|
|
It's been a while since i saw a really challenging philosophical question posted... so it's time for another zinger courtesy of me. ^_^ And, as my inspiration, i will use hubub surrounding the recent US election of its first black president, and sprinkle some salt on those old racial wounds. (Why would i put salt on old racial wounds? Because i think racism is one of the stupidest inventions of humankind, and the only thing about it that should be taken seriously is its complete and utter destruction by rational thinking.)
First, some background. In 2007, James Watson (yes, the DNA guy) made a statement that black people were less intelligent than white people. His claim was that this was not a racial issue, but rather an issue of differential evolution between different groups of humans on different continents. Now, ignoring for the moment the shaky science behind the claim (and the fact that at the time he was like 80, and arguably on the brink of senile), let's look at what Watson said about why this matters. According to Watson, this difference is significant and should not be ignored for political-correctness because:
- If we base all of our policies on the assumption that blacks and whites have the same intelligence, blacks will be perpetually disadvantaged.
- If we ignore the scientific evidence of a difference, we lose a potentially lucrative line of inquiry that may lead to an understanding of the genetics of intelligence - which could probably lead to improving the intelligence of everyone.
- If we just pretend the difference doesn't really exist, and that the differences in test scores is entirely due to social inequalities, we'll waste immeasurable resources on social programs that are completely worthless, and do nothing to help level the playing field in reality.
In short, his argument was that ignoring this scientific data just because it is politically and socially uncomfortable is damaging to society and science, and simply morally wrong.
Now, Watson's "science" (such as it was) is highly suspect (and, in fact, he apologized for being an ass like a day later). BUT! Let's put on our philosopher's caps and think about this issue.
- Is this kind of research ethical and/or moral? In other words: if i were to conduct an experiment to see if whites are smarter than blacks (or vice versa, of course - and you may substitute any race you like), would i be doing something unethical or immoral? Explain why (not).
- If you had evidence that supported this kind of hot-button racial claim, would it be ethical or moral to withhold or publish it in any situation? For example: suppose it was still the 1950s or 1960s in the US, with black people fighting for their social rights against an entrenched racist society (or, if you prefer, you may use South Africa in the 1980s, or a hypothetical imaginary society where whites rules and blacks are fighting for equality - and of course, you can switch up the races to mix things up), and you were a researcher who had just stumbled across a telling discovery that all but proves the racist claims. You know publishing your results would pretty much guarantee that the civil rights being fought for would be totally lost. Would it be moral or ethical to withhold your results? Again, explain.
- Assuming you approve of withholding findings in the example above - for example, you had evidence that blacks were less intelligent than whites, but publishing that info would ruin their bid for civil rights and social equality, so you believe you should withhold your results - how far does that go? For example, you may believe that it is moral and/or ethical to withhold information about intellectual differences... but would you refuse to publish research that showed blacks were more prone to sickle cell anaemia? Why, or why not? Where would you draw the line - what factors would affect whether you would opt to withhold certain findings rather than others?
- Was Watson wrong? (Not about the science, because this is not a science forum, but about his reasoning for wanting to publish this information, even though he knew it was controversial and would hurt his career and credibility.) Why, or why not?
And of course, any other (relevant and intelligent) questions you might want to bring up.
Because this is likely to be an emotional topic for some people, there are also some points that are not allowed to be brought up. Although i'm sure that some idiot will bring them up regardless, i'll list them here anyway. i'd ask that if you're not an idiot, that you neither bring up these points, nor debate anyone that opts to bring them up. Just call them an idiot and leave it at that.
Here's the list of what should not be discussed:
- Any existing racial theories, whether they're yours or not, whether they're historical or not. If you want to discuss racial theories... go somewhere the hell else. The question in this thread are about how to behave if racist claims were scientifically true, not to put together a laundry list of racist claims.
- The scientific validity of any racist theories (Watson's or otherwise). This is not the science forum, and it doesn't matter whether the theories are actually true or false or even good science. The idea is to consider what if they are valid... then what should we do, morally and ethically, given that.
- What kind of person Watson is. Doesn't matter.
- Whether Watson or Obama or me or anyone that takes part in this discussion is racist. This is not about racism, it is about morality and ethics, and how far they can exist in practice in an imperfect world (in this particular case, the imperfection is racial inequality).
If you cannot abide by these rules, don't take part in this discussion.
----------------------
As a point of interest (this is not a topic for discussion), Watson has always been a rather... colorful character with regards to his scientific extremism, and complete lack of empathy for social inequalities. He has been known to speak quite bluntly on scientific issues relating to gender equality and racial equality. Some of his comments have been informed, some are based on... outdated research (i am being generous here). For example, he hypothesized that skin colour effects libido. Mind you, most of this is in the last 10 years or so - while he was well in his 70s - so age is probably a factor... but apparently he's always been an unpleasant bastard.
With regards to intelligence, Watson has always been passionate about "curing" stupidity by genetic manipulation - in other words, you'd genetically engineer your unborn baby to be smart (or, you would be able to find out how smart your child will be by a genetic profile, and decide then whether or not to go through with the pregnancy). The 2007 comments relate to that, not to racism - he wants to single out the genes for intelligence, and one easy way to do that is to identify which populations are more intelligent than others. If it is true that blacks are less intelligent than whites (and both are apparently - according to him - "less intelligent than asians"), then that is valuable scientific data for that pursuit. It has nothing to do with racism, but - as per his style - Watson was perhaps terribly insensitive given that racism does exist (which, really, is the real crime, more so than Watson's insensitivity).
In this discussion, i am attempting to put everyone in Watson's shoes (including assuming his data is good... which... well i'll leave it at that), except with open eyes about the social and cultural implications of this work (whereas Watson would turn a blind eye to all that). Racism is stupid. People who buy into racism are stupid. But since racism is real and some people are very serious about it... what do we do?
