Are ethics holding science back?

>Yes, that is the whole fucking point you mong.
The stupidest comment all day.
I'll help you out man - concern for ethics is exclusive to interest in science. Holding science back is not the point of ethics.

even if appeals to authority weren't stupid, your argument would still be incredibly stupid
aristotle also wanted to be roy mustang. making him look like a SCIENCE BITCH.
>Ethics is a rigorously intellectual if you're dealing with shit beyond 'muh feels'
ethics is inherently about MUH FEELS, no matter what any philosopher tells you.

Read "Nichomachean Ethics" and "Metaphysics of Morals" and then get back to me about what it's based upon

Also you claimed it was anti intellectual so it's perfectly reasonable to point out intellects far greater than yours who took a great interest in ethics and believed it to be vitally important

>Are ethics holding science back?
youtube.com/watch?v=4PLvdmifDSk

Science has no need for ethics.

that wasn't me. and just because we try to have rational approaches to ethics and morality doesn't mean it isn't ultimately based on feelings. there's no reason why you should pick overall happiness as a goal or anything similar. the fact is we "know" our morality and create philosophies that best fit this. philosophical morality is ultimately nothing but ad hoc reasoning though.

>philosophical morality is ultimately nothing but ad hoc reasoning though

It definitely isn't at least not the kind that's worth a damn
The truly intellectual philosophers the Greeks and Romans and the later ones such as Kant base all of their arguments upon formal logic

No, you're holding it back with your idiotism.

If you don't have moral maybe consider killing yourself, you sure as hell aren't going to be useful in this world.

Dumbass

You have to be over the age of 18 to post here. Please leave

Yes, but that is a good thing.

>at least not the kind that's worth a damn
are you dense?
>such as Kant base all of their arguments upon formal logic
you don't seem to understand what "base" means. most philosophies of morality use formal logic for their arguments. however, the base is always arbitrary or emotional. for example, a major part of kant's morality is categorical imperatives. he doesn't give a sufficient reason why categorical imperatives should be followed though. his premise assumes another morality and is therefore insufficient. categorical imperatives are only given as imperatives because rationality is assumed to be a virtue. why should rationality be a virtue in the first place? same thing with universality. why should the thing that most people want be defined as good?
he assumes these things to be true and when you have those premises the rest can be completely a result of formal logic but it doesn't make the theory any less arbitrary. this is what all moral philosophies do and in fact must do since without invoking religion there is nothing to command that anything MUST be a certain way to be considered good. This is not a particularly secret thing about morality though, did you (and i don't mean this as an insult) just start with philosophy?

yes it is
if ethics wasn't actively preventing certain scientific research, millions of people would be at risk because scientists would do whatever they wanted in the name of progress. Remember when atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons was the new hotness? That's shit is illegal now because when people found out how dangerous it was to the general population, it was declared unethical.
In a world where science is allowed to just go uninhibited, you get dosed with strontium-90 along with every bowl of corn flakes you eat. Worth it, right?

Go listen to metal somewhere else.

It's based upon the natural world

Aristotle laid this down many centuries ago

Yes, but I am okay with that.

Scientific research is a long term investment, financed by the tax payer for the purpose of improving his life and/or the life of his genetical offspring. Scientific research that endangers his well-being or the well-being of his genetical offspring, is failing it's purpose.

>holding science back is not the point of ethics
Are you a complete idiot or does retarded shit just fall out of your mouth by accident?

That is the express purpose of ethics in science: to hinder experimentation where ethical considerations outweigh immediate scientific benefit.

Otherwise, why would you even fucking make ethical considerations? Want to vivisect human babies to learn about neurological development? Hey go right ahead, think of the gains!

>it's another thinly veiled /pol/ thread

Yes. For example the infamous Nazi medical experiments not in spite but because of their unbound cruelty, progressed the science of medicine by magnitudes compared to more ethical practices. It's still abhorrent though, as is the regular and known mistreatment of experimental animals.
Most people would say that it is necessary suffering for the grater good though, since humans lives are worth more (to humans). Maybe they are right.
Oh! You just wait for the A.I.s whose prime directive is extension of knowledge to use the same argument when the tables turn and we become the powerless necessary sacrifices. Maybe they'll be right.

>Nazi medical experiments progressed the science of medicine by magnitudes compared to more ethical practices
[Citation needed]

Their hypoxia and hypothermia data would be impossible to replicate under ethical frameworks as it involved exposing humans to risk of death and bodily harm. For the same reason the japanese biowarfare data was seen vital enough to pardon pretty much everyone involved in the atrocious programme. From a medical point of view it's not particularly controversial to consider the data valuable but from a emotional point of view a lot of people try to argue that it's useless.

>Are ethics holding science back?
Yes it's holding the progress of science back.

It's also holding psychopathic science back from sticking a knife in your back in order to see how fast you bleed out.

It inhibits experiments that would be valuable, but in doing so it also prevents horrifying experiments that would cause a backlash against science in general. We already have extreme skepticism against science and if brutal experiments that hurt and killed people were performed then that skepticism would increase and could inhibit scientific progress harder than ethics ever could.

>types like a 14yr old gamer twat
>talks shit about people who contributed more to humanity in a day than he will do in a lifetime
>wrongly crys about logical fallacies when called out
>thinks he should be taken seriously at all

nor do niggers

The vast majority of metalheads are actually humanist pansies.
I know from first hand experience.

On topic: Yes, ethics is holding humans back, especially in areas like biology and medicine.
I'm not talking about some performing painful experiments on humans or anything, but just small stuff like harvesting embryonic stem cells from human blastocysts (although this problem has largely been overcome with iPS), because killing a tiny mass of 300 cells makes humanists assblasted.
Then there has recently been the whole moratorium of CRISPR-Cas experiments on human cells, because that too makes weak humanist pansies cry.

Ethics, if applied properly keeps technologies and their applications at a level where we can appreciate and feel good about them.
It wouldn't hold us back; except for from paths we'd rather not traverse.

You're too hysterical right now to make any valid argument. Come back when you've calmed down.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States

this
to
be
frank

If you can possibly say Ethics is anti-intellectual then you only know science and science alone. And not the value of it