The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > How can we uphold the right to science? > Comments

How can we uphold the right to science? : Comments

By Jessica Wyndham, published 2/1/2009

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights acknowledges the right to science as a human right equal to all others.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
A very interesting article.

Thanks.

Rosie
Posted by Rosie Williams, Friday, 2 January 2009 11:06:04 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I always find articles along these lines strange and disturbing. Linking science with any form of morality or goodness is like saying we should save the world but putting train drivers in charge. A train driver drives a train. A train driver should not be required to judge the morals or worthiness of those who ride on the train.
The suggestion that scientists should have any moral or special responsibilities to decide how science is used is one of the problems. We do not need more experts telling us what to do. We need a population that thinks for itself and makes choices. I don't want a scientist telling me how good genetic engineering, or how safe nuclear power is. I want to be part of decision making process.
I would like a reversal of the present situation. Instead of scientists working behind closed doors, and then telling us what they have done when it is too late, I would like a thinking population telling scientist what they want them to do. Democracy depends on people being told the truth. Without that we have no choices.
Science is totally undemocratic because we are told nothing, and we end up with no choice except to take what we are given. Trust me, I am a scientist? Never.
Posted by Daviy, Friday, 2 January 2009 11:31:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The path to hell is by the way of good intentions. This sums up my attitude to most human rights language. Simply proclaiming a new right even if it is a right to motherhood is just wishful thinking. All we require to subvert all of the human rights language is one dark tyrant and the whole edifice of good intentions comes tumbling down. The only thing that will ameliorate the human condition is a change of heart from greed and corruption to self giving and love. Without that all of the wonderful science in the world will not make much difference. The solution to the worlds problems may be found in science and technology but that will be subverted by the darkness of the human heart. We need a change of mind.

Peter Sellick
Posted by Sells, Friday, 2 January 2009 11:41:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is based on a flawed and unethical idea that a right is whatever the state or UN says it is. But this cannot be right.

For example, slavery and other forms of forced servitude have been legal in many societies in many ages. Can there be such a thing as a “right” to rape, robbery, or slavery – if the state or the UN declare it?

This issue was raised in Rosie Williams’ article a while back, in which we inquired into the ethical distinction between taxation and various forms of forced labour or slavery. As I showed later Rosie, there is none: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8260&page=3

Rosie and Jessica, I would be interested in your response to those reasons.

There is no such thing as a “right” to someone else’s labour or the fruits of their labour, taken without their consent by violence or threats of violence. There is no such thing as a “right” to robbery, or rape, or slavery.

So far so good, you might say.

But *even if* the government assumes for itself such a “right” to commit what it rightly makes a crime for everyone else, it still doesn’t make it right. Mere legality will not answer for the issue of morality, and neither will numbers, nor utility.

At risk of breaching Godwin’s law, the Nazis took great care to cover all their nefarious acts with the mantle of positive law, because they believed the positivist theory of law that is implicit in the author’s thesis: rights are whatever the government says they are and backs up with force or threats.

Ultimately such a theory of rights rests on an asserted “right” to bash into submission anyone who doesn’t agree to submit and obey in having their person, their liberty or their property commandeered for whatever purpose the statist wants.

There is only a right to anything if it involves no use of force or threats to violate someone else’s life, liberty, or property.

By all means, let us have a caring and sharing world – based on voluntary action, not force masquerading as piety.
Posted by Diocletian, Friday, 2 January 2009 8:57:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Diocletian, Godwin's law isn't a rule issued from Internet HQ that forbids comparison with Nazis. It simply states that the longer on online debate continues, the more likely it is that such a comparison will occur.

I would argue, Daviy, that we already have "a thinking population telling scientist what they want them to do", which operates through capitalism. Science regularly delivers improved technologies for convenience and safety, driven by the profit motive. As we've seen with climate change, powerful vested interests can derail the delivery of popular scientific advances, but not forever.

I don't think the author is arguing for the tools of science to be invested with an inherent morality, but that access to science should be a right in order that it can be used to achieve moral ends. The restriction of birth control and scientifically accurate HIV information in Africa is a case in point of people being denied a right to powerful tools for the improvement of their society.

Sells' comment (and his articles published on OLO) should serve as a reminder that the road to the Dark Ages was paved with religious denial of scientific information. If people wish to make an informed choice to deny themselves the benefits of science, that is their right. But to deny access to accurate information on religious or ideological grounds is an assault on human rights.
Posted by Sancho, Friday, 2 January 2009 9:23:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sancho, Sells is not knocking science,but making the valid point that what matters is whether people people act with good, informed volition - wisdom, compassion and clear understanding - and that this is not dependent on, nor guaranteed by, creation of nominal "rights". Rights are a social construct rather than inherent in nature, and many promoters of particular rights seem to me to be blinkered and ideological, whatever the merit of their intentions.
Posted by Faustino, Saturday, 3 January 2009 9:03:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy