CreateDebate


Debate Info

8
6
Yes, of course. No way.
Debate Score:14
Arguments:20
Total Votes:14
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, of course. (7)
 
 No way. (5)

Debate Creator

Mint_tea(1833) pic



Can Science and Morality co-exist?

There hasn't always been a divide between science and morality or science and religion.  But now it can be hard to tell how far science should go in finding answers.  Can there be a co-existence between the two?  Especially when personal belief may make a person lean towards believing morality should draw a line in how far a scientist should go for scientific study?

Yes, of course.

Side Score: 8
VS.

No way.

Side Score: 6
1 point

if you just shake the chemicals enough ... sooner or later you'll get the "morality" you so desire ..... lol

Side: Yes, of course.
Quantumhead(561) Disputed
1 point

if you just shake the chemicals enough ... sooner or later you'll get the "morality" you so desire ..... lol

No you won't. Scientists have been shaking chemicals for decades and have never animated anything. Life is no more a random bunch of chemicals than it is the creation of a bearded wizard in the sky. Evolution tells us absolutely nothing about how life originated or where it came from.

Side: No way.
dadman(1450) Clarified
2 points

........................... I agree about the chemicals .... the beard ?? < God is not a man

Side: Yes, of course.
Atrag(4943) Disputed
1 point

You're an idiot..... lol.

Side: No way.

I do not believe morality exists in any objective sense. I believe that biological altruism exists in various degrees and in various interpretations among biological creatures.

Forgive me if I have misunderstood your argument here, but it appears as though you might be suggesting that morality is a by-product of religion. If so, then that really isn't the case. There are just as many things in the Bible that I find morally wrong as there are that I find morally righteous. I mean, "Thou shalt not let a sorceress live"? C'mon.

Side: Yes, of course.
Mint_tea(1833) Clarified
1 point

Forgive me if I have misunderstood your argument here, but it appears as though you might be suggesting that morality is a by-product of religion.

I've actually argued against morality being a sole byproduct of religion but religion was added in here as a recognition that some people believe the two are the same. I believe it may have broadened the scope.

Side: Yes, of course.
Quantumhead(561) Clarified
1 point

but religion was added in here as a recognition that some people believe the two are the same.

No problem. Those people are dead wrong.

Side: Yes, of course.
dadman(1450) Disputed
1 point

I do not believe morality exists in any objective sense ... well then good .... I'm looking fwd to raping your children :)

Side: No way.
1 point

Yes of course morality and science are two independent fields which do not overlap at all hence both can coexist.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Yes , what would you personally draw the line at at ?

In the past the discipline of anatomy was deemed by many as immoral in most societies ,but the study was necessary was it not ?

Side: Yes, of course.
Mint_tea(1833) Clarified
1 point

I think any line that I personally draw would be a case by case basis. There have been instance where the quest for knowledge has tiptoed across the lines of what I consider morality, such as grave robbers digging up recently deceased whose corpses where then sold for scientific study. In many cases the person conducting their experiments knew or at least turned a blind eye to where the corpse came from.

In this instance it goes very much against the family of the departed and their wishes. Again though, it would be a case by case basis.

Side: Yes, of course.
Quantumhead(561) Disputed
1 point

In the past the discipline of anatomy was deemed by many as immoral in most societies ,but the study was necessary was it not ?

Dermot, are you saying we should just let you get away with sexually abusing kids because it's "necessary"? That's nauseating.

Side: No way.
1 point

Hmmm. I might be dodging the question a little, but from some people's perspectives it is morally right to do things to advance science (and human knowledge) that may not seem very nice. I'm not going to go so far as Nazi human experimentation or something, don't worry, but some might argue that the reason for our existence is to advance our knowledge, though people will disagree about what acceptable costs are. If I had to choose between either saving someone's life, or letting them die so that a great scientific discovery could be made, I might choose the latter. (Assume no positive side effects of the discovery for humans other than the new knowledge obtained) What would you choose Mint?

Side: Yes, of course.
Mint_tea(1833) Clarified
1 point

I think bringing Nazi's into it is quite interesting. But I can't make myself look into their experiments to see if at any point in time anything they did was "worth it".

If I had to choose between either saving someone's life, or letting them die so that a great scientific discovery could be made

I would save them, and use that knowledge to backtrack later or to save someone else who may be having the same issue. Let me ask you this, if it were your child or a loved on and they could be cured or left to die to advance a great scientific study, would you still choose the latter? Where would you draw the line in that? Please believe I'm not asking in any hateful way, I'm genuinely curious.

Side: Yes, of course.
Mack(146) Clarified
1 point

"I think bringing Nazi's into it is quite interesting. But I can't make myself look into their experiments to see if at any point in time anything they did was "worth it."

Of course I agree (although I haven't really done any research into it), It was just an example of how far people can go. I'm sure that some Nazis thought it was worth it.

"I would save them, and use that knowledge to backtrack later or to save someone else who may be having the same issue."

Not quite sure what you mean about 'using that knowledge.' My question was kind of context-less, I'm not sure what the knowledge gained from saving them would be?

"Let me ask you this, if it were your child or a loved on and they could be cured or left to die to advance a great scientific study, would you still choose the latter?"

No I wouldn't, because it comes down to what I value most. I value my family over a scientific discovery, but I value a scientific discovery over some stranger's life. I'm not sure what my answer would be if the question were between erasing all scientific discoveries vs killing a family member.

"Please believe I'm not asking in any hateful way, I'm genuinely curious."

Of course. No questions should be off limits (not that yours could have been off limits).

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Hello M:

My morals have NOTHING to do with science.. However, people who get their morals from a book that is inconsistent with science have a dilemma to sort out..

excon

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Given that scientific research has ethical guidelines I'd say that "science", in the manner that we practice it, has morality built into it. One can dispute whether the guidelines properly serve morality but they do exist.

Side: Yes, of course.
2 points

Science cannot answer anything in the realm of morality because when you dive into morality that falls under the categories of philosophy, theology, etc. Science cannot tell you what it morally right and wrong.

Side: No way.