More handpicked essays just for you.
Science and its impact on society
Ethics in natural sciences
Religion and the shaping of morals and values in society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Dr. Michael Shermer is a Professor, Founder of skeptic magazine, and a distinguished and brilliant American science writer to say the least. In His book The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People he sets out to embark on the daunting task of convincing and informing the reader on sciences’ ability to drives the expansion of humanity and the growth of the moral sphere. Although such a broad and general topic could be hard to explain, Shermer does so in a way that is concise, easy to understand, and refreshing for the reader. This novel is riddled with scientific facts, data, and pictures to back up shermers claims about the history of science, humanity and how the two interact with one another. In part I, Shermer begins by going over …show more content…
Such a simple revelation of similarity between species powered multiple rights revolutions for beings that we originally thought to be “too different” or inferior to us. As Gay rights, Women’s rights, and Animal rights were born out of scientific logic and reasoning our moral arc began to increase. Shermer examines and defines the link between humanity and science by introducing the notion that we all come into this world with some sort of moral compass, inherently already knowing basic rights from wrongs. However, Shermer makes it clear that how we control our moral compass comes from how we are “nurtured”. The levels of guilt that we feel for violating certain social obligations can and will vary depending on the environment that we are raised in .This leads Shermer into introducing the most simple and effective way of measuring morality in an action. Shermer defines an action as being morally correct only if the action increases an individual’s chances of survival and flourishing. The idea is to stretch the boundaries of the moral sphere with the help of science and its tools of reason. He then goes on to state how we would not be as far as we are in the progression of morality today if …show more content…
Towards the end of Part I Michael goes into detail about how people tend to have a hard time accepting what they don 't understand. Science has proven that human beings have a hard time feeling empathy towards groups and people that are different from us .Which causes us to feel the need to exclude, punish, and even kill those who are different. In order to prevent this from shrinking the moral sphere we have to attempt to provide people with enough information so that they can better understand religions, ethnicities, and preferences that are different from their own to provide a better understanding of one another and unify all beings under a continuously growing moral arc. Despite the majority of people deriving their moral dos and don’ts from their religions, Shermer reveals why this isn’t a good idea. He informs the reader that religion cannot be the driver of moral progress because it is based on only showing morality to those who participate in the same religious beliefs. This exclusive attitude that religion seems to exude can be seen in one of the most significant items that laid that the very foundation for Christianity, the bible. The bible is widely known for its commandments that portray good morals and rules that
Science can give us as good a moral code as any religion. Or so Daniel Dennett claims in his book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Dennett provides the tools to explain human morality, and inadvertently leads the way to the conclusion (which he does not share) that science can clarify how human morality came about, but not serve as a substitute or model for moral codes, religious and secular alike.
Perhaps the most important question moral philosophy can ask is: who or what is entitled to moral rights? When we discuss differing moral philosophies such as utilitarianism or deontology we do so with the underlying assumption that human beings are centric to the moral code. Should we assume this? Historically speaking humans have only been present on this planet for 100,000 years. The planet itself has been around 4.6 billion years, so the environment and animal life existed long before intelligent human life emerged. Why then, is morality generally accepted to be applied solely to humans? To answer this question I intend to discuss some of the basic tenets of morality, such as the moral community. What does membership in the moral community entail? Does not being a contributing member to the moral community mean that you are not entitled to moral consideration? The way humans deal with the topics of animal rights and environmentalism hinge upon the answer to these questions.
When asked how he feels about the advancement of science to places that were once notions to be the job of the creator, Dr. Martin Luther King replies by saying, “Cowardice asks is it safe? Expedience asks is it political? Vanity asks is it popular? But the conscience asks is it right?”
Different theories have been developed which relate to this theme of moral decay throughout history, even several centuries after Hesiod's life. This idea of evolutionary decay seems to corroborate with the widely received, contemporary theory of evolution, or Darwinism, brought forth through the designs and beliefs of Charles Darwin in which he states that, in nature, only the fittest creatures will survive ...
