Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality
Mad Vlad wants to know:
something most anarchists here will deny is the existence of something that could be called *immoral science*. is there such a thing? ............................................................
No. There are, however, immoral scientists. One way to skew the interpretations of what you write, besides bringing up the subject of morality, is to describe things in ways which do not correspond to their actual manner of existence: "science" does not exist without those individuals who have set themselves to pursue it. They should bear the blame if they practice it immorally. You again have brought up several issues which can be examined separately and do not necessarily coexist: . being a scientist . pretending to be scientific . choosing to pursue science . being smart enough to pursue scientific research . being successful in the scientific pursuit of truths . giving a damn about the consequences of the effects of research as it affects humanity or other living things (as when it is imposed upon them) . responsibility in science . responsibility in science as practiced by mendicants of the State . the regulation of responsibility per se . the regulation of the methods of science . the support of irresponsible scientific methods, by slaves of the State . anarchist cypherpunkery I become exceedingly uncomfortable at the realization that I have to buy an astronomy magazine from the store, paying yet again for info, in order to find out some of what they're doing at NASA. To think that a responsible citizen like myself must go out searching for the info themselves, using whatever resources they can find or pay for, in order to become informed! There are all sorts of things that government employees do not "share" with those who pay the bills. There is a book in Objectivist literature which presents the idea of "context dropping", which is, that in order for some people to function as if things were normal and that what they're doing is consistent with moral principles, they must drop a part of their information out of sight, out of thought, so that their actions appear logically related and make sense - they eliminate elements from the given context, crucial essentials which make the difference in its character. People like these might practice secrecy in keeping information from others, but equally significant, they also hide things from themselves. So that's one thing which would explain some scientist's lack of moral principles in the pursuit of science. Then it must be explained why so many people aren't complaining about it. Are they insensitive to their mistreatment, sitting ducks for opportunists? Or maybe these taxpayers are equally immoral, thinking only about promised benefits, forgetting about the disadvantage of losing control over the quality of their life? It's possible for some people to override the boundaries of decency, even if they're otherwise smart enough to pursue science. But what would you expect cryptographers to do about it? .. Blanc
Mad Vlad wants to know:
something most anarchists here will deny is the existence of something that could be called *immoral science*. is there such a thing? ............................................................
No. There are, however, immoral scientists. One way to skew the interpretations of what you write, besides bringing up the subject of morality, is to describe things in ways which do not correspond to their actual manner of existence: "science" does not exist without those individuals who have set themselves to pursue it.
hmm, lets see, there were german scientists perfecting the ability to torture people in the death camps. they were practicing science, no? was it immoral? no? was it criminal? criminal but not immoral?
They should bear the blame if they practice it immorally.
they should bear a cost, a penalty, a censure, imposed by their moral peers. (oops, there's that word "should". yikes, I am really slipping. please forgive me for pretending I actually have a point here.)
You again have brought up several issues which can be examined separately and do not necessarily coexist:
well, it does help to have a highly fragmented brain to exist in todays world. one that doesn't think about things like tax money and evil government scientists at the same moment <g>
There is a book in Objectivist literature which presents the idea of "context dropping", which is, that in order for some people to function as if things were normal and that what they're doing is consistent with moral principles, they must drop a part of their information out of sight, out of thought, so that their actions appear logically related and make sense - they eliminate elements from the given context, crucial essentials which make the difference in its character. People like these might practice secrecy in keeping information from others, but equally significant, they also hide things from themselves.
this is just basic Freudianism. but I agree its what I'm talking about.
So that's one thing which would explain some scientist's lack of moral principles in the pursuit of science. Then it must be explained why so many people aren't complaining about it. Are they insensitive to their mistreatment, sitting ducks for opportunists? Or maybe these taxpayers are equally immoral, thinking only about promised benefits, forgetting about the disadvantage of losing control over the quality of their life?
who cares why it is happening? I care, but I also want it stopped. and I want others to care enough to want, and work, to stopping it.
It's possible for some people to override the boundaries of decency, even if they're otherwise smart enough to pursue science. But what would you expect cryptographers to do about it?
a mere cryptographer can do nothing. a mere anarchist will encourage you not to. a moral human being might become alarmed enough to change their perspective and participate in government, or changing government, in a way other than watching election commercials between the segments of their favorite TV show. an anarchist will deny such an activity is even possible.
At 07:14 PM 1/12/98 -0800, Blanc wrote:
Mad Vlad wants to know:
something most anarchists here will deny is the existence of something that could be called *immoral science*. is there such a thing? ............................................................
