Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I think we see the same things, but are interpreting them differently. How can science run afoul of them, if it is not addressing moral positions? The thing is, "moral" (as in "moral question") in this case, is not a stable target, and just because a scientifically minded person wouldn't consider something a moral issue doesn't mean it isn't one. Is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection a completely amoral statement about reality or is it the most evil satanic immoral thing you can ever teach a child? The answer depends on who is asked, not some inherent property of scientific results, AFAICT. I don't think we can excuse something from being a "moral issue", just because it was not intended as such. Nor can we exclude something from scientific examination merely because we view it as a moral issue. We may, in deference to our proclivities, decide not to pursue certain courses of inquiry for what we deem "moral" reasons, but that is a separate question from whether science can address moral questions or morality as a whole.
There are two very different things you are talking about. The first is the science. Science is stem cell research, or studying evolution, or cloning. Those things make no moral judgments whatsoever. The second thing is the people observing the science. Those people can make moral judgments ABOUT the science, and usually do. Cloning is cloning. The science involved in creating a clone is neither moral, nor immoral. A Christian might view cloning as man playing god and be morally offended. A woman wanting to replace a beloved dog might not view it as morally wrong at all. The science doesn't have an opinion, so it is not addressing morality in any way.