Arthur L. Caplan, in his news article, “Distinguishing Science from Nonsense,” warns the audience about the uncertain economic future of the United States of America due to the abandonment of science within society. Further, Caplan’s purpose is to inform the audience how the dwindling importance of science in children is not only due to schools, but also due to American culture. Therefore, Caplan uses a combination of rhetorical devices to not only warn and inform the public about the importance of science, but to also engage them to an extent that persuades the audience to take action.
Jakob Bronowski’s book, “Science and Human Values” argues that the scientific method of inquiry into reality provides a generally applicable foundation for moral judgement. Bronowski says, “in order to keep the study in a manageable field. I will continue to choose a society in which the principle of truth rules. Therefore the society which I will examine is that formed by scientists themselves: it is the body of scientists” (Bronowski 58). Bronowski makes it clear in his book that he is going to base his study on scientists. There are five steps in the scientific method of inquiry into reality. The first one being Observation, the second is Hypothesis, the third is Experiments, the fourth is Theory, and the fifth being Publishing.
Society seems to be divided between the idea if science is more harmful than helpful. We live in a world where humans depend on science and technology to improve important aspects of society, such as medical machinery, which supports the fact that science is more of a friend than a foe. Science is advancing every day. The United States has come a long way with its ongoing developments, giving individuals a chance to improve society as a whole. Not only does the United States benefit from such growth, but every modernized country does so as well. Through science and technology, individuals learn from past endeavors and apply it to present and future projects, paving the way for new discoveries and efficient enhancements
The formation of ethical judgments in relation to the natural sciences is a much more common occurrence then in the arts due to the demanding and ongoing research in almost all fields of this study. As humans, we possess a sort of impulse to further our knowledge and understanding greatly in areas that relatable to us and in those that deal with aspects of human life, due to the possible effect each individual situation may have on us. Scientists will go to extended lengths in ...
Harris, Sam. 2011. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. Simon and Schuster.
...om society. Although Bishop makes no excuses for the shortcomings of science and academia, he delivers an ominous message to those who would attack the scientific community: Science is the future. Learn to embrace it or be left behind.
...wever, in the best interest of advancing education and an enlightened society, science must be pursued outside of the realm of faith and religion. There are obvious faith-based and untestable aspects of religion, but to interfere and cross over into everyday affairs of knowledge should not occur in the informational age. This overbearing aspect of the Church’s influence was put in check with the scientific era, and the Scientific Revolution in a sense established the facet of logic in society, which allows us to not only live more efficiently, but intelligently as well. It should not take away from the faith aspect of religion, but serve to enhance it.
Additionally, speciesists argue that human beings are the only creatures who are self-aware. They believe that due to this characteristic, they are able to think rationally while all other nonhuman animals cannot. Speciesists claim that this enables them to think and act morally, and so entitles them to a higher moral status. This argument, like many other speciesist arguments, fails when “the argument from marginal cases” is applied. The argument from marginal cases argues t...
Scientism, the first of the “gods” of the age praises knowledge, research, and education (B, 94). Its reliance is on the power of man and the possibility of discovering truth in nature, and the cause of evil is ignorance, and lack of reason (B, 94). Scientism fights back against a biblical worldview with a rejection of sin nature, a machine-like universe and the reduction of humanity to objects (B, 95). The view that the world was created and continues to function and progress without a God implies a universe which is completely governed by the law of nature (B, 95). Once this is implemented into social sciences, people become objects which are pushed and formed into who they are for a desired outcome (B, 95). This reliance on nature turns
...ieves that the knowledge is contributing to society. The scientist’s own drive to obtain knowledge versus the society’s need to obtain knowledge differ in the degree of limitations since the society’s moral judgments have more limiting factors on the methods to create the knowledge society demands rather than the artistic or scientific drive to obtain that knowledge.
If we have learned anything at all about the uses of science in the second half of this century, it is that it has had an unmistakable influence on contemporary trends and outcomes. Science has helped to make the world smaller, spatially, and larger, numerically. It has multiplied our choices and scaled up our risks. Based on science we have put humans into space and opened a new arena for warfare. Science has illuminated human beginnings and shaken age-old postulates about human worth and destiny. Science has unlocked material abundance and laid new burdens on irreplaceable resources. It has expanded human potential and dramatized human limits. It has advanced clarity and magnified uncertainty. It has penetrated the deepest reaches of knowledge and held a world hostage on the edge of crisis.