This is completely retarded. Of course it MATTERS if it's bad science!! How can you make ethical decisions based on bad science???
And anything based on genetic differences between races WILL BE bad science because science has shown THERE ARE NO GENETIC DIFFERENCES.
Race is a social construct, created by some races (in particular "whites") to give them power over other races. Scientific "inquiry" into a social construct should be left to sociologists, psychologists, whatever. A geneticist that attempts to prove things about race is attempting to give scientific respectability to white supremacy, which is disgusting and wrong.
Asking "what would you do if an experiment showed blacks were dumber than whites?" is like asking "what would you do if an equation showed 0 = 1?" I would assume I'd messed up at some point.
It would appear someone missed the point completely. There's a reason Indi didn't put it in the science forum. That's because this is a hypothetical question, a "what if" discussion. Read the post again, it was pretty damn clear -.-
It's not a hypothetical question. Racists have abused "science" to support their position for years. You guys are crazy if you think people won't get offended by this.
Yes, it's true that racists have abused science to support their own extreme views. Its happened in the past and it happens very frequently today. This however is posted very clearly and you should realize that it's not the same thing at all.
I think it's uncomfortable to ask such questions as Watson has asked due to the social climate of the 21st century. With the underlying existence of racism within society I think it's harder these days to ask this supposedly legitimate question than it would have been say a few hundred years ago. I think really it's a question of upsetting people, you have to think of the human aspects before you blaze everything with science. If people would be seriously upset or offending by hearing that such a theory had been published then I almost think... is it worth it? But then again if it were proved somehow that black people were more intelligent than white people or visa-versa and that was known to be the scientifical proof then I think it might be a different morale issue from not publishing those facts purely because of political corectness and social climate. It's a very tricky one, and it's almost too uncomfortable for me (and I'm sure many others) to touch but very interesting, thanks for posting.
| Indi wrote: | According to Watson, this difference is significant and should not be ignored for political-correctness because:
- If we base all of our policies on the assumption that blacks and whites have the same intelligence, blacks will be perpetually disadvantaged.
- If we ignore the scientific evidence of a difference, we lose a potentially lucrative line of inquiry that may lead to an understanding of the genetics of intelligence - which could probably lead to improving the intelligence of everyone.
- If we just pretend the difference doesn't really exist, and that the differences in test scores is entirely due to social inequalities, we'll waste immeasurable resources on social programs that are completely worthless, and do nothing to help level the playing field in reality.
In short, his argument was that ignoring this scientific data just because it is politically and socially uncomfortable is damaging to society and science, and simply morally wrong.
Now, Watson's "science" (such as it was) is highly suspect (and, in fact, he apologized for being an ass like a day later). BUT! |
I am not a scientist Indi, but all of the above statements sound unverified to me, i.e. very much unscientific.
| Quote: | Let's put on our philosopher's caps and think about this issue.
- Is this kind of research ethical and/or moral? In other words: if i were to conduct an experiment to see if whites are smarter than blacks (or vice versa, of course - and you may substitute any race you like), would i be doing something unethical or immoral? Explain why (not).
|
Probably depends on who will be doing the research. If it could be done carefully, with the best of scientists representing all of the groups, then perhaps it could be OK to do this. But there will certainly be ramifications in designing the questionnaire and going out to question people from different groups during the research. It would have to be carefully handled with the greatest of tact. I think society is ready for this. Perhaps a couple of decades ago it would have been impossible to even think about it. But with Obama being voted and a much stronger self-esteem everywhere, I think the world is ready for this and can accept any differences that are brought to light, if any at all.
| Quote: | | If you had evidence that supported this kind of hot-button racial claim, would it be ethical or moral to withhold or publish it in any situation? For example: suppose it was still the 1950s or 1960s in the US, with black people fighting for their social rights against an entrenched racist society (or, if you prefer, you may use South Africa in the 1980s, or a hypothetical imaginary society where whites rules and blacks are fighting for equality - and of course, you can switch up the races to mix things up), and you were a researcher who had just stumbled across a telling discovery that all but proves the racist claims. You know publishing your results would pretty much guarantee that the civil rights being fought for would be totally lost. Would it be moral or ethical to withhold your results? Again, explain. |
I do not see this supposition as realistic. Little bit of nonsense to me. The research has not been done, nothing has been proven.
| Quote: | | Assuming you approve of withholding findings in the example above - for example, you had evidence that blacks were less intelligent than whites, but publishing that info would ruin their bid for civil rights and social equality, so you believe you should withhold your results - how far does that go? For example, you may believe that it is moral and/or ethical to withhold information about intellectual differences... but would you refuse to publish research that showed blacks were more prone to sickle cell anaemia? Why, or why not? Where would you draw the line - what factors would affect whether you would opt to withhold certain findings rather than others? |
Ditto the above. This kind of withholding of course happens everywhere and does exist, but the research has not been done yet.
| Quote: | | Was Watson wrong? (Not about the science, because this is not a science forum, but about his reasoning for wanting to publish this information, even though he knew it was controversial and would hurt his career and credibility.) Why, or why not?And of course, any other (relevant and intelligent) questions you might want to bring up. |
Why not? Possibly because it was an unscientific statement, and perfectly nonsense statement. On what facts was his statement based? What investigations has he made? Why did he make the statement? What was his personal motive in it? Was it planned for effect? Was it part of a strategy?
| Quote: | | [*]What kind of person Watson is. Doesn't matter. |
I do not know him at all. And it is quite difficult to put myself in his shoes as that would entail a proper investigation of who Watson is supposed to be.
Hmmm, interesting question.
