Morals vs. Science?

[MJ12]

You're right. But f*cking college sluts and earning money are self-serving pursuits, while scientific knowledge benefits the entire race.

Therefore logically it's the "better" cause to work for.

That's just so silly. The arguement is about whether or not scientists should have any boundaries in their work. OF COURSE they should, without boundaries scientists can do the most horrific things to humans and destroy parts of the environment while just saying "It's for the better!" yeah okay, once it's your turn to be put in a pressure chamber or have a nuclear bomb blow up x ammount of miles from you, we'll see how much you love being a test for science.

It's always easy to say it's fine when YOU'RE not the one dealing with the consequence.

While scientific discovery is great you can't act as zealous and as an angry as a religious person ranting about finding The Love of Jesus Christ.


But anyways, you're assuming because I'm saying scientists should have moral boundaries that means people should stop learning and start ****ing sluts in college.
You're using some logical fallacies here.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Hey guys.

Scientists can both search for truth AND **** college girls and drink beer till they can't stand up.

 

[99.vikram]

Scientists can both search for truth AND **** college girls and drink beer till they can't stand up.

I tried that, but I end up spilling the beer on the electron microscope every time I jizz.

 

[Dog--]

I betcha we'd be further along in technology if scientists had no morals.

TBH, if I were a scientist, I'd personally kill 1000 people to invent, say, a robotic heart. In the long run it'd save millions perhaps billions, so those 1000 people died to save lives.


BUT, I don't think EVERY scientist should be able to freely do whatever they want. Only the select few geniuses.

 

[99.vikram]

^ This.

You have to pass a test before you get the Licence To Kill.