No. There are, however, immoral scientists. One way to skew the
Depends. [#invoke Godwin's Law] Consider the Nazi studies done on human susceptibility to freezing, poisons, torture, etc., and the followon work done by various evil empires. Some of it was just done for fun, but some of it _was_ real science, with hypotheses and experiments, and there's only so much research you can do into the resistence of the body to serious damage without actually damaging live bodies, most accidental damage to human bodies isn't done in sufficiently instrumented environments to be useful, and it's just _damn_ hard to get good volunteers these days. Did most of that work rate as "immoral science" - I'd say so. Now, some of it has uses outside the torture business, but the primary customer of the work on freezing was the nuclear bomber forces of some of the larger evil empires, which wanted to know how much risk they could take destroying their competitors' motherlands. Sure, part of the goal is to protect their employees, but even that is primarily to increase their ability to destroy their enemies' civilians, which is pretty morally dicey even if your enemy is evil. A few users like oil companies have workers in the Arctic, and most moral organizations are more concerned about preventing accidents and minimizing risks to workers than getting away with as much damage to their workers as they can; there are still some legitimate uses of the knowledge like how to do medical care for freezing-related accident victims, or extreme situations like nuclear power-plant disaster cleanup. But not a lot. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, bill.stewart@pobox.com PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
[nazi death studies]
Did most of that work rate as "immoral science" - I'd say so.
uh huh but we have a problem. I thought "technology is neutral". hmmmmm, maybe technology != science.....?
A few users like oil companies have workers in the Arctic, and most moral organizations are more concerned about preventing accidents and minimizing risks to workers than getting away with as much damage to their workers as they can; there are still some legitimate uses of the knowledge like how to do medical care for freezing-related accident victims, or extreme situations like nuclear power-plant disaster cleanup. But not a lot.
interesting book on this a friend told me about: "toxic sludge is good for you" -- describes for example how many oil companies are creating an effective *facade* based on very aggressive PR campaigns. if anyone wants good info on the state of our times, and how our government has been hijacked.... check this one out. it shows that as savvy as "you" think you are (you is anybody here), we're all living in a gingerbread fantasy world created by the mass media-- even when you're not tuned into it.
At 10:20 PM -0800 1/13/98, Bill Stewart wrote:
Consider the Nazi studies done on human susceptibility to freezing, poisons, torture, etc., and the followon work done by various evil empires. Some of it was just done for fun, but some of it _was_ real science, with hypotheses and experiments, and there's only so much research you can do into the resistence of the body to serious damage without actually damaging live bodies, most accidental damage to human bodies isn't done in sufficiently instrumented environments to be useful, and it's just _damn_ hard to get good volunteers these days. Did most of that work rate as "immoral science" - I'd say so.
I think it's an error to use "moral" or "immoral" as a modifier for "science." It's a matter of opinion/ethics as to whether some science is "for immoral purposes," but calling something "immoral science" is fraught with trouble. To a vegetarian, any science related to meat production is "immoral science." To a devout pacifist, any science related to weapons in any way is "immoral science." To an Orthodox Jew, any science done on the Sabbath is "immoral science." To a Communist, any science which refutes scientific socialism is "immoral science." To the Catholic Church, circa 1500, any science which challenged the earth-centric view was "immoral science." Personally, I don't view scientific experiments done on condemned prisoners as immoral. If a human being has already been sentenced to die, and, for example, accepts some payment (perhaps for his heirs) to die in some scientifically interesting way, why call it "immoral"? While I would not have, I hope, worked in a Nazi death camp, the science obtained is undeniably real science, some of the only solid data we have on freezing humans, on exposing them to pathogens, etc. (BTW, there are those who believe using placebos in experiments involving life-threatening situations (like diseases) is "immoral science." I view it as a necessary way to do science in this arena. So long as the patients are informed as to the protocol, and understand they may randomly end up in the placebo group, I have no problems. Nonetheless, the fact that some or all in the control group will die in the experiment is deemed by some to be "immoral.") --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
timmy predictably states the case for moral relativism.
I think it's an error to use "moral" or "immoral" as a modifier for "science."
It's a matter of opinion/ethics as to whether some science is "for immoral purposes," but calling something "immoral science" is fraught with trouble.
