From: Tom Pearson <pearson@panam1.panam.edu>
>>SJ>An atheist, especially one brought up in a Christian home (as many
were),
>>>>might already be aware (as I wasn't) that some things are immoral and
>>>>avoid doing them by virtue of his/her upbringing. But the atheist would
>>>>have no reason *within his/her atheism*, for not being immoral.
>>>>Any reasons he/she had for not being immoral would be found
>>>>*outside* his/her atheism.
>>
>>TH>That's vacously true because atheism doesn't claim to address
>>>questions of morality. By analogy, you might as well argue that
>>>the scientist would have no reason *within his/her science*,
>>>for not being immoral.
>
>Ted, a good deal of the research (including my own) done over the past
>decade into the moral decision-making processes of scientists is beginning
>to show that, in many cases, your suggestion above is false. Based on my
>own investigations, it is turning out that bench scientists and research
>managers in medical research labs and biotechnology firms display a strong
>tendency to derive moral norms precisely from the scientific community of
>practice they inhabit. In other words, it is precisely *within his/her
>science* that many (perhaps "most"; the numbers vary a little) scientists
>find the ethical standards that guide them toward "not being immoral."
>Most interesting (and, initially, most dismaying) to me was the fact that,
>among those researchers sampled, those who had been working in the field
>continuously for 20 years or more and who were rated by their peers as
>exhibiting "excellent" or "very good" ethical standards, "religious values"
>ranked last among the list of possible sources for their moral standards.
>These people (the morally-excellent 20-year veterans) reported that the
>standards of moral rectitude that were implicit in the actual practice of
>scientific research were their primary source for shaping their ethical
>conduct. Again, these same people reported that "religious values" played
>a very small role in determining appropriate choices and behavior when
>functioning in their professional scientific role. For what it's worth.
Very interesting. I would say that, in general, people's moral values are
very much influenced by their experiences, and by the actions and views of
their peers, so it isn't surprising that, for practicing scientists, "the
standards of moral rectitude that were implicit in the actual practice of
scientific research were their primary source for shaping their ethical
conduct." If someone's working life is dedicated to the pursuit of
scientific truth, in a discipline that requires intellectual integrity for
its success, then it isn't surprising that truth and intellectual integrity
should be valued highly by that person. (On the other hand, it might be the
regard that person had for truth and intellectual integrity that drew
him/her to science in the first place, so there's a certain amount of
circularity there.)
I note that the scientists were apparently referring only to their conduct
"when functioning in their professional scientific role". So it's not clear
how much influence their scientific work has on the moral values they apply
in the rest of their life. But I don't doubt that it has an effect.
I'm not sure whether this has any bearing on whether atheism can be a source
of moral values. Of course, exposure to the views of other atheists is
likely to affect one's moral values. But this begs the question of how those
views originated. Since atheism is in essence a negative belief--belief that
something *doesn't* exist--it's hard to see how that can be an ultimate
source of moral values. Perhaps Tedd's analogy between atheism and science
was a poor one. Science entails certain positive beliefs and practices,
whereas atheism doesn't.
Richard Wein (Tich)
"The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it; ignorance may deride
it; malice may distort it; but there it is." -- Winston Churchill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 15 2000 - 05:53:18 EDT