Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[psyreporter]

To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.

To many non-scientists, it is appalling to note the terrible indifference ("morally neutral") that scientists have for the potential uses to which their work might be put. It was not Oppenheimer who ordered the deployment of nuclear bombs, but without him and his peers, there would have been no bombs for the politicians to use. Some amount of responsibility must devolve to the scientists, just as some must devolve to those of us who elected the politicians.

"When you give a teacher a stick to hit children, he will hit children with it."

So, to paraphrase the final words from your quote, any judgement on science and scientists probably reflects their moral illiteracy. They place the acquisition of knowledge above all else, and deliberately set aside the morality, leaving such difficult problems as responsibility for others to struggle with. For some people, this dereliction of (moral) duty is a Really Big Deal. I think it's a valid criticism.

What would be the opposite of moral illiteracy?

I recently found the following article about the state of morality in science:

(2020) How we make moral decisions
The researchers now hope to explore the reasons why people sometimes don’t seem to use universalization in cases where it could be applicable, such as combating climate change.
https://phys.org/news/2020-10-moral-decisions.html

The article shows that in 2020, science has just the “universalization principle” available for moral considerations and for guiding science.

Meaning beyond what science can “see”

How could the universalisation principle prevent a practice like GMO or eugenics when faced with a trillion USD synthetic biology revolution that reduces plants and animals to meaningless beyond the empirical value that science can “see” in them?

A better (new to be discovered) method for morality may be urgently required to protect Nature.

[Pattern-chaser]

So, to paraphrase the final words from your quote, any judgement on science and scientists probably reflects their moral illiteracy. They place the acquisition of knowledge above all else, and deliberately set aside the morality, leaving such difficult problems as responsibility for others to struggle with. For some people, this dereliction of (moral) duty is a Really Big Deal. I think it's a valid criticism.

What would be the opposite of moral illiteracy?

Moral awareness? Moral rectitude? Decency? Consciousness of one's being a part of life, the universe, and everything, and acting accordingly? ...

[psyreporter]

So, to paraphrase the final words from your quote, any judgement on science and scientists probably reflects their moral illiteracy. They place the acquisition of knowledge above all else, and deliberately set aside the morality, leaving such difficult problems as responsibility for others to struggle with. For some people, this dereliction of (moral) duty is a Really Big Deal. I think it's a valid criticism.

What would be the opposite of moral illiteracy?

Moral awareness? Moral rectitude? Decency? Consciousness of one's being a part of life, the universe, and everything, and acting accordingly? ...

One can easily point at cruelty in nature to fuel or legitimize cruelty.

When you speak of moral awareness or decency for example, how would that request fare in the face of the cruelty in nature argument to justify immoral advances?

(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/

Moral reasoning can attempt to deflect from the cruelty in nature argument but it would require some sort of substance to be effective.

As an example, philosopher Henry David Thoreau once said the following about the enhancement of human morality:

"Whatever my own practice may be, I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual [moral] improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized."

How can it be said that someone is morally illiterate when he/she is simply not motivated to explore moral reasoning? For example, can it be said that a belief in determinism and the idea that there is no meaning in the Universe, is invalid?

The free will vs determinism debate is not a settled debate which may indicate that it is not possible to claim that someone is morally illiterate.

(2021) The clockwork universe: is free will an illusion?
A growing chorus of scientists and philosophers argue that free will does not exist. Why would they do so?
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/a ... n-illusion

debatingfreewill.com (2021) by philosophy professors Daniel C. Dennett and Gregg D. Caruso.

[Pattern-chaser]

So, to paraphrase the final words from your quote, any judgement on science and scientists probably reflects their moral illiteracy. They place the acquisition of knowledge above all else, and deliberately set aside the morality, leaving such difficult problems as responsibility for others to struggle with. For some people, this dereliction of (moral) duty is a Really Big Deal. I think it's a valid criticism.

What would be the opposite of moral illiteracy?

Moral awareness? Moral rectitude? Decency? Consciousness of one's being a part of life, the universe, and everything, and acting accordingly? ...

One can easily point at cruelty in nature to fuel or legitimize cruelty.

When you speak of moral awareness or decency for example, how would that request fare in the face of the cruelty in nature argument to justify immoral advances?

