This blog post examines how far the ethical legitimacy of scientific research can be accepted and what impact it has on society.
David Carrier of the University of Utah stated in a paper submitted to the Journal of Experimental Biology on October 21, 2015, that the human hand evolved to clench into a fist and deliver punches effectively. This research is considered important material for exploring, from an anthropological perspective, how the human body has developed to perform specific functions. While the paper’s content was sufficiently impressive, the scientific community reviewed the study’s validity, sparking debate. As a result, opposing views emerged immediately. Critics questioned the credibility of the research conclusions drawn by David Carrier and further argued that they could potentially justify human violence. It is true that excessive reductionism could be found in David Carrier’s research, and whether sufficient evidence for causal tracing was presented at the level of research methodology is a matter that requires re-evaluation. But was the other reason for criticism—justification of violence—truly valid? If the evidence had been solid in the same situation, would the same evaluation have been made? Let us reconsider their position that science and technology conflict with ethics.
The fundamental purpose of scientific research is to bring the world within the scope of human understanding through insight. Even if results derived from natural science do not fit into a pre-existing framework of understanding, they cannot be easily dismissed because they are products of scientific methodology. Therefore, to fulfill the original purpose, it is necessary to expand or modify our epistemological framework. If research results contradict the premise that humans are not violent, despite observing and structuring humanity based on that assumption, then the error must be sought in the premise itself and re-examined. This is fundamental to philosophy. The prevailing view of humanity in contemporary society, rooted in philosophical foundations, requires both examination and acceptance. At this juncture, where the observation of humans as objects has not yet been prolonged, the very posture of seeking to expand our understanding of humanity marks the beginning of acceptance. This expansion of understanding is also essential for making our society’s ethical framework more robust and comprehensive.
Of course, the risks of refusing to expand our understanding of humanity also exist. Acting on hasty conclusions about human nature excludes groups that do not fit that nature. The social systems created by ethical frameworks structure society without accommodating the excluded groups. The excluded position faces the difficulty of even proving its existence. For instance, psychopaths belong to a group with different empathy capabilities than ordinary humans. Conversely, ‘Colbert’ and mainstream groups consider provisional empathy and moral development to be natural outcomes and fundamental processes of cognitive development, basing educational policy on this ideology. Mainstream ethics cannot place the psychopathic group under its own umbrella. If their differences are not respected, it can be seen as discrimination, and discrimination is a universally unethical act. The exclusive attitude of one ethical system becomes an opportunity to isolate ethics itself and distance it from completeness. It is self-evident that such an ethical system cannot become universal ethics. Nevertheless, these debates can foster a deeper understanding of human nature and become an important process for resolving ethical dilemmas.
To raise questions about what human nature is and what humans ought to be based on naturalistic ethics requires sufficient grounds. These grounds may be judgments based on a priori results or outcomes derived through deductive processes. Historically, numerous discussions on human nature have unfolded. Drawing an analogy to the structure of scientific revolutions based on the philosophical characteristics of naturalistic ethics, some ethical views may have faded or been revered as paradigms. Therefore, at this juncture, judgment should focus not on emphasizing perfection but on the potential for development before our eyes. The basis is always the given knowledge and experiences, and natural science will be a steadfast supporter. Therefore, natural science and ethics, now standing on equal footing, must adopt a posture of humble acceptance rather than stubbornly insisting on conflicting positions. When new discoveries challenge existing ethical standards, we must not forget that we should critically accept them and reexamine our values.
Some groups argue that natural scientific thinking threatens ethics itself. ‘Adolf Hitler’ used eugenic research findings as justification for ethnic cleansing, committing the worst massacres. They claim that if natural science is elevated above ethics, countless inhumane actions could be justified under the guise of ‘natural providence’. This argument fails to consider two critical issues.
First, eugenics is absolutely not scientific research. Eugenics asserts the existence of inferior species and superior species. However, species cannot be divided into superior and inferior in nature. Species are distinguished solely by differences in how they interact with their environment. The claim that superiority exists between individuals was merely the arrogance of researchers interpreting their findings through an extremely subjective lens. Research that loses objectivity through irrational judgment cannot be deemed appropriate for understanding humanity.
Another contradiction borne by the example of eugenics is that natural science cannot be placed above ethics. In terms of value, ethics and natural science must be treated as equals. Ethics must maintain a balance that treats humans, as recognized by natural science, as equal while preserving diversity. If science is the method of observing objects, then ethics and morality are the methods of structuring them. While their relationship is compartmentalized, they must remain mutually interdependent.
To reiterate, judging science through ethics is akin to overstepping boundaries by failing to recognize each other’s domains and should be avoided. However, while acknowledging each other, science must reduce knowledge and reason, and ethics must restructure them within our society. The purpose of science, no less than that of ethics, is for the prosperity and well-being of humanity. There is no doubt that by not rejecting each other, they can achieve their respective goals. Thus, profound reflection is needed on how these two distinct domains can achieve harmony and interact. Such reflection will provide crucial clues for understanding the relationship between science and ethics.