I'll just chip-in with a consideration of the first question | Quote: | | Is this kind of research ethical and/or moral? In other words: if i were to conduct an experiment to see if whites are smarter than blacks (or vice versa, of course - and you may substitute any race you like), would i be doing something unethical or immoral? Explain why (not). |
No, I don't believe you would. We surely want to know the 'truth'. Now, given that 'truth' is an elusive beastie then the best we can do is aim to produce verifiable (repeatable) results based on some objective criteria. Now, are we talking 'science' here? Doubtful - I do not believe that IQ is a truly scientific measure of intelligence, but I do think it is probably as close as we can currently get. Given that we cannot say, unambiguously, what 'intelligence' actually is, then is it very difficult to accept that any particular measurement of intelligence is 'correct'. The question is, therefore, what is it that we are measuring and how 'useful' is it? This itself is a huge area and we could discuss this issue endlessly, but I suspect that is not the intent of the question. Therefore let me assume, for the sake of argument, that IQ tests reveal something salient about the intelligence of the person being tested.
The question now becomes - is it unethical to administer IQ tests to different races with a view to examining IQ correlation with race?
No, I believe it is not. I take the view that all information is 'good' and that ignorance is bad. What we do with that information and how we choose to interpret it is a different matter, but the gathering of such information (providing it is done ethically - not involving coercion or trickery) cannot, in my opinion, be judged to be unethical.
| Indi wrote: | [list=1][*]Is this kind of research ethical and/or moral? In other words: if i were to conduct an experiment to see if whites are smarter than blacks (or vice versa, of course - and you may substitute any race you like), would i be doing something unethical or immoral? Explain why (not).
|
The problem is in the time period you look at, for if there is anything that we can learn from history, it is no society or civilization maintains the balance of power for all ages.
The first society to ever fulfil the definition of the word "civilization" was the Sumerians(from the Middle East).
The longest powerful civilization ever to touch the face of this Earth remians Ancient Eygpt - an African nation. Indeed it is disputable if the ancient egyptians were black (although Tutukamu most likely was), they certainly were not white (in the European sense).
And Europe was dying from disease at the height of Arabian achievement which dwarfed all others prior to it.
"White/European intellectuality" really becane post-colonialism (circa > 1492). The great scientists of the Greeks and the Romans prior to the dark ages, had much racial intermingling, that it would be wrong to define them white.
Your question is also ambiguous. You state "white" and "black", yet you really mean caucasian (not necessarily the indo-aryan definition but limited to the ural mountains), and the negroid. There is no such thing as a "pure" white (or rather a "pure" aryan despite what Hitler promoted). Although "pure blacks" can exist. The European race came from the Iranians (Aryans - sons of darius), at least the modern europeans did (due to ice age).
Finally, if you were to do an experiment to see who is smarter, blacks or white, then it can't be done. The reason is, skin colour is defined in the environment you live in. And humans, like all animals, are responsive to the environment they live in. For instance, in colder climates you develop bigger brains. This is true fom the average brains you look at, where the mongoloid is the largest and the negroid the smallest - albeit I do not know why the mongoloid is bigger than the caucasian (if I was to base on climate). However, it is much truer in Europe, where the hotter south have smaller brains than the colder north.
But is brain size to define intelligence?
What defines intelligence? IQ tests? i.e. that are written by western scholars for western people even though Jews and Far East perform better than native Europeans?
or is intelligence defined in cultural achievements? Then surely Marco Polo commented that his visit to China, he remarked that their civilization suppased the achievements of the Europeans (which at the time was not much) and the Middle East. And like I said, no society maintains power for all ages.
To be honest, at the moment mankind is too genetically close to be indifferent. Darwin talked about the black Australians (aborgines) becoming backwards, and the rest of the world evolving. I do think a "superior kind" will emerge, but that will be defined by those who can live in this society of change and technology and those who cannot (for instance I see the Internet being split into two - countries with the new Internet (e.g. Web 2.0) and poor nations who cannot handle it). It will not be race, certainly not in the global environment we live in. The achievements of China and India is becoming a testamant to this. Yet I am a looking at years of 2000 generations for us to see a distinct correlation in which one part of mankind will evolve (the majority) and the rest will remain behind (a minority). But certainly it will have nothing to do with race.
| liljp617 wrote: | | It would appear someone missed the point completely. There's a reason Indi didn't put it in the science forum. That's because this is a hypothetical question, a "what if" discussion. Read the post again, it was pretty damn clear -.- |
Yes it is. ^_^; But, as i said: "Although i'm sure that some idiot will bring them up regardless, i'll list them here anyway." i'm so good at seeing the future, i should open up my own Miss Cleo line.
Yes, the situation is hypothetical (although spring-boarding off of a fairly similar real situation), and in fact, it really has nothing to do with racism. i could have given the spring-board example as: "The year is 1008, and peasant class are fighting for rights and equality while the nobility denies them these rights. The natural philosopher Watsonus has claimed that the negative claims of the nobility against the peasants are all true - that they are indeed brutish, off a lesser stock of humanity, and unable to fully comprehend the concepts and responsibilities that would be required of their understanding should they be granted the rights they desire. Assuming that Watsonus's findings are in fact true, what should be done about them? Was Watsonus right to make the enquiry? Should such findings be published, even though they would, in effect, destroy the chance that peasants have at equality? Even if they were true and known, what should be done about them?" Or i could have invented a science fiction example about psi capability and eye colour.
| Josso wrote: | | Yes, it's true that racists have abused science to support their own extreme views. Its happened in the past and it happens very frequently today. This however is posted very clearly and you should realize that it's not the same thing at all. |
It is unfortunate, but the people who are unable to see past race on this issue are simply being small-minded. The example i gave may be contemporary, but the questions are universal (as i demonstrated in the example above). While i understand that this issue may be sensitive for some, a philosopher should be courageous - many have died for speaking truths they uncovered, not the least of which is Socrates - and should not be afraid to face issues that sting. Those who cannot even discuss something that is only peripherally related to racism in a hypothetical context are simply not ready to be philosophers.