In Nature, any living thing can encounter adversity. But cruelty, I think, includes the intent to be cruel. Thus, there is no cruelty in Nature, IMO.

[psyreporter]

So, to paraphrase the final words from your quote, any judgement on science and scientists probably reflects their moral illiteracy. They place the acquisition of knowledge above all else, and deliberately set aside the morality, leaving such difficult problems as responsibility for others to struggle with. For some people, this dereliction of (moral) duty is a Really Big Deal. I think it's a valid criticism.

What would be the opposite of moral illiteracy?

Moral awareness? Moral rectitude? Decency? Consciousness of one's being a part of life, the universe, and everything, and acting accordingly? ...

One can easily point at cruelty in nature to fuel or legitimize cruelty.

When you speak of moral awareness or decency for example, how would that request fare in the face of the cruelty in nature argument to justify immoral advances?

In Nature, any living thing can encounter adversity. But cruelty, I think, includes the intent to be cruel. Thus, there is no cruelty in Nature, IMO.

Can it not be argued that nature intended it when reflecting on what you call adversity? Despite that you can make a case for either or the other, at question is whether it can be said that someone is morally illiterate.

What do you think of a belief in determinism and the idea that there is no meaning in the Universe? When there is no meaning, how can there be morality?

[Pattern-chaser]

In Nature, any living thing can encounter adversity. But cruelty, I think, includes the intent to be cruel. Thus, there is no cruelty in Nature, IMO.

Can it not be argued that nature intended it when reflecting on what you call adversity? Despite that you can make a case for either or the other, at question is whether it can be said that someone is morally illiterate.

What do you think of a belief in determinism and the idea that there is no meaning in the Universe? When there is no meaning, how can there be morality?

Nature intended it? You feel that Nature is a personality that has intention?

I think it possible that there is no meaning in the universe, but I wouldn't assert that it is so. If there were no meaning, there could be no morality, I suspect, as you say.

[psyreporter]

I hope that there is not some sort of censorship going on... As it appears, the following reply was deleted. It would be dishonest to not allow open communication, and it is on-topic since the origin of what happened appears to be my critical addressing of GMO.

That was in reply to the sad story where they've been after you for two years, trying to murder you. They also destroyed your apartment using air pollution, you had to endure violance by your landlord, and there was defamation, harassment, and even intimidation by the police. People even used paranormal intention, threatening to shoot you. Yet the media and human rights organisations are ignoring you.
Etc. the list goes on. You realized a handful of truths that would change the world for the better, which made you the enemy of some big players, no wonder they're after you.

The facts are the facts. I simply reported about it and I have provided a sound basis for the claims that were made.

I am author of a critical blog on psychiatry that has been read by 2 million people in the Netherlands. The name is 'Zielenknijper' and the Polish construction workers that caused the air pollution wore orange suites with the name "Zielinski" printed on the back. They made a loud wining sound when entering my home, as if expressing pity for the damage that was clearly visible (everything was destroyed). It can be an accident, but that is not likely.

zielinski-orange-suit.png (10.43 KiB) Viewed 3468 times

There was an incident at the official national legal council that sent a threatening paranoid story of a psychiatric patient in its reply. That cannot have been an accident and it is also unlikely that an employee of the legal council would do such a thing, since you could lose your job or worse as a result.

If you would read the investigation, I am certain that you will not be able to find a part that can be said to be questionable or untrue.

Attempted murder?

An attempted murder, the facts do point in that direction, regrettably. Since there are literally dozens of independent facts that all point in that direction, one should simply consider what else the motive could have been to do what they did?

How it started: Coca Cola and then Rabobank

Rabobank, an investment bank with its headquarter in Utrecht, a fortune 500 company dedicated to GMO, had invested into my business to sabotage it. That preceded all of what happened with my home in Utrecht.

It is evident that the Rabobank performed an attack on my business. Without providing a reason, the Rabobank investor closed a 6 months old company and gave up their € 45,000 Euro investment. There was simply no logical reason to give up their investment. They closed the company after 6 months, the originally planed time for R&D, in which my company had delivered an exceptional result, in time.

