CreateDebate


Debate Info

33
21
Yes, of course. No way.
Debate Score:54
Arguments:66
Total Votes:59
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, of course. (29)
 
 No way. (16)

Debate Creator

Mint_tea(2178) 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: 33
VS.

No way.

Side Score: 21
2 points

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.
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(932) 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(1466) Clarified
2 points

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

Side: Yes, of course.
Atrag(5060) Disputed
1 point

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

Side: No way.
ldiot(18) Disputed
1 point

What if he is not an idiot? HOW YOU CAN KNOW WHO THAT IS THE GENIUS? what if you are the idiot and your dumbo dumb dumb brain think he the idiot instead of the true him the genius?

Side: Yes, of course.

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.
dadman(1466) Disputed
2 points

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

Side: No way.
Mint_tea(2178) 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(932) 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.
Silvarian(8) Disputed
1 point

Killing innocent people and stealing isn't right. Do you object to that?

Side: No way.
ldiot(18) Disputed
1 point

Yes, I object to it! Why is it not right to kill them before you steal? Would you like them to fight back and protect their property from your theft? This seems the wrong way to do it!

Side: Yes, of course.
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.
ldiot(18) Disputed
1 point

Is it moral for me to use your mother as a test subject for a trial rape?

Is it moral for that scientific experiment?

Side: No way.
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(2178) 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(932) 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(2178) 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(279) 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

Science must have morality so the facts presented can be verified as true. If science is void of morality, then the scientists cannot be trusted with the data they present or with their opinions about that data.

Usually, when people present science and morals as opposing forces, it's because they want to mutilate babies for research.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

In science you can coexist with morality. For example a pedophile who beats his kids to help deal with his hormonal urges to do sexual things with them is being very moral for scientific reasons.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

though its true that more often than not morality possesses itself as a hindrance to science but science itself is taken up for the betterment of human kind. how exactly are we helping humans by torturing humans unless we consider one life to be better than the other. when morality goes away from science, it pays way to ambitions that harm people, turning it into a viscious cycle. there has to be morality because there can always be another way to reach the desired conclusion.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Science is a social undertaking and therefore is bound by society's determined morals. The scientific method of hypothesis, experimentation and conclusion can not be completed without the morals that is the only way to determine the reliability of presented theories. Morality is a human feeling that can be explained by science. Just as logic and emotion co-exist, so can science and morality.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Morality is science itself. The logic behind my statement is that morality comes with feelings which are the results of firing in neurons in your brain. So whenever you feel morally biased in any situation there is science behind it. In this case science and morality co-existed

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

If morality did not exist, then there would be no concept of what is good or evil. It would come down to what is beneficial to a person( or community) and what is not. Without the boundaries that morality imposes, arguments against evil things such as racism and genocide become harder to fight. From a purely scientific point, those ideas suddenly become more viable. Racism allows a population to protect itself from foreign pathogens and disease by secluding themselves from what they perceive as a threat. Genocide would allow for a community to guarantee that its genes survive. I understand that these evil actions still occur today, but because of morality, we are able to fight them and try to eliminate them from society.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Yes. Science explains questions about the universe, and morality is our perception of what is right and wrong. They can happily live side by side. Science and Religion is an entirely different matter....

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Why not? i mean first of all we have to go through the basic of this debate viz. "morality". the landscape of morality which we see, follow and on which we analyse today had been defined a long ago by theology. so we see everything from that point of view. let me ask some questions?

why don't we feel pain towards rocks while breaking them?

if we can reset the landscape of morality on the basis of science then i don't see why they cannot co-exist? does this mean couples will ask supercomputer to whether they want to have second child? then you didn't get it and that's not my fault.

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.
NowASaint(1230) Disputed
1 point

Science must report what is true about nature or it is immoral. In the true presentation of facts it is moral, and those facts can be observed, tested, repeated for anybody to see. Abuses of science are immoral while true presentation of facts, even when science is abused and immoral, is moral.

Usually, when people want to rule morality out of science, it's because they want to mutilate babies for research.

Side: Yes, of course.
ldiot(18) Disputed
1 point

You cannot tell what science is or not. Just not lest ye be judged little boy preacher!

Side: No way.
SamJ(1) Disputed
1 point

Science can actually answer many questions in the realm of morality and that science is called psychology, also with the help of Neuroscience. In the same way for example that psychologist can determine if a person has psychopathic tendencies which is mostly about the lack of empathy; in many cases This specific part of your brain is called the the right supra-marginal gyrus. When this brain region doesn't function properly—or when we have to make particularly quick decisions—the researchers found one’s ability for empathy is dramatically reduced. This area of the brain helps us to distinguish our own emotional state from that of other people and is responsible for empathy and compassion.

But if we're gonna take logic with no science references I think when it comes to morality science is the closest thing that can explain or interpret our moral compass because science is about evidence and proof and studying multiple cases before coming to any conclusions which is more co-existence with morality than any other method created by mankind.