As i pointed out, i could have chosen a non-contemporary example to illustrate the problem, but far too often people think of philosophy as some kind of pie-in-the-sky academic pursuit that has no real bearing on practical life. By selecting a very hot-button issue, i wanted to hammer home the point that this is not true. Philosophy can - and has! - been at the forefront of dramatic social change all throughout history. The philosophers condemning slavery in the 17th and 18th centuries were mavericks in their time, but they knew that they couldn't ethically hold their tongues while people suffered for such a stupid and clearly immoral system. Today, i feel the same way about racism.
And these are not simply theoretical questions. Even if black/white racism were to die today, something would replace it tomorrow (i note with sorrow that on the very same day that Americans finally broke what may be the last major racial barrier, they erected new barriers against another minority... homosexuals). Maybe someday it will be between pure-bred humans and the genetically modified, or between humans and human-alien hybrids. Race is a red-herring here, the real issues are universal. And to those posters who can't see past that, i say you're not ready to be philosophers. Go to the hobbies and animals forum, or at the very least, go back to discussing gods lifting stones and angels dancing on pinheads. This discussion requires real philosophers.
| Josso wrote: | | I think it's uncomfortable to ask such questions as Watson has asked due to the social climate of the 21st century. With the underlying existence of racism within society I think it's harder these days to ask this supposedly legitimate question than it would have been say a few hundred years ago. I think really it's a question of upsetting people, you have to think of the human aspects before you blaze everything with science. If people would be seriously upset or offending by hearing that such a theory had been published then I almost think... is it worth it? But then again if it were proved somehow that black people were more intelligent than white people or visa-versa and that was known to be the scientifical proof then I think it might be a different morale issue from not publishing those facts purely because of political corectness and social climate. It's a very tricky one, and it's almost too uncomfortable for me (and I'm sure many others) to touch but very interesting, thanks for posting. |
i don't expect we'll find an answer. ^_^; As you say, it is a very tricky question.
And, honestly, so far, as a species, we've been lucky. It hasn't really cropped up yet. So far, all the science that might support racism has been pretty crappy - and usually dishonest. But if you think about it, we've really dodged a bullet. Watson is right about one thing - black or white aside, there may have been an intelligence difference simply due to the fact that we evolved in different areas (which gave us our different skin colours, among other things). Now, apparently there isn't - but there may have been. We're really lucky that it hasn't turned out that way.
But any gambler or statistician will tell you you can't be lucky forever. It may pop up someday, somehow, that a disgusting ideology that degrades some segment of humanity turns out to be scientifically true. What do we do then? Gods i don't know. >_< That would be a mess. Our responsibility as philosophers and moral people requires that - now that we know this may happen - we need to think about what to do if it does.
| Bikerman wrote: | Hmmm, interesting question.
I'll just chip-in with a consideration of the first question | Quote: | | Is this kind of research ethical and/or moral? In other words: if i were to conduct an experiment to see if whites are smarter than blacks (or vice versa, of course - and you may substitute any race you like), would i be doing something unethical or immoral? Explain why (not). |
No, I don't believe you would. We surely want to know the 'truth'. Now, given that 'truth' is an elusive beastie then the best we can do is aim to produce verifiable (repeatable) results based on some objective criteria. Now, are we talking 'science' here? Doubtful - I do not believe that IQ is a truly scientific measure of intelligence, but I do think it is probably as close as we can currently get. Given that we cannot say, unambiguously, what 'intelligence' actually is, then is it very difficult to accept that any particular measurement of intelligence is 'correct'. The question is, therefore, what is it that we are measuring and how 'useful' is it? This itself is a huge area and we could discuss this issue endlessly, but I suspect that is not the intent of the question. Therefore let me assume, for the sake of argument, that IQ tests reveal something salient about the intelligence of the person being tested.
The question now becomes - is it unethical to administer IQ tests to different races with a view to examining IQ correlation with race?
No, I believe it is not. I take the view that all information is 'good' and that ignorance is bad. What we do with that information and how we choose to interpret it is a different matter, but the gathering of such information (providing it is done ethically - not involving coercion or trickery) cannot, in my opinion, be judged to be unethical. |
Well, yes. ^_^ i suppose you'll have to assume that "intelligence" could be meaningfully defined and measured in a way that is not biased by race-related factors. (Most measurements today, for example, would be biased by the socio-economic difference between the races in most countries, among other things, like cultural differences.)
Now, when you say all information is "good", do you mean moral, or amoral? The distinction matters because it means that this knowledge would be good intrinsically - it is knowledge, thus we should seek it and share it - or good instrumentally - it is inherently valueless (neither good nor bad), but by seeking and applying it morally we make it moral (as opposed to if we had sought and applied it immorally, for example seeking it by coercion or trickery and applying it for racially intolerant practises). The difference is whether the moral onus is on us (or the researcher/publisher), or simply inherent in the fact of what we're doing.
For example, let's assume the KKK sponsored this experiment (you're familiar with them, i assume - it's a notorious white supremacist group in the US) for the purposes of proving their racist theories. And, further, let's assume they actually followed legitimate and rigorous scientific practise... in other words, their results are valid. If you believe that knowledge is inherently good, then you support them in their efforts - and in fact, if they asked for your help and you were able to do so, you should.
Ah... but that kinda... stings... doesn't it? ^_-
| Indi wrote: | For example, let's assume the KKK sponsored this experiment (you're familiar with them, i assume - it's a notorious white supremacist group in the US) for the purposes of proving their racist theories. And, further, let's assume they actually followed legitimate and rigorous scientific practise... in other words, their results are valid. If you believe that knowledge is inherently good, then you support them in their efforts - and in fact, if they asked for your help and you were able to do so, you should.
Ah... but that kinda... stings... doesn't it? ^_- |
OK, nice dilemma. I'm not going to retreat, however, from my original statement. Knowledge is good intrinsically, not just instrumentally. That is, the seeking of knowledge is inherently moral. Obviously the methodology itself is subject to ethical criteria - thus the Nazi scientists in WW2 who experimented on prisoners were clearly acting immorally, since there was coercion involved.
If we try to say that knowledge is instrumental then we leave ourselves open to the current 'fashion' or 'politics'. If knowledge is purely instrumental then why research pure science which might not have any practical application? Why do pure maths which almost certainly has no practical use (at the moment) ?
Now, from the standpoint of my own morality (the universal ethic) then knowledge increases freedom - since knowledge is required to make informed decisions. Adding to the sum of human knowledge is, therefore, inherently moral, not amoral.
Now, to address the issue head on -
Yes I would support the KKK in carrying out their experiment. I would not, of course, support the KKK in their political activities. If, however, their experiment were done properly, maintaining scientific protocols and methodology, and involving no coercion or trickery, then, yes, I would (if I had the authority) publish their results.
Before I begin, you should know I disagree with this Watson character. It has been proven that intelligence is mostly a learned trait, and I have come to believe that most inequities in intelligence between races have to do with the self-perpetuating problem of bad/non-existent parenting.
| Indi wrote: |
- Is this kind of research ethical and/or moral? In other words: if i were to conduct an experiment to see if whites are smarter than blacks (or vice versa, of course - and you may substitute any race you like), would i be doing something unethical or immoral? Explain why (not).
- If you had evidence that supported this kind of hot-button racial claim, would it be ethical or moral to withhold or publish it in any situation? For example: suppose it was still the 1950s or 1960s in the US, with black people fighting for their social rights against an entrenched racist society (or, if you prefer, you may use South Africa in the 1980s, or a hypothetical imaginary society where whites rules and blacks are fighting for equality - and of course, you can switch up the races to mix things up), and you were a researcher who had just stumbled across a telling discovery that all but proves the racist claims. You know publishing your results would pretty much guarantee that the civil rights being fought for would be totally lost. Would it be moral or ethical to withhold your results? Again, explain.
- Assuming you approve of withholding findings in the example above - for example, you had evidence that blacks were less intelligent than whites, but publishing that info would ruin their bid for civil rights and social equality, so you believe you should withhold your results - how far does that go? For example, you may believe that it is moral and/or ethical to withhold information about intellectual differences... but would you refuse to publish research that showed blacks were more prone to sickle cell anaemia? Why, or why not? Where would you draw the line - what factors would affect whether you would opt to withhold certain findings rather than others?
- Was Watson wrong? (Not about the science, because this is not a science forum, but about his reasoning for wanting to publish this information, even though he knew it was controversial and would hurt his career and credibility.) Why, or why not?
And of course, any other (relevant and intelligent) questions you might want to bring up.
|
It strikes me that the only case in which most of these questions are difficult to answer is when you start out with the assumption: 'racism is wrong'.
If we approach the subject with a completely open mind, then these questions are much simpler:
1: Perfectly moral. If racism is wrong, the results (of a properly done experiment) will show it. Either way it would be better to know than to continue in willful ignorance.
2: Best would be to release the results while reminding the suppressing majority that even stupid people are still people, and have rights. This requires too much optimism about that majority though.
3: N/A I would publish all results IF the conclusions were on absolutely unshakable and provable scientific foundations of reasoning.
4: If the was absolutely sure about his conclusions (preferably after also getting it reviewed by a few trusted colleagues) Then he would be correct in announcing it to the world. Since he didn't consider the possibility of other factors determining intelligence, he should not have been so sure. What I mean to say is that it is wrong to release such controversial and possibly damaging information without doing a lot more research, experimentation, checking of work with others, and hard proof.
If we approach the subject without previous assumption about the rightness or wrongness of racism, then it is perfectly reasonable to test and see if racism is justified. Hopefully, any sufficiently thorough investigation into the matter will prove that racism is not justified, but we should not assume that it will just because of our predetermined moral attitudes, or we would be just as scientifically unsound as those who would set out with the goal of proving their assumptions about a given race's inferiority.
I personally do not believe that knowledge and morality are closely related.
| Quote: | | 1.) Is this kind of research ethical and/or moral? In other words: if i were to conduct an experiment to see if whites are smarter than blacks (or vice versa, of course - and you may substitute any race you like), would i be doing something unethical or immoral? Explain why (not). |
No, the research is not immoral, nor is it moral. How we use the result of the research, that's when we we will know if we are using it morally or not.
If we are able to find out that Whites are intelligently superior than Blacks and with this fact, we addressed a racial problem and intend to enhance/develop such inadequacy, then I believe that is not immoral at all. If with the same knowledge, we choose Whites over Blacks when choosing for a managerial position and not of a person's experience and education, then that I believe is when we are crossing the line.
| Quote: | | If you had evidence that supported this kind of hot-button racial claim, would it be ethical or moral to withhold or publish it in any situation? For example: suppose it was still the 1950s or 1960s in the US, with black people fighting for their social rights against an entrenched racist society (or, if you prefer, you may use South Africa in the 1980s, or a hypothetical imaginary society where whites rules and blacks are fighting for equality - and of course, you can switch up the races to mix things up), and you were a researcher who had just stumbled across a telling discovery that all but proves the racist claims. You know publishing your results would pretty much guarantee that the civil rights being fought for would be totally lost. Would it be moral or ethical to withhold your results? Again, explain. |
it is moral when measures were also given to counter the guarantee of civil rights being fought for will lose based on the discovery.
