From: Blanc <blancw@cnw.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 17:49:34 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: rant on the morality of confidentiality
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19980114014522.00720408@cnw.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Bill Stewart wrote, in reference to "immoral science" vs immoral *scientists*:

>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, 
	[..etc...]
.............................................................

I was being picky/particular.   Because consider that science does not
conduct itself:  it is a method developed by scientists, and it is
*conducted by* them.   They determine what is the right manner in which to
conduct their experiments, they figure out how to determine what is valid
in terms of proofs.   Their findings, to be valid, must relate to the
actual nature of things, to reality.   But then, being humans, scientists
must consider what all of this "means" to us, or about us, upon reflection.

If after a time, scientists have come to depend on the "scientific method"
(as established by other scientists in the past) to determine what they
shall do, how they should proceed, and have given up on doing some of their
own current reasoning on methodologies;  if they are not sensitive to the
meaning or validity of what they do, then this would be to say that it is
"science" which is at fault when they inflict torture, for example, rather
than those individuals who engage in those experiments.

But this is like the tail wagging the dog, or like the typical Nazi excuse
that "the State made me do it":  "Science determined that the experiment
had to be conducted this way, in order to achieve true knowledge; I had no
choice."   I say it is the scientist who makes the science immoral, if it
be judged to be so, not vice-versa.

As for the concept of morality, which I'm sure will be the next controversy
brought up by someone:

It is a difficult thing to pin down what morality/immorality is, because
because it is an abstract concept which requires a comprehensive view on
humanity, conscience, and concepts of "goodness", and because it is so
mixed up with notions from religion and associations with any number of
unrelated ideas and concepts.

Generally it can be agreed that someone who liberally and insensitively
creates pain and destruction upon humans is not "one of us",
psychologically.  An educator (Montessori) explained it thus:
	
"Good is life; evil is death; the real distinction is as clear as the
words."  Anything which goes of the direction of life is good (and moral)
while anything which goes in the other direction is of the opposite character.

"The 'moral sense' ... is to a great extent the sense of sympathy with our
fellows, the comprehension of their sorrows, the sentiment of justice; the
lack of these sentiments convulses normal life.  We cannot become moral by
committing codes and their application to memory, for memory might fail us
a thousand times, and the slightest passion might overcome us; criminals,
in fact, even when they are most astute and wary students of codes, often
violate them; while normal persons, although entirely ignorant of the laws,
never transgress them, owing to 'an internal sense which guides them'. "

Those who have become insensitive to this internal guidance system are
generally dangerous, and risky to be around, even if you don't want to
identify their inclinations as "immoral".



    ..
Blanc