The Duty-Based Approach The duty-based approach, sometimes called deontological ethics, is most commonly associated with the philosopher Immanuel Kantalthough it had important precursors in earlier non-consquentialist, often explicitly religious, thinking of people like Saint Augustine of Hippowho emphasized the importance of the personal will and intention and of the omnipotent God who sees this interior mental state to ethical decision making.
The answer is almost surely "yes. In particular, it's a manifestly consequentialist idea -- what matters is the outcome, in terms of particular mental states of conscious beings. As for there being many people who "aren't interested in universal well-being," I would say that more or less everyone, myself included, is insufficiently interested in it.
That is, once researchers have agreed to terms, there is a difference between arguing that "he ought to use more poison on his victim, since he wants to be a good murderer" versus "he morally ought to use no poison at all, since he wants to be a morally good person".
He named one of three new species of dinosaur he found Iguanodon dawsoni and a new form of fossil plant Salaginella dawsoni. More importantly, it's equally obvious that even right-thinking people don't really agree about well-being, or how to maximize it.
Clark  All human actions depend on motivations. Sometimes the easiest way to see if an action is ethically obligatory is to look at what it would mean NOT to perform the action.
When I say, "Water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen," I have uttered a quintessential statement of scientific fact. One instance in particular, the brutality of Nazi scientists in World War II, was so severe and discriminatory that it led to the adoption of an international code governing research ethics.
Philosophical movements like eliminative and Revisionary materialism warn that philosophy is like science in that it may need to redefine or eliminate concepts as human understanding progresses.
There are a large number of arguments one could advance for in support of this claim, but I'll stick to three. On April 12, Pons received a standing ovation from about 7, chemists at the semi-annual meeting of the American Chemical Society. I would simply broaden picture to include animals and any other conscious systems that can experience gradations of happiness and suffering -- and weight them to the degree that they can experience such states.
Key Concepts Ethical conduct in science assures the reliability of research results and the safety of research subjects.
He believes that the science must use hybrids from various approaches to ethics, law, and human nature. Harris explains that the scientific method has settled on values in answering the question "what should I believe, and why should I believe it.
The implications were revolutionary — a molecular transistor could allow the development of computer microchips far smaller than any available at the time. In my experience, when you scratch the surface on any deontologist, you find a consequentialist just waiting to get out.
There is nothing mysterious about this: It seems to me that these two quotations converge on the core issue. The discovery of such concepts as electricity had the power to effectively shake the foundations of previously established constructs and truths about the natural world.
How flakey can a Nobel laureate in physics become before he is no longer worth listening to -- indeed, how many crazy things could he say about matter and space-time before he would no longer even count as a "physicist". Of course, goals and conceptual definitions matter.
This is so perfectly obvious, it's hard to know what to defend. Three Frameworks Based upon the three-part division of traditional normative ethical theories discussed above, it makes sense to suggest three broad frameworks to guide ethical decision making: Does science in Frankenstein go too far, or is it only natural curiosity.
Notorious among these efforts were experiments on the effects of hypothermia in humans. This paper investigates the three transmission channels of the IMF rescue package, namely: debtor-side moral hazard, creditor-side moral hazard, and debtor and creditor-side moral hazard.
To address these channels, we solve a sequential three-player moral hazard model. We use the analysis of science to negate every item of the creation to be God (Neti Neti-Veda). Science is the indirect knowledge of God by which we reject the entire creation to be God and conclude that God, the creator, is beyond the creation.
She proposed that science analyze: (a) existing social norms and their history, (b) the psychology of morality, and the way that individuals interact with moral matters and prescriptions, and (c) the sociology of morality. This is a reasonable question, but there is no way Carroll could answer it "precisely" and "in terms of measurable quantities" for his own field, much less for a nascent science of morality.
Each alters the mental lives of people involved and are therefore capable of moral analysis. From science to society Another problem standing in the way of proper morality is the human condition.
The science of morality may refer to various forms of ethical naturalism grounding morality in rational, empirical consideration of the natural world.
Overview. Moral science may refer to the consideration of what is best for, and how to maximize the flourishing of, either particular.An analysis of morality of science