If I intend to disclose my discovery, and have explained thoroughly why it is not related to civil rights, then i believe i am doing something which is positively moral.
It is immoral, if you suggest that your discovery is a valid support to deny Black civil rights.
Now to just impart your discovery or withold it, would not make you immoral or otherwise, though witholding such discovery makes you guilty of intellectual dishonesty, but then lying is not exactly immoral.
| Quote: | | Assuming you approve of withholding findings in the example above - for example, you had evidence that blacks were less intelligent than whites, but publishing that info would ruin their bid for civil rights and social equality, so you believe you should withhold your results - how far does that go? For example, you may believe that it is moral and/or ethical to withhold information about intellectual differences... but would you refuse to publish research that showed blacks were more prone to sickle cell anaemia? Why, or why not? Where would you draw the line - what factors would affect whether you would opt to withhold certain findings rather than others? |
I dont think telling the world that blacks are sicker than whites would be moral or immoral, but telling the world that we have to work together and find a cure to this sickness is more than moral and ethical.
| Quote: | | Was Watson wrong? (Not about the science, because this is not a science forum, but about his reasoning for wanting to publish this information, even though he knew it was controversial and would hurt his career and credibility.) Why, or why not? |
If by saying wrong means morally wrong, i would say no.
It's like saying that
1 > null is false
and
1 < null is also false.
Now, with regards to morality, the answers I gave are subjective, meaning, I am not speaking on behalf of an objective morality. I've always agreed that morality in a broader sense is subjective. Which is moral to you may not be moral to others. Yes, to say that morality is subjective has its flaw, but equally objective morality has its own; But that's another topic altogether and I have enjoyed answering the questions and have taken notes from other perspectives.
| ocalhoun wrote: | Before I begin, you should know I disagree with this Watson character. It has been proven that intelligence is mostly a learned trait, and I have come to believe that most inequities in intelligence between races have to do with the self-perpetuating problem of bad/non-existent parenting.
| Indi wrote: |
- Is this kind of research ethical and/or moral? In other words: if i were to conduct an experiment to see if whites are smarter than blacks (or vice versa, of course - and you may substitute any race you like), would i be doing something unethical or immoral? Explain why (not).
- If you had evidence that supported this kind of hot-button racial claim, would it be ethical or moral to withhold or publish it in any situation? For example: suppose it was still the 1950s or 1960s in the US, with black people fighting for their social rights against an entrenched racist society (or, if you prefer, you may use South Africa in the 1980s, or a hypothetical imaginary society where whites rules and blacks are fighting for equality - and of course, you can switch up the races to mix things up), and you were a researcher who had just stumbled across a telling discovery that all but proves the racist claims. You know publishing your results would pretty much guarantee that the civil rights being fought for would be totally lost. Would it be moral or ethical to withhold your results? Again, explain.
- Assuming you approve of withholding findings in the example above - for example, you had evidence that blacks were less intelligent than whites, but publishing that info would ruin their bid for civil rights and social equality, so you believe you should withhold your results - how far does that go? For example, you may believe that it is moral and/or ethical to withhold information about intellectual differences... but would you refuse to publish research that showed blacks were more prone to sickle cell anaemia? Why, or why not? Where would you draw the line - what factors would affect whether you would opt to withhold certain findings rather than others?
- Was Watson wrong? (Not about the science, because this is not a science forum, but about his reasoning for wanting to publish this information, even though he knew it was controversial and would hurt his career and credibility.) Why, or why not?
And of course, any other (relevant and intelligent) questions you might want to bring up.
|
It strikes me that the only case in which most of these questions are difficult to answer is when you start out with the assumption: 'racism is wrong'.
If we approach the subject with a completely open mind, then these questions are much simpler:
1: Perfectly moral. If racism is wrong, the results (of a properly done experiment) will show it. Either way it would be better to know than to continue in willful ignorance.
2: Best would be to release the results while reminding the suppressing majority that even stupid people are still people, and have rights. This requires too much optimism about that majority though.
3: N/A I would publish all results IF the conclusions were on absolutely unshakable and provable scientific foundations of reasoning.
4: If the was absolutely sure about his conclusions (preferably after also getting it reviewed by a few trusted colleagues) Then he would be correct in announcing it to the world. Since he didn't consider the possibility of other factors determining intelligence, he should not have been so sure. What I mean to say is that it is wrong to release such controversial and possibly damaging information without doing a lot more research, experimentation, checking of work with others, and hard proof.
If we approach the subject without previous assumption about the rightness or wrongness of racism, then it is perfectly reasonable to test and see if racism is justified. Hopefully, any sufficiently thorough investigation into the matter will prove that racism is not justified, but we should not assume that it will just because of our predetermined moral attitudes, or we would be just as scientifically unsound as those who would set out with the goal of proving their assumptions about a given race's inferiority. |
This is one of the best posts i have ever seen on the Frihost philosophy forums.
First you identified a hidden assumption within the original idea, then you analyzed the validity of that assumption, then you talked about the effect that assumption has on the entire problem.
Honestly, this is sheer brilliance. i can barely find a few points to comment on. This is the best i can do:
First... yes, Watson is a bit of a jerk. ^_^; He's not really popular in the science community. And you're right, it is almost certain that the intelligence of a population is most strongly determined by that population's environment - this is what the scientific evidence right now is.
As for the rest:
- Perfectly true.
