# Ethicists fear erosion of moral center with advance of science **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 6, 2000, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethicists-fear-erosion-of-moral-center-with-advance-of-science/35965 "2000-10-06T14:57:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Satan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Satan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satan)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2000, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethicists-fear-erosion-of-moral-center-with-advance-of-science/35965/1 "2000-10-06T14:57:04Z")
From [Newsroom](http://www.newsroom.org/), a place online which reports “the religious dimension of the news,” I thought this might stimulate discussion: > [@](#): > > **Ethicists fear erosion of moral center with advance of science** > > 5 October 2000 (Newsroom) – Genetic testing of embryos to create a donor for an ailing sibling or to choose the sex of a baby ignores centuries of discourse about who counts as a person and ethicists believe further erodes traditional views of how human beings ought to treat each other. > > Issues that go to the heart of what it means to be human are being decided even while moral standards are deteriorating and largely without comment from religious communities that from their beginnings have debated the thorniest questions that modern science now poses, these ethicists argue. > > “The compass needle is bent, distorted, even off the compass,” warns C. Ben Mitchell, professor of bioethics and contemporary culture at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. “This is not the time to be making radical changes in the way we view human beings, to use human beings. Our moral sensibilities are too dull. We’re facing a future when we’re talking about computers having emotion and being able to think, and granting computers personhood, but not embryos.” > > According to U.S. news reports this week, a Colorado woman’s doctors used genetic screening to eliminate embryos carrying the genetic disorder Fanconi anemia and to choose one that would have the type of cells needed to save the woman’s 6-year-old daughter, who suffers from the life-threatening, bone marrow deficiency. Children with Fanconi anemia suffer usually die by age 8 or 9. > > Stem cells from the test-tube baby’s umbilical cord were collected when he was born in August and transplanted into his sister’s failing bone marrow last month at Fairview-University Medical Center in Minneapolis. Doctors there believe the sister has an 85 to 90 percent chance of recovery. > > In Scotland, a couple whose only daughter died in a bonfire accident at age 3, wants to use the same type of genetic testing and in-vitro fertilization to produce a girl. The couple has four sons. > > Britain’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has rejected their request because of policy prohibiting the choosing of a baby’s sex unless there is a pressing medical reason. The couple has vowed to challenge the policy under the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been incorporated into U.K. law. They argue, in part, that the authority’s denial breaches the convention article that enshrines the individual’s right to “respect for his private and family life.” > > Mitchell said the Colorado case is reminiscent of another more than 20 years ago in which a Chicago family had more children hoping for tissue matches that would save a terminally ill older child. “It raises the question why we have children,” he says. “I think that’s a national discussion we ought to have.” Having children to medically benefit other children is “an illegitimate reason,” he contends. “… That’s not what people ought to do.” > > Traditionally children have not been used as research subjects unless the therapy benefits them, he says. “We would treat persons as ends to themselves, not as a means. We are treating embryos as means to our ends, not treating them with the dignity they warrant. (Nationally) we might decide to store cord blood, but to bring a child into the world for that purpose is bringing it in as a means to an end.” > > In April U.S. Senator Sam Brownback, a Republican from Kansas, told a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee considering federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research, it is important to work to cure disease and alleviate suffering. But he asked: “When did it become acceptable to use an evil means to pursue a good end, even a great one? Doesn’t the so-called good end actually become bad by using bad means? If we manage the cure of some diseases and the betterment of some aspects of bodily health by means that involve the killing of the most defenseless and innocent of human beings, we will rightfully be judged harshly by history as having sought some benefits at the expense of our humanity and moral being.” > > The speed with which scientific improvements are occurring is “faster than the religious deliberations,” contends Abdulaziz Sachedina, professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. “Religion and ethics are not important in this society. … Science is very arrogant, telling people of different (faith) traditions they know better, but they don’t. … They don’t take us seriously. I’m really worried about the indifference we show, especially if we’re talking about national policy.” > > The problem is not that technology is advancing faster than people can cope with, says a San Francisco rabbi. Rather it is “that society is topsy-turvy and there is too much preoccupation with rights and too little with responsibility,” says Rabbi Pinchas Lipner, founder and dean of the Institute of Jewish Medical Ethics at Hebrew Academy. > > “We feel that the Torah, the Jewish Constitution as we refer to it, has the basis to deal with every potential issue that society and technology can come up with,” the rabbi insists. “We have concepts and fundamental beliefs in the Torah which apply to everything. … There is a tremendous issue with ethics because