David Gerard
Sketches From Three Rivers
January 28, 2007 07:42 pm
—
“Science is morally neutral.”
Probably, I’ve already bored half of you with that statement — I did me.
But don’t leave. This statement appeared in a column by political and cultural analyst Jonah Goldberg this past week.
You and I know what Goldberg was getting at — science is neither right nor wrong, but what we do with science can be right or wrong.
I heard it explained like this in grade school. A person can pound nails with a hammer, or a person can hit someone over the head with it. The hammer is neutral. What people do with a hammer can be good or bad.
The National Rifle Association uses the argument in defense of guns: Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
I don’t attribute complete neutrality to things, though. Oatmeal and rice cakes are close to neutral, but that’s about it.
A hammer, a simple tool, is not impersonal. And the more complicated tools and machines get, like guns, the more personal they get. Guns don’t like living beings. Their goal is to eliminate living beings. My computer at work doesn’t hate me, but I’m telling you, the thing barely tolerates me.
Saying “A computer is neutral and that it’s only what we do with it that determines good or evil” doesn’t tell the whole story — just like saying “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” doesn’t cut it.
Saying that is an excuse for gun manufacturers to make and sell as many guns as they want. Saying that is an excuse for our country and arms manufacturers to sell as many weapons as they want to other countries, even countries that will use them against us later.
Goldberg wasn’t writing about guns, though. He was writing about embryonic stem cell research and whether allowing the research is moral or not. He doesn’t think so, but starting with the argument, “Science doesn’t kill embryos, people kill embryos,” doesn’t cut it.
Science is not impersonal. It behaves like the thing it tries to explain, nature, and we all know what nature is like — life is precious, but life maintains life by life feeding on life.
Go to any hydroelectric dam when the generators are running and the shad are thick in the water below the gates. Gulls drop from the sky in a feeding frenzy, and predatory fish churn the waters in gorging themselves.
Claiming neutrality for nature or science doesn’t cut it. Claiming neutrality allows a proliferation of things with malevolent intent — like guns — and dismal situations — like the problem we have with embryos some say are useful in embryonic stem cell research.
See, President Bush, Goldberg and others don’t want embryos manufactured in fertility clinics used in stem cell research, but they don’t appear to have a moral issue with clinics creating multitudes of embryos that remain forever frozen or get tossed into the trash when they’re not wanted for development later.
That attitude allows people to pick and choose which issues are moral tragedies.
President Bush is worried about destroying embryos that are only a few days old used in stem cell research, but when it comes to stopping the slaughter of men, women and children in the war in Darfur, our president and his administration basically has ignored the genocide for more than three years, making ultimatums they don’t keep.
Goldberg is worried about embryos used in stem cell research, but when it comes to the slaughter in Darfur, the issue is not how morally bankrupt the situation there is. Instead it’s a blame game, complaining that the United Nations is a worthless, corrupt organization and to blame for the continued fighting.
Goldberg is not wrong to say that people kill people.
But when we begin with the attitude that guns and science and any other inanimate object and machine is just another bowl of oatmeal or package of rice cakes, we’ve magnified the problem.
You can reach Gerard at 684-2920 or dgerard@muskogeephoenix.com.
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.
Photos
