionality of a scientist. The latter should be taken into account when setting research objectives, determining the means for their solution, and testing the results obtained. It seems effective to include social and humanitarian expertise in scientific activities, with the help ofwhich can determine how useful and beneficial for mankind a new invention will be.