- Cynical. ^_^; But again, flawlessly argued.
- Again, flawless.
- Just a point of clarification: When you say "absolutely sure about his conclusions", i assume you mean in the same way meant in the point above, where "absolutely sure" means "absolutely unshakable and provable scientific foundations of reasoning"? If he were absolutely sure because of his own "personal experience", or absolutely sure because of his religious beliefs, that wouldn't stand, right?
And of course, the rest is all flawless again.
Very nice bit of philosophizing there.
| ocalhoun wrote: | | ... I have come to believe that most inequities in intelligence between races have to do with the self-perpetuating problem of bad/non-existent parenting. |
Agreed. Your reply was five-star Ocalhoun, congratulations on a well-written posting. Just one point that I am not completely in agreement with is to put the inequity thing at the feet of parents only. Some of it is appropriate, but there are so many other factors. For example the specific personality of the person involved. Bad choices, even when the parents are supportive. Incompatible personalities. Poverty, which I think is not totally due to parents' fault. Peer pressure. Lack of security in communities. Drugs, etc. Guns. Gangs. It is not really that simple. There is so much pressure on especially kids to be "cool" and "in with the crowd", and then of course parents to raise kids, and who cannot be at home all the time. Some kids can be OK with this, but others sometimes flounder and get lost and it sort of perpetuates itself from generation to generation.
| Indi wrote: |
Honestly, this is sheer brilliance. i can barely find a few points to comment on.
|
O.o
I'm in a discussion with Indi and we're not arguing antagonistically!?!
Really, I'm in shock. Next thing I know, Bikerman is going to agree with me!
| Indi wrote: |
Just a point of clarification: When you say "absolutely sure about his conclusions", i assume you mean in the same way meant in the point above, where "absolutely sure" means "absolutely unshakable and provable scientific foundations of reasoning"? If he were absolutely sure because of his own "personal experience", or absolutely sure because of his religious beliefs, that wouldn't stand, right? |
Well, a good scientist wouldn't claim to be 'absolutely sure' about anything without some very solid proof. I still think he would have done much better to go to a few others and say "hey, I've come to this conclusion, but it seems pretty controversial... could you check and see if you find any errors in my logic or methods before I risk my reputation by publishing it?"
| deanhills wrote: | | Poverty, which I think is not totally due to parents' fault. Peer pressure. Lack of security in communities. Drugs, etc. Guns. Gangs. It is not really that simple. There is so much pressure on especially kids to be "cool" and "in with the crowd", and then of course parents to raise kids, and who cannot be at home all the time. Some kids can be OK with this, but others sometimes flounder and get lost and it sort of perpetuates itself from generation to generation. |
That's why I call the problem self-perpetuating. Usually it is passed from an irresponsible parent directly to the child, ending up making the child an irresponsible parent some day, but it is self-perpetuating even when that child manages to break the cycle, because so many of the people around them are also caught up in that same cycle. As the saying goes, "it takes a village to raise a child". If the whole 'village' is caught up in the same destructive cycle, then the child will still be badly raised, despite good parenting, by being corrupted by the majority of badly parented children around him/her, and the culture perpetuated by the same.
It is a problem too big for any single family to conquer. Personally, I don't see how it could be solved at all, given today's limitations. You would have to force an entire generation to raise their children well, and that just isn't possible.
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
Honestly, this is sheer brilliance. i can barely find a few points to comment on.
|
O.o
I'm in a discussion with Indi and we're not arguing antagonistically!?!
Really, I'm in shock. Next thing I know, Bikerman is going to agree with me!
|
As it happens I do. I agree with Indi that your analysis of the question was first rate.
| Bikerman wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
Honestly, this is sheer brilliance. i can barely find a few points to comment on.
|
O.o
I'm in a discussion with Indi and we're not arguing antagonistically!?!
Really, I'm in shock. Next thing I know, Bikerman is going to agree with me!
|
As it happens I do. I agree with Indi that your analysis of the question was first rate. |
Yep, that confirms it... Now I'm left with only a few possible conclusions:
1- The end is near!
2- This is not real.
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
Honestly, this is sheer brilliance. i can barely find a few points to comment on.
|
O.o
I'm in a discussion with Indi and we're not arguing antagonistically!?!
Really, I'm in shock. Next thing I know, Bikerman is going to agree with me!
|
As it happens I do. I agree with Indi that your analysis of the question was first rate. |
Yep, that confirms it... Now I'm left with only a few possible conclusions:
1- The end is near!
2- This is not real. |
Now, why not take the compliment in good faith, since it was offered in good faith?
I don't have to agree with you on everything (or even anything) to acknowledge when you make a very good argument. That is the essence of proper debate.
I think you will find that I am open to admit when any debating opponent has a good (in this case, I would say irrefutable) point.
Isn't discussing racial topics, apart from criticizing "whites", prohibited by human rights?
Totally unrelated to humans, but related to possibilities of genetics: yesterday on "Judge Judy" show was the dog, looking like big chihuahua, it was DNA tested, and result show that it was mix of 6 different breeds, each identified, and none of them was chihuahua.
If they are able to breed and produce viable and reproductable offspring, these breeds are the same species, only selectively reproduced for particular appearance, possibilities (stamina, cold resistance, sense of smell, aerodynamic advantages for the hounds) and behavior for particular tasks (saitbernard and doberman).
