...objections? I can understand why some people would get angry at people who stall progress and waste people's time over purely religious objections, as that senator or congressman who drilled the pro-global warming scientist on the house floor with the objection: "God promised he'd never destroy the earth again after the flood, it's in Genesis and I believe that." That poor scientist, how can he respond to that? x)
But I don't understand why anyone would fault someone, religious or not, who makes objections on ethical grounds. As with the ethical objections over stem cell research, cloning, euthanasia, and even the ethical implications over how best to "combat global warming." If people should keep ethical objections to themselves for the sake of "progress", so we can move forward without wasting our precious time to consider the ethical implications, then I can't think of anything that would stagnate progress more than that.
Am I wrong for not agreeing that ethical objections stagnate progress? Is it really that backwards for me to believe that if there are unresolved ethical questions still in the air, then we shouldn't move forward with potentially dangerous ideas, science and innovations until the debate over it's ethical implications is fully exhausted? What do you think, what is your opinion on this topic?
But I don't understand why anyone would fault someone, religious or not, who makes objections on ethical grounds. As with the ethical objections over stem cell research, cloning, euthanasia, and even the ethical implications over how best to "combat global warming." If people should keep ethical objections to themselves for the sake of "progress", so we can move forward without wasting our precious time to consider the ethical implications, then I can't think of anything that would stagnate progress more than that.
Am I wrong for not agreeing that ethical objections stagnate progress? Is it really that backwards for me to believe that if there are unresolved ethical questions still in the air, then we shouldn't move forward with potentially dangerous ideas, science and innovations until the debate over it's ethical implications is fully exhausted? What do you think, what is your opinion on this topic?