Roger's Equations

It seems to me that the subject of ethics, as defined by a large segment of society, has more to do with justifying desired pursuits than with what's right or wrong. Since many cannot agree on an objective standard for right and wrong we are left with having to come to a consensus within a given community as to what is and what is not ethical. I believe that if a universal standard of what is right versus what is wrong were to be adopted then the question of ethics would be a simple and short discussion.

I agree with your assessment. The problem with ethics is that everyone feels they are entitled to an opinion. We wouldn't ask a person with no engineering experience to a design an airplane, yet we feel that anyone with an opinion can weigh in on ethics. There have been hundreds of books on ethics written throughout history, from Plato and Aristotle to Marcus Aurelius and Einstein that go unread. The problem with ethics is you don't die in a fiery crash when you get them wrong.

Well, not in the physical sense anyway. There is a fire waiting though for those who fail to repent before the fiery airplane crash. That is, according to what I personally believe. Would that there was a way to create the aforementioned consensus. I think the world would be a much more peaceful place.

I agree that ethics is something that needs to be discussed and is not taught enough in science and engineering curriculums. However, I am in extreme disagreement over the point that is floating around in this discussion but not actually explicitly stated: that in order to have an ethical world everyone must be forced to have the same views of right and wrong, no matter how arbitrary these views may be.

My view on ethics breaks down basically to this:

An ethic is a group of moral principles that one uses to guide ones life and actions.

A moral is a judgement of what is good or bad, right or wrong.

Finally, a moral is based on a value, and a value is a weight that one gives to an idea or precept. For instance, I give great value to the ideas of reason, personal responsibility, and industry. It seems to me that the only objective way to judge a value is to look at it's logical outcome.

For example, there is much ethical debate over the harvesting of fertilized embryos for use in stem cell research.

To judge the actions of each side of this argument let's look at the possible logical outcomes. I'll make the assumptions that it is not possible to harvest from these embryos without destroying them and also that there is nothing to bar a scientist from doing but his own set of ethics.

1: A scientist values his research over these fertilized embryos. He obtains them, derives stem cells from them and pursues his research. The possible outcomes that I can see are:

A: Nothing of value comes from his research. He wastes much of his time and money (probably taxpayer money, but that's a different issue altogether) and has destroyed a fertilized embryo in the process which could have become a human being if it were implanted in a fertile womb.

B: The scientist makes progress in his research and discovers cures for terrible and crippling aliments such as Alzheimer's disease and spinal cord injury, not to mention the knowledge which will be based on his research. The sacrifice of this clump of cells has prolonged and improved the lives of countless intelligent human beings.

2: The scientist feels it is unethical to destroy these embryos, he values them more than his research.

The only possible outcome I see from this action is: He spends his time and money elsewhere, meanwhile people die by the hundreds of thousands from diseases his research could have cured. The embryo to which these people sacrifice their lives is, in extreme liklihood, destroyed anway.

The ethical course of action here, at least to me, is clear. If, however, you value the livlihood of a clump of cells which has only the potential to become intelligent life over intelligent life itself you may disagree.