there is this delinquency (in society). We have the experience of 3,500 years.” > > Religious traditions have much to offer in developing the ethical framework within which difficult decisions can be made, and ought to be included in discussions establishing national policy guidelines, Sachedina maintains. “What are we going to do to improve the quality of life? That is very important in the Islamic tradition,” he notes. “… What kind of life is worth living? Why don’t we open the debate first, so that when we come to these decisions we are ready?” > > Jewish law would not allow the destruction of embryos simply to choose a baby’s gender, Lipner says, but might permit it to save a life. “Destroying an embryo is destroying the beginning of life, and we are not allowed to do it. We have to protect the potential of life, and before we destroy even the potential of life we would have to have a good reason,” he explains. “… Judaism comes from a totally different angle (than society). We don’t come from the angle of rights but of responsibility. If anybody has a right, the potential human being has a right to exist. Whether an embryo is a complete human being, or half, or potential, the fact is that we will destroy the potential. Even if it is limited life we cannot do such a thing. We live in a society where there is too much talk about rights and that is why we have chaos, children’s rights, animal rights. You don’t have a right to destroy life because you have a frivolous need.” > > Mitchell worries that there is little public education about genetic testing and other medical research, and that there could be a “tragedy” that would produce such a tremendous public backlash that it could destroy what is good about the current research. “We have a pretty anemic morality as a culture with which to assess these issues, much less make decisions about them,” he warns. “Where we have the least moral framework is who counts as a human person … and how we should treat them.” > > “Everybody” should be engaged in national discussions about what is moral and ethical in medical research, he says. > > That includes people of faith, not just secular ethics boards, Sachedina maintains. The Muslim scholar says he has been told by secular ethicists that they are reluctant to converse with people of varied religious backgrounds because they fear nasty disagreements. That view ignores what those faiths have in common, Sachedina maintains. > > “Each tradition has its exclusivist view,” he acknowledges, “but they also have a way of building bridges and reaching out to others. We all say that life is sacred. No religious tradition says we must be killing people. There will be disputes in matters of detail. We have to live with differences. We have a consensus of values – sanctity of life, sanctity of personhood, sanctity of embryos.” Note to the mods: The article is free to use as long as there is attribution to Newsroom, FYI. I would have simply linked it, but you have to sign up for access to the site, something I encourage people to do whether they’re members of the media or not (it is free). * * * Yer pal, Satan - Commissioner, [The Teeming Minions](http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/full/show?lid=39428&page=leaguehome) _I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR: Five months, three weeks, six days, 13 hours, 1 minute and 22 seconds. 7221 cigarettes not smoked, saving $902.71. Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 4 days, 1 hour, 45 minutes._ ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2000, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethicists-fear-erosion-of-moral-center-with-advance-of-science/35965/2 "2000-10-06T16:34:27Z")
I suppose we could start with the odd tendency, especially among moralists, to equate ethics and morals. ---
**Author:** ![Akatsukami](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea666f/32.png) [@Akatsukami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akatsukami)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2000, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethicists-fear-erosion-of-moral-center-with-advance-of-science/35965/3 "2000-10-06T17:05:41Z")
Or, of course, we could begin with the peculiar notion that some have that they are different – particularly among those who righteously proclaim, “_I_ have ‘ethics’; you, you poor slob, merely have ‘morals’”. ---
**Author:** ![Opengrave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/919ad9/32.png) [@Opengrave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Opengrave)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2000, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethicists-fear-erosion-of-moral-center-with-advance-of-science/35965/4 "2000-10-06T17:41:33Z")
> [@](#): > > I suppose we could start with the odd tendency, especially among moralists, to equate ethics and morals. So something could be ethical but immoral? or moral but unethical? I don’t have a dictionary handy but I’d like to see how these are defined. (since everyone at the SDMB _loves_ to split hairs) As a means of firing this thing up lets consider the example posed in _Brave New World_ where people are engineered from conception to perform specific tasks. How is this then different than say creating an entity that has specific traits to fulfill a specific purpose. “Yes Jenny we love you to but the main reason we had you created was because we needed your stem cells to help save your brothers life, now go back to your room in the basement and don’t come back out ‘til May” To me this is unfortunately another of the ‘slippery slope’ arguments. I see it as an eventual path to disposable humans – that is humans created to fulfill a requirement. Some will try to appease the ‘moralists’ by arguing that these ‘bodies’ could be created without brains and therefore never alive, in essence a life sized tissue donor without consciousness and therefore no soul. I personally feel that Pandora’s box has already been opened and we are already playing God. In the religious sense (Judiasm, Muslim, Christian, etc…) this is certainlt immoral. Take all religion out of the argument (God is fiction, doesn’t exist, never did) and you still have a completely ‘unethical’ practice. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2000, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethicists-fear-erosion-of-moral-center-with-advance-of-science/35965/5 "2000-10-06T18:01:31Z")