Many people claim that Religion is a better answer for human's morality, as much as I would like to agree with this point because it would be much easier to determine which acts are moral and which are immoral by just reading it from a book but I can't really Agree for the reason that different religions has different books which makes them have different moral reasons for certain acts. which makes the morality dependable on what the person has been taught from a young age, or what societies claims moral reasoning for certain immoral acts, like Honor killings for example is a very big issue where I come from and the Killer can go without an equivalent punishment for the homicide he committed just because culturally it is in some way acceptable to kill your sister or wife if you caught her in the act of having sex with another man. and that's not just in a court of law, its also acceptable in society which sometimes even praise this act and make parents or relatives of the killer even proud of his doing.

Side: Yes, of course.
Mint_tea(2178) Clarified
1 point

The question isn't so much, can Science replace morality, it is can the two as separate entities co-exist?

Side: Yes, of course.
dharmendrac(2) Disputed
1 point

Yeah, that's the problem buddy that you analyse everything from point of view of theology and it's the religion which sets the rules. now set rules according to science we'll know what is morally right or wrong including you.

Side: Yes, of course.
ldiot(18) Disputed
0 points

Prove that! What if it can? What if science can prove right and wrong?! For you to say it can't is to say that it's wrong... HAHAHAHAHA

Side: Yes, of course.
Srom(12139) Disputed
1 point

When it comes to science, you can't put good or bad in a test tube, and test it. It falls into the categories of what I said above.

Side: No way.
2 points

This is why our culture is dying. The Left hs done all in it's power to separate God from our public, and without God, mankind has no clue of morality.

The first thing they say is Whose Morals? No man can agree on what is moral and what is immoral. This is why we now have nine States making No Restriction abortions legal! We have millions of Democrats voting for the Democrat Party that keeps it legal to do so.

Our nation's majority Christian faith once lifted up the obvious values that created strong committed families. We had no need for a Government playing mother and father to our children.

Without faith in God, we see our welfare roles filled with unwed mothers. We see record numbers of people living off food stamps.

Nations fall from within and America is doing the same. We are going bankrupt supporting people that once supported themselves. This is how important moral values are to a nation.

Side: No way.
Cartman(18198) Disputed
1 point

The Left hs done all in it's power to separate God from our public, and without God, mankind has no clue of morality.

That's not true at all.

Side: Yes, of course.
Mint_tea(2178) Disputed
1 point

without God, mankind has no clue of morality.

Are you suggesting that believing in God is guaranteeing all actions done by the believer are done with morality?

That people who don't believe in God will automatically have no morals?

Side: Yes, of course.
FromWithin(5146) Disputed
3 points

I am saying exacty wat I said. Without God, a nation has no morl foundation to stnd on. Without moral alues being lifted up, a nations value fall into the gutter as we are seeing.

Christians are not perfect and have sinned. The difference is that even though we have sinned, we do not say our sins are ok. We do our best to always improve our faults and live up to the vaues from our Christian faith.

Mankind without God refuses to admit his sins because in his no fault world, anything goes.

One night hook ups, living together with no committments to their children, promiscuous sex, etc. etc. are no problem in man's world.

Christians do not want moral laws. What we want is for our nation hold onto moral values tht helps all people. We want them to care about our children and try to live in ways that does not harm children or others who must pay for the irresponsible lifestyles.

Side: No way.
NowASaint(1230) Clarified
1 point

Probably totally naive.......you don't want to know the evil of Wicca, witchcraft, Satanism. They are your friends, and you love them as you love your own sin.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

No, because in order for science and morality to coexist it must centre itself around philosophy and religion which hold basic morale that science ignores or is not a part of, combining science with religion, morality and philosophy would destroy the whole point of science, to discover new things and seek out the truth behind the universe's biggest questions.

Side: No way.
NowASaint(1230) Clarified
1 point

The point of science is to observe and understand nature. If the scientist is not moral, then the data and his or her opinions about that data cannot be trusted. if you exclude morality from science, you have no way of knowing if the things presented by scientists are true or not......and you will probably believe them when they tell you that you descended from some sort of primate critter and you are exonerated in death so that God cannot hold you guilty of your sins in the fire of Hell.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Science presents facts and nothing more. It does not form the truth. That is something that rests only with God.

Side: No way.
Quantumhead(932) Disputed
1 point

Science presents facts and nothing more. It does not form the truth. That is something that rests only with God.

By your own (il)logic God is not a fact because science is unable to present God as a fact. Hence, you have raised a dichotomy between facts and non-facts, and seem to be insisting that the non-facts are factual (i.e. "truth"), while the facts do "not form the truth".

In sum, you have a mental illness.

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

You speak very true things here. You are the best arguer in the last century!

Side: Yes, of course.
ldiot(18) Disputed
1 point

How you can say that?! Who you are to know the 'truth' then?

Did God make himself be true as he is the source of truth? What a bimbo argument!!!!!!!

Only the lowest kind of person do the 'prove itself true' argument!

Side: Yes, of course.
1 point

Science and morality can never co-exist because we all have seen the top class people are dominating the field of science and they care only for money as trend of artificial intelligence is going on..People are getting thrown out from their posts and machines are doing work of humanity but we forgot to mention important issue if everyone will be fired by company than who will buy their products?People will be jobless

Side: No way.
1 point

Science and morality can seemingly co-exist but with a cost of limited improvement in both terms. The question would be more appropriate by changing it into , "Should science and morality co-exist?". For instance, in order to push human's physical limit science need to conduct some unethical things like playing with DNA sequence to create improved embryo.

Side: No way.