"Our first reaction was that 70% of people must not know what nanotechnology is – President Bush, who has openly relied on moral views to shape his scientific agenda, has made nanotechnology one of his scientific priorities, after all. And Dietram Scheufele, the University of Wisconsin professor who led the survey, agrees to a point. People’s understanding of what nanotechnology is hasn’t advanced much over the last few years, he tells the Business Technology Blog. “So people rely on mental shortcuts,” lumping nanotechnology in with other new technologies like stem cell research and genetically modified foods, he tells us. The same people who object to those fields – often on religious reasons – object to nanotechnology. (Incidentally, the heathen Europeans are just fine with nanotechnology.)"Mental shortcuts are naturally the best way to reach the greatest number of conclusions in the least amount of time. And finding GM foods or stem cells morally unacceptable is also equally ditzy. Of course, the WSJ should know that President Bush himself has made nano one of his scientific priorities without understanding what it is. But that's ok, one needs time to understand such things. After all, it takes time for one to collect one's thought.
_(cropped).jpg)
3 weeks ago in Genomics, Medicine, and Pseudoscience
So, do you believe in objective moral standard or not? Or do you believe moral standard is defined by the "majority"/"consensus" opinion?
ReplyDeleteThe answer to your question is complicated. The moral standard is often defined by the majority. But whether we like this fact or not, the least we can ask is that it should be done after due rational discussion, which is not happening currently.
ReplyDeleteIs your statement "it should be done after due rational discussion" an objective standard, defined by the "majority"/"concensus" opinion, or just your personal opinion?
ReplyDeleteWhenever you use the word "should", you are already implying that this is good and the opposite is bad, which itself is a moral judgment. And where do you get this moral judgment from?
Let's see us live in a society which takes every decision without thinking it through because hey, who are we to argue if humanity is suffering from a collective death wish.
ReplyDelete"Let's see us live in a society which takes every decision without thinking it through because hey, who are we to argue if humanity is suffering from a collective death wish."
ReplyDeleteSo, who decided whether the decision has been thought through? Are you the gold standard to judge whether the decision have been thought through?
If you ask the 70% of people whom you disagree with, they will probably tell you that they have already thought through the problem and arrived at their position through "rational thought and discussion". If moral standard and what is right/wrong is decided by consensus opinion, who are you to argue that they are wrong? And why is your minority opinion above their majority opinion?
See, I think you should think through this before adding the "stupidity" tag to the post. ;)
Who decides? Well, reality decides. A quick poll will reveal how much these polled people know about the actual facts regarding nanotechnology. If people have taken their decisions after knowing the facts, then they are free to take whatever decisions they do and I have no argument even if they find it morally unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteYou know what, we scientists are really lowly people. We can only say what will lead to the demise of humanity. It's of course up to the wise 70% to take decisions. In this case, I am calling this kind of decision "stupid" only in the sense that it will possibly lead to a lot of deaths from global warming, conflict and energy dependence.
Like I said before, 70% of people can agree with this and decide that such kind of devastation is "morally acceptable". We only say what will likely happen if people decide that this kind of technology, and that's the only context I am calling this decision is "stupid".
And by the way, it does not do you much good to remain anonymous. If you want to disagree, better disagree as a human being with an identity than as some anonymous person who is afraid to reveal himself.
So, the preservation of humanity is the ultimate good then? Interesting... I thought "choice" is more "gooder" than "life"...
ReplyDelete"If you want to disagree, better disagree as a human being with an identity than as some anonymous person who is afraid to reveal himself."
Nah, the inter-tube is such a scary place filled with intolerant people with the "more intelligenter than thou" attitude. I am afraid of mob violence, so I better get back into hiding now. Peace. ;)
-Anonymous non-human being
;)
ReplyDelete