While hairs can possibly be split, I’m not the one to split them. I think for this discussion there is no appreciable difference between morals and ethics–both mean “in accord with principles or rules of right or good conduct.” I could be wrong. **Akats** , forgive me. I confess, I was trolling for just such a response. The problem is that one’s ethics and morals are correct, and others’ are not. This usually manifests int he derivation of those morals and ethics. That is, the religious moralist claims his views are the right ones because of the authority of their religious derivation. The professional ethicist (legal, scientific, etc) claim their ethics are correct because of their pragmatic basis. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Asbestos_Mango)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2000, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethicists-fear-erosion-of-moral-center-with-advance-of-science/35965/6 "2000-10-06T18:28:43Z")
I think most people equate morals with personal behavior and ethics with behavior in the business/government realm. Of course, there is certain amount of crossover between the two. I agree with the premise of the article. I also think, and I know Satan, among others, will disagree with me, I hope not too violently, that the decline in religious beliefs has greatly contributed to the decline in both morals and ethics. (Yes, I know a lot of religious people are unethical and immoral slimebuckets, but that’s another debate.) I don’t necessarily agree that advances in scientific knowlege and technology have created moral ambiguities, but I’m not sure that on a moral/ethical level, we as a society are equipped to deal with these advances. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2000, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethicists-fear-erosion-of-moral-center-with-advance-of-science/35965/7 "2000-10-06T19:28:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Opengrave \* > \*\*So something could be ethical but immoral? or moral but unethical? I don’t have a dictionary handy but I’d like to see how these are defined. > (since everyone at the SDMB _loves_ to split hairs) > \*\* I always thought morality had to do with the objective good of a goal, and ethics had to do with the way the goal was achieved. But, in a bigger sense, doesn’t every technological advance create moral or ethical questions? As we increase our understanding of the world, or our ability to manipulate it, the advance comes up against the old moral and ethical code. ---
**Author:** ![Satan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Satan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Satan)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2000, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethicists-fear-erosion-of-moral-center-with-advance-of-science/35965/8 "2000-10-06T20:13:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by agisofia \* > > **I also think, and I know Satan, among others, will disagree with me, I hope not too violently, that the decline in religious beliefs has greatly contributed to the decline in both morals and ethics.** Why I oughtta… 😉 Seriously, I disagree and I think I have some statistics to back me up. Did you know that we as a nation are more religious than we ever have been? Polls show that more Americans attend church regularly than ever before, and more Americans affiliate themselves with a religion of some type (mostly Christian, of course). * * * Yer pal, Satan - Commissioner, [The Teeming Minions](http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com/full/show?lid=39428&page=leaguehome) _I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR: Five months, three weeks, six days, 18 hours, 17 minutes and 18 seconds. 7230 cigarettes not smoked, saving $903.81. Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 4 days, 2 hours, 30 minutes._ ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2000, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethicists-fear-erosion-of-moral-center-with-advance-of-science/35965/9 "2000-10-06T20:30:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by agisofia \* > \*\*I think most people equate morals with personal behavior and ethics with behavior in the business/government realm. Of course, there is certain amount of crossover between the two. > > \*\* Or perhaps the difference lies in morality being personal and interpersonal, with ethics being social and/or civic? A very difficult topic to discuss even when the terms are well-defined. People have been wrestling with the definition of these words since the time of Socrates and before. But, back to the OP (under the loosely defined terms above). Taking into consideration that all scientific knowledge in the realm of medicine has the single purpose of extending and improving the quality of human life, could we not say that our short-term ethically dubious research and activity _should_ be secondary to the long-term goals which would positively affect all of humanity? Or, if the methods are in an ethically grey area, and the ultimate goal is _undeniably_ a social benefit, shouldn’t we be prepared to compromise our morality and ethics for this goal? ---
**Author:** ![tradesilicon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/439d5e/32.png) [@tradesilicon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tradesilicon)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2000, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethicists-fear-erosion-of-moral-center-with-advance-of-science/35965/10 "2000-10-06T20:36:06Z")
If I’m not mistaking, I have heard news stories about the possibility of growing organs. (Am I just way out of it, and this is already possible?) If that is the case (or becomes possible in the future), this poses a question of another sort - we are not ‘growing’ and ‘using’ a human being, just an organ. Is this also immoral/unethical? BTW - Satan, thanks for that article. I studied with Rabbi Lipner, and it’s a kick to see his quotes. His manner has not changed a bit, and I remember him as a patient and kind man. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2000, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethicists-fear-erosion-of-moral-center-with-advance-of-science/35965/11 "2000-10-06T20:41:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Or, if the methods are in an ethically grey area, and the ultimate goal is undeniably a social benefit, shouldn’t we be prepared to compromise our morality and ethics for this goal? So the ends justify the means, **blessedwolf**? **sili** , no–vat-grown human organs are not yet a possibility. They will be soon. And some of the same objections will be raised, although perhaps less vociferously. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2000, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethicists-fear-erosion-of-moral-center-with-advance-of-science/35965/12 "2000-10-06T20:51:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by andros \* > So the ends justify the means, **blessedwolf**? > \*\* In a situation where the means are merely unsettling due only to “ethics” which are poorly defined and the ends are universally accepted as beneficial, yes. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2000, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethicists-fear-erosion-of-moral-center-with-advance-of-science/35965/13 "2000-10-06T21:01:58Z")
But for many it’s not a matter of “unsettling,” it’s a matter of pure-D evil. And if some folks believe that genetic testing of embryos leads to the dissolution of all ethics and morals, it’s hardly a universally accepted benefit. ---
**Author:** ![Akatsukami](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea666f/32.png) [@Akatsukami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akatsukami)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2000, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethicists-fear-erosion-of-moral-center-with-advance-of-science/35965/14 "2000-10-06T21:05:12Z")
**andros** admits: > [@](#): > > **Akats** , forgive me. I confess, I was trolling for just such a response. Well, you got it. Happy to oblige 🙂 Quite seriously, that might well be the topic of another thread here. In **Satan** ’s original quote, we read: > [@](#): > > According to U.S. news reports this week, a Colorado woman’s doctors used genetic screening to eliminate embryos carrying the genetic disorder Fanconi anemia and to choose one that would have the type of cells needed to save the woman’s 6-year-old daughter, who suffers from the life-threatening, bone marrow deficiency. Children with Fanconi anemia suffer usually die by age 8 or 9. > > Stem cells from the test-tube baby’s umbilical cord were collected when he was born in August and transplanted into his sister’s failing bone marrow last month at Fairview-University Medical Center in Minneapolis. Doctors there believe the sister has an 85 to 90 percent chance of recovery. > […] > Jewish law would not allow the destruction of embryos simply to choose a baby’s gender, Lipner says, but might permit it to save a life. “Destroying an embryo is destroying the beginning of life, and we are not allowed to do it. We have to protect the potential of life, and before we destroy even the potential of life we would have to have a good reason,” he explains. “… Judaism comes from a totally different angle (than society). We don’t come from the angle of rights but of responsibility. If anybody has a right, the potential human being has a right to exist. Whether an embryo is a complete human being, or half, or potential, the fact is that we will destroy the potential. Even if it is limited life we cannot do such a thing. We live in a society where there is too much talk about rights and that is why we have chaos, children’s rights, animal rights. You don’t have a right to destroy life because you have a frivolous need.” Now, I’ve stated before on at least one occasion that I have no _semikhah_, so it may be that my response to Rabbi Lipner _shlit"a_ may not be considered authorative. However, it seems to be that he is not stating the issues altogether correctly. An _actual_ life is considered to be of greater value than a _potential_ life. Thus, Orthodox Judaism not only _permits_ therapeutic abortion, but would actually _mandate_ in some cases; to do otherwise would be _khillul haShem_, a desecration of the Divine Name (and of the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself). There can be no doubt that the young girl in this case is an _actual_ life. Now, Jewish thought positively forbids euthanasia – the Talmud states that one cannot even move a dying man’s arms if to do so would hasten his death. At the same time, we are positively enjoined to allievate suffering; indeed, the closest approach to euthanasia is the stipulation that, if death is inevitable and further treatment or support would merely prolong suffering, it is permissible to refrain from such treatment or support. Of course, it is permitted to violate any _mitzvah_ if there is a reasonable chance of saving life by so doing – _except_ for the _mitzvot_ of refraining from murder, idolatry, and forbidden sexual relations. However, I think that we will agree that idolatry and forbidden sexual relations do not come into this matter. Thus, we must discuss the aspect of murder. There is no question that the baby was not murdered, or even harmed in any objectively provable way. We still have to consider the _possibilities_ for such harm. We acknowledge that certain forms of child abuse may amount to, or may even be, murder. Such abuse, however, certainly does not appear to have taken place in the case of the young girl. We must consider, then, the possibility that they yey may