The project could have been worth a billion USD. It was seriously watched by over 200.000 people. (cutting edge innovation)

https://psyreporter.com/rabobank/

In internal communication with a new business partner from Hollywood, USA, it was established that I perceived Rabobank to have been the culprit and I was then seriously warned that taking on against a fortune 500 company such as the Rabobank would not be wise, by which I received the impression that they might be involved with Rabobank as well.

It is only logical, that with the exposing of a subsequent business partner from Hollywood, USA as a saboteur (who invested a sum on behalf of an investment banker in Massachusetts, USA) that the logical (unspoken) conclusion would be in 2018/2019 that Rabobank was behind that malicious business practices as well. They played a ‘billionaire’ joke on a project to waste time on purpose, then walked away again (leaving their investment behind) ‘for no reason’.

Considering the whole situation, it is only logical that the Rabobank, considering its business link with me and its head quarter in Utrecht, at least has had some influence or oversight over what happened with the attack on my home in Utrecht.

--

coca-cola-logo.png (5.94 KiB) Viewed 3468 times

As mentioned in the OP. It all started with a sneaky cola TV ad after I had reported about GMO in Coca Cola. Shortly after that TV ad a flood of nonsensical negative 0- reviews for a popular WordPress optimization plugin followed, then to be followed by a plugin ban after a moderator performed an absurd slander attack to which I had responded decently, turning it into a true mystery.

Rabobank invested into my business some time after the cola ad.

It is not just to mock me for my report about what happened. Considering the clear link with GMO, the origin of the attack is likely GMO.

[psyreporter]

Nature intended it? You feel that Nature is a personality that has intention?

I think it possible that there is no meaning in the universe, but I wouldn't assert that it is so. If there were no meaning, there could be no morality, I suspect, as you say.

My suggestion for potential plausibility of the argument that nature can be considered cruel (the ability to point at 'cruelty in nature' to justify immoral scientific advances) was merely intended to denote that it may not be possible to claim that someone is morally illiterate.

Equally, when it is possible to hold a belief in determinism with the consequence that there is no meaning in the Universe, there seems to be no ground to claim that someone is morally illiterate.

Do you consider otherwise to be the case? If so, on what ground?

[psyreporter]

I do not think that GMO science is problematic per se. What seems to be at fault is the media assassination of GMO which could otherwise provide many solutions in the avoidance of pesticides, and the enhancement of food in many other ways such as increasing the nutritional content and anti-inflammatory properties of plant based material.

The mentioned advantages are solely based on empirical value (utilitarian value), on what a human can 'see' in animals or plants (an outside-in perspective).

How can it be said that it is good for the evolution of the animals and plants involved? Alternatively, can it be said that this question (morality) can be ignored?

Synthetic biology is grounded on the belief that determinism is true and that there is no meaning in the Universe, which could be a flawed idea.

[Sculptor1]

I do not think that GMO science is problematic per se. What seems to be at fault is the media assassination of GMO which could otherwise provide many solutions in the avoidance of pesticides, and the enhancement of food in many other ways such as increasing the nutritional content and anti-inflammatory properties of plant based material.

The mentioned advantages are solely based on empirical value (utilitarian value), on what a human can 'see' in animals or plants (an outside-in perspective).

Well, obviously.
And we've been doing this for 10k years with selective breeding.

How can it be said that it is good for the evolution of the animals and plants involved? Alternatively, can it be said that this question (morality) can be ignored?

GMO does not alter or effect natural selection. It is conscious selection. Plants and animals continue with the slow method regardless of what we do. There is nothing we an do to stop that nor should we. But so what?
Just because I decide to fly to Cairo does not stop you walking there.

Synthetic biology is grounded on the belief that determinism is true and that there is no meaning in the Universe, which could be a flawed idea.

The universe is perfectly deterministic else none of this would work.
You might not like it, but where is your evidence that the universe has some sort of meaning on its own merits?
I really do not think that the inhabitants of the Andromena Galaxy know or would care about a tomato that does not need glyphostate to kill off insects because it has GMO protection.

[Pattern-chaser]

GMO does not alter or effect natural selection. It is conscious selection. Plants and animals continue with the slow method regardless of what we do. There is nothing we an do to stop that nor should we. But so what?

The "slow method" does not introduce unwanted 'marker' genes, and the possibility of antibiotic resistance, into the wider environment.

[Sculptor1]

GMO does not alter or effect natural selection. It is conscious selection. Plants and animals continue with the slow method regardless of what we do. There is nothing we an do to stop that nor should we. But so what?

The "slow method" does not introduce unwanted 'marker' genes, and the possibility of antibiotic resistance, into the wider environment.

What is your point. If the genes are not useful "inthe wider environment" then natural selection will remove them. You might have to say why you think antibiotic resistence is relevant here.

[Pattern-chaser]

Because the effects may not be removed by natural selection. The introduction of unintended, er, characteristics into the wider gene pool could have unanticipated consequences. Humans have a long history of wielding weapons without understanding what their effects might be...

[psyreporter]

The universe is perfectly deterministic else none of this would work.
You might not like it, but where is your evidence that the universe has some sort of meaning on its own merits?
I really do not think that the inhabitants of the Andromena Galaxy know or would care about a tomato that does not need glyphostate to kill off insects because it has GMO protection.

The origin of a pattern as potential is necessarily meaningful and cannot be a pattern which implies that meaning is applicable on a fundamental nature level (a priori or "before (empirical) value").

My footnote provides simple reasoning to display why determinism cannot be valid: "If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist."

Firstly, at question would be whether morality is ignored and if it can be said that it is OK to do so. A belief in determinism, which as you say is required to justify GMO and which would abolish morality, does not appear to be a sound theoretical foundation since the determinism vs free will debate is not a settled debate.

When it concerns morality, it would concern the question whether GMO is good for the animals and plants involved.

Why would a human be motivated to explore morality for animals and plants? Or alternatively, why would a human be motivated take moral reasoning in consideration when it concerns the question whether GMO should be applied or not, considering the trillion USD profit motive involved?

With regard care for animals and plants when it concerns the use of GMO. When humans would consume an animal or plant anyway, why would it's life stage be worth any more than the value that the animal or plant provides for the human?

In a deterministic world, the animal or plant on the plate is all that one would need to consider.

When determinism isn't valid however, then morality may require to prevent a lack of respect for animals and plants before they enter a human's food plate and thus it would be important to be able to answer the question whether morality for animals and plants can be safely ignored.

[psyreporter]

Because the effects may not be removed by natural selection. The introduction of unintended, er, characteristics into the wider gene pool could have unanticipated consequences. Humans have a long history of wielding weapons without understanding what their effects might be...

When it concerns natural selection from an empirical science perspective, one is always refering to natural selected and the corresponding empirical value (utilitarian value) that can be seen in a retro-perspective.

The complex coherence of genes logically foresees in more than science (an outside-in perspective) can see in it. Life is likely more complex than a meaningless bundle of deterministic genetic information.

Using genetic engineering to remove ‘unwanted genes’ and diseases logically promotes weakness due to the principle that overcoming problems results in strength.

The reason is the essentiality of resilience, the ability to overcome unforeseeable problems, not just the ones that can be predicted.

Overcoming problems is essential for progress in life. Some perceived defects may be part of a 300 year evolutionary strategy that is essential to acquire solutions for longer term survival. The fight to overcome the defects or diseases makes life forms stronger in the future. Filtering out genes (eugenics) would be like fleeing instead of overcoming problems and thus logically results in increased weakness over time.

Besides this, which are still empirical value based arguments, one should consider the vitality of the potential for the spirit (meaningful experience) of animals and plants.

The inability to capture meaningful experience (conscious experience) within the scope of empirical value (the foundation of scientific evidence) causes incompatibility with what science deems valid.

The problem is addressed in the philosophical zombie theory.

(2022) The philosopher’s zombie: What can the zombie argument say about human consciousness?
The infamous thought experiment, flawed as it is, does demonstrate one thing: science can’t explain consciousness.
Source: https://aeon.co/essays/what-can-the-zom ... sciousness

When it concerns morality, it concerns aspects related to meaningful experience.

In science the inability to define the meaning of life has resulted in an ideal to abolish morality (and it corresponds with a belief in determinism).

When it concerns the concept vitality of meaningful experience, how would one potentially go about to make a case for it on behalf of animals and plants?

If as the philosophical zombie theory has indicated, it is impossible to grasp or understand meaningful experience using empirical science, then, can it be said that meaningful experience can be excluded from consideration (i.e. can it be said that morality for animals and plants can be safely ignored)?