To a vegetarian, any science related to meat production is "immoral science."
well, the concept of "criminality" is likewise fraught with trouble. what is criminal and what is not? obviously some definitions stretch the limits. is a jaywalker a criminal? a political dissident? ok, how about an axe murderer? similarly, I think your predictable opposition to the use of the word "immoral" is specious. moreover, I think such a misunderstanding, or worldview, is detrimental to human welfare in general. I think all the evil government scientists I've been referring to recently would very much agree with you on rejecting ideas of "morality" and "conscience". a person does not need an infallible definition of morality to navigate the world, imho, but a person that has none, or rejects any such attempt, is part of the problem and not part of the solution, imho.
Personally, I don't view scientific experiments done on condemned prisoners as immoral. If a human being has already been sentenced to die, and, for example, accepts some payment (perhaps for his heirs) to die in some scientifically interesting way, why call it "immoral"?
oh, well, lets see, you have a very obvious glitch in your reasoning. you presume the prisoner gives his permssion. now lets see, assume he doesn't? just to pop a hypothetical example out of the blue, say someone named timmy gets arrested for gun violations and gets thrown in jail temporarily. would it be immoral for the police to remove his organs? perhaps without his permission? perhaps without anesthetic? if not immoral, what? criminal? criminal but not immoral?
While I would not have, I hope, worked in a Nazi death camp, the science obtained is undeniably real science, some of the only solid data we have on freezing humans, on exposing them to pathogens, etc.
I've seen your defense of these experiments before-- its a topic of interest for you for obvious reasons; it presents a possible glitch in your moral relativism. I don't think BWs claim that there is a difference between immoral scientists and immoral science. immoral science is what immoral scientists practice. what's the point? my personal point is that if we had a culture of people who were concerned about morality, perhaps we would have institutions that reflect integrity. contrary to most here, I believe that our institutions are correctly representing the people of a country-- their thoughts, their motivations, their concerns. its key to the philosophy of disenfranchisement, apathy, and nihilism (and anarchism) to claim that the government is not representing the people. what is the evidence for this? because the government is corrupt, the people are not necessarily corrupt? because the government is greedy and full of powermongers, the population is not full of greedy powermongers who would do the same given the opportunity? government is a mirror into our psyches that few people care to gaze on, precisely because we are not the fairest of them all. we've got the government we deserve, and it reflects our own pathologies within our psyches back to us. it reflects our laziness and apathy, our cynicism, our alienation, our withdrawal. and it takes a person who can master themselves to face up to this simple truth-- something that most everone of our country has failed to admit. when we begin to ask questions like "what is integrity" and "what is moral" and come up with serious answers, our world will improve. it will degenerate otherwise, and has given us a tremendous existence proof of that fact to date. but just remember, again, that I'm aimlessly ranting here, and there's no need to take any of this seriously <g>
Vladimir the MoraLogical wrote:
I don't think BWs claim that there is a difference between immoral scientists and immoral science. immoral science is what immoral scientists practice. what's the point? my personal point is that if we had a culture of people who were concerned about morality, perhaps we would have institutions that reflect integrity. ...........................................................
First the question was, what is "moral", now it must be, what is "science": what makes science, or its methods, 'scientific' - what's the difference and what's the point; is there a relation, and which is first, the chicken, or the egg (could science discover the truth about morality, and would that make the science moral, or the scientists)? Of course, if people were more moral, we would have institutions which reflected that integrity. The problem is, how could they be made to become so, and what type of methods, used toward that end, would be moral? .. Blanc
Of course, if people were more moral, we would have institutions which reflected that integrity. The problem is, how could they be made to become so, and what type of methods, used toward that end, would be moral?
no one can be "made" to do anything, even in a tyrannical environment. even in a tyranny a person has the choice of disobeying authority. Rand had one way of promoting what she saw as integrity-- writing about it, lobbying about it, philosophizing about it. she was a bit fanatical at times about her beliefs-- which were very much about morality and integrity, only defined in an unusual way. more power to her, I say. a step in the right direction. another way would be to confront publicly those that seem not to care about integrity or morality, engage in a sort of socratean dialogue about it, and let the lurkers decide for themselves if they are really the moral vacuums some appear to be, and whether they (the lurkers) wish to follow that path. goring sacred cows and seeing where the blood flows, so to speak. the public will begin to care about integrity and morality when it realizes that the pain of failing to do so is not worth the immediate gratification the vacuity seems to provide. that this will happen is not assured. (somehow this thread has been sustaining itself on its own, despite my increasing lack of interest as the group mind wanders far from my original points, which again I find obvious and barely worth rebutting.)
participants (4)
-
Bill Stewart -
Blanc -
Tim May -
Vladimir Z. Nuri