happen to the baby. However, there is no report here that the parents utterly reject having a second child, that they lack the means to rear one, or anything of that nature. Rather, we must consider that saving the girl is only _one_ of the reasons for having a second, _healthy_ child. Now, having reached this point, we must mention the embryos that were “eliminated” – a term that I presume is equivalent to “destroyed”. The Torah certainly views the elimination even of potential life dimly. OTOH, going back to my second point – Fanconi’s anemia certainly seems to make death inevitable, and I presume that the course of this disorder is not a pleasant one. Moreover, the embryo must be judged as _potential_, not _actual_ life. Moreover, we note that the _in vitro_ fertilization was designed to produce a baby whose cord blood could be used as a cure for this disorder. There would be a difference between saying in effect, “This child will be born with an incurable disease”, and, “This child will be born with a disease, but there is a cure”. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2000, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethicists-fear-erosion-of-moral-center-with-advance-of-science/35965/15 "2000-10-06T21:32:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by andros \* > **But for many it’s not a matter of “unsettling,” it’s a matter of pure-D evil.** The “Pure-D Evil” is only evil because someone tells them it is. Let’s not get into “sheeple.” (sheople?) That’s another topic entirely. But many of them say “It’s wrong. I can’t tell you why, but I KNOW it’s wrong.” 'nuff said. > [@](#): > > And if some folks believe that genetic testing of embryos leads to the dissolution of all ethics and morals, it’s hardly a universally accepted benefit. That’s the means, not the ends. The “universally accepted benefit” I was referring to is the increase in lifespans and overall health of the general population. (Although, whether or not that is truly a benefit is a topic for a different thread, which I may start tonight.) But I can see where you will come back by saying “the dissolution of all ethics and morals is not a benefit! Weren’t you listening to me you git?!?!” or something like that. Personally, I don’t have ethics and morals, so it doesn’t apply to me ;). At any rate, I see your point. It’s a trade-off, and can only be individually judged by personal opinion, and not by some universal standard. I guess we’re all screwed. ---
**Author:** ![ren](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed655f/32.png) [@ren](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ren)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2000, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethicists-fear-erosion-of-moral-center-with-advance-of-science/35965/16 "2000-10-07T01:07:29Z")
> [@](#): > > (Although, whether or not that is truly a benefit is a topic for a different thread, which I may start tonight.) I have a hard time seeing how to seperate out the discussion of what is “moral” or “ethical” from the discussion of what is “beneficial”, since all of these involve degrees of subjective judgement. What worries me is basically ignorance, not morality. There’s talk, for instance, about the use of genetic screening to weed out “bad” genes or what have you. Easy for the layperson to latch onto the idea that there’s something genetically “bad” that we can do something about now (in some cases this may be true). Little understanding in the lay community, however, about just how grey the definition of “bad” can be. (I’m fond of using the example of the AIDS-resistant mutation, I’ll skip it here rather than repeat it for the nth time, but if I should repeat just tell me). Also, even if the core issue _is_ one of ethics, framing the argument that way seems (to me) to lead away from cogent debate. What I mean is, the arguments of self-described “ethicists” and various religious authorities eventually seem to descend either into religious bickering or arguments about whether ethics are absolute or relative, all of which seems besides the point to me. What I perceive as the greater issue is that we poorly understand the power of these tools, and we can easily get careless, especially when money is involved. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2000, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethicists-fear-erosion-of-moral-center-with-advance-of-science/35965/17 "2000-10-07T01:21:11Z")
What does the D in “pure-D evil” stand for? – **tracer** , who hopes it’s a brassiere cup and not a flashlight battery or low classroom grade ---
**Author:** ![hardcore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@hardcore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hardcore)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2000, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethicists-fear-erosion-of-moral-center-with-advance-of-science/35965/18 "2000-10-07T02:19:29Z")
No, tracer… that’s just our accented way of saying “pretty evil” down here in Texas 😃 ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2000, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethicists-fear-erosion-of-moral-center-with-advance-of-science/35965/19 "2000-10-07T02:55:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > \*\*What does the D in “pure-D evil” stand for? > \*\* I was always under the impression that it stood for “Damned.” But I’ve been wrong before. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2000, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethicists-fear-erosion-of-moral-center-with-advance-of-science/35965/20 "2000-10-20T01:18:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Captain Amazing \* > But, in a bigger sense, doesn’t every technological advance create moral or ethical questions? Wait a minute … _you_ can’t be the real Captain Amazing! The real Captain Amazing died when the Blue Raja threw that switch a second time! [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethicists-fear-erosion-of-moral-center-with-advance-of-science/35965.md?page=2)