Luckily for them, they don't live in pure dogs' society with own hierarchy, otherwise chihuahua, pomeranians and maybe even peaceful labradors will become a history.
| Crinoid wrote: | Isn't discussing racial topics [...] prohibited by human rights?
|
Discussion is always good. It can help clear up misunderstandings and prevent people from taking actions that violate 'human' rights. Come to think of it; prohibiting discussion about something would actually be against human rights by some definitions. So, you could say the opposite; human rights guarantee the ability to discuss racial topics.
| Crinoid wrote: | | Isn't discussing racial topics, apart from criticizing "whites", prohibited by human rights? |
? Not anywhere on this planet.
| Bikerman wrote: | | Indi wrote: | For example, let's assume the KKK sponsored this experiment (you're familiar with them, i assume - it's a notorious white supremacist group in the US) for the purposes of proving their racist theories. And, further, let's assume they actually followed legitimate and rigorous scientific practise... in other words, their results are valid. If you believe that knowledge is inherently good, then you support them in their efforts - and in fact, if they asked for your help and you were able to do so, you should.
Ah... but that kinda... stings... doesn't it? ^_- |
OK, nice dilemma. I'm not going to retreat, however, from my original statement. Knowledge is good intrinsically, not just instrumentally. That is, the seeking of knowledge is inherently moral. Obviously the methodology itself is subject to ethical criteria - thus the Nazi scientists in WW2 who experimented on prisoners were clearly acting immorally, since there was coercion involved. |
Yes - this comparison was actually sprung on me in the middle of a discussion, and i was completely caught off guard. i had to go off and think about it, and i came up with pretty much the same response as yours... but there are still questions i am trying to resolve.
For example - let's assume knowledge is intrinsically moral, but that the methods used to get it can be immoral (there is precedent for this - helping people is moral, but stealing from one needy person to help another is not). And let's say the Nazi scientific data is good (it's actually very likely bad data), but that it was obtained by immoral means. So... what should we do with it? Should we use it? Or should we throw it away? On the one hand, to use it is to validate the evil that was used to obtain the data. If i were unscrupulous and did not care about my place in history, what's to stop me from performing similar experiments today? On the other, to discard it is to make the suffering of the victims completely useless.
| Bikerman wrote: | | If we try to say that knowledge is instrumental then we leave ourselves open to the current 'fashion' or 'politics'. If knowledge is purely instrumental then why research pure science which might not have any practical application? Why do pure maths which almost certainly has no practical use (at the moment) ? |
The easy way around that is to point out that you are using "mights" and "almost certainlys", which makes explicit the fact that even though you may not be aware of a use now, you are aware that a use may exist.
i am not even aware of any scientific knowledge that has no practical use (excepting cutting edge, next generation stuff that isn't even really theory yet), and as for math, history has shown that even the most bizarre and obscure portions of math can and do occasionally find utility. Who would have imaged that complex numbers would even be practically useful? And even at the turn of the 20th century, people studying complex topography like Riemann surfaces would not have dreamed how important their work would be to M-theory.
So there is nothing wrong with saying that knowledge is purely instrumental, and pursuing an apparently useless bit of knowledge on the gamble that it may be critically useful. Being the first person to have knowledge - instrumental or not - often gives one lots of benefits, so it's not a bad gamble.
| Bikerman wrote: | | Now, from the standpoint of my own morality (the universal ethic) then knowledge increases freedom - since knowledge is required to make informed decisions. Adding to the sum of human knowledge is, therefore, inherently moral, not amoral. |
Not everything that increases freedom is necessarily good, though. Suppose i had a slave - and i cared for them well, fed them and generally gave them a comfortable life. Then one day i "freed" them - kicked them out of my house and set them free in the world without anything, with a very good chance they would freeze or starve to death. Technically i increased their freedom - they are now free to make their own choices, including taking responsibility for their own survival - but did i do a good thing?
| Bikerman wrote: | Now, to address the issue head on -
Yes I would support the KKK in carrying out their experiment. I would not, of course, support the KKK in their political activities. If, however, their experiment were done properly, maintaining scientific protocols and methodology, and involving no coercion or trickery, then, yes, I would (if I had the authority) publish their results. |
That was my conclusion, too.
| Indi wrote: | | For example - let's assume knowledge is intrinsically moral, but that the methods used to get it can be immoral (there is precedent for this - helping people is moral, but stealing from one needy person to help another is not). And let's say the Nazi scientific data is good (it's actually very likely bad data), but that it was obtained by immoral means. So... what should we do with it? Should we use it? Or should we throw it away? On the one hand, to use it is to validate the evil that was used to obtain the data. If i were unscrupulous and did not care about my place in history, what's to stop me from performing similar experiments today? On the other, to discard it is to make the suffering of the victims completely useless. |
Yes, I have come across this before. My own preference is to use the data but it is a very difficult thing to justify philosophically. I take the view that once knowledge has been obtained then not to use it would be perverse. I don't accept the argument that using the data validates the methods used to gain the data. If someone dies in a car accident then are we validating car accidents when we use the data to improve safety? I think the more serious counter argument is that by using such information you give tacit encouragement to the methods used to gain it (rather like the argument that paying a ransom encourages kidnapping). My own judgement is that this argument is not sufficient to counter the potential gain that such data could provide. There is nothing we can do about the Nazi experiments - they happened. I do not believe that using the data would actually encourage similar behaviour since the data was not the reason for the original immorality - it was, in effect, a side-effect of a system of brutality setup for other instrumental reasons.
(I'm aware that this is not, yet, a strong, or complete, argument and needs some refinement, but I think it offers a potential line of 'attack' for this problem.)
| Quote: | | Bikerman wrote: | | Now, from the standpoint of my own morality (the universal ethic) then knowledge increases freedom - since knowledge is required to make informed decisions. Adding to the sum of human knowledge is, therefore, inherently moral, not amoral. |
Not everything that increases freedom is necessarily good, though. Suppose i had a slave - and i cared for them well, fed them and generally gave them a comfortable life. Then one day i "freed" them - kicked them out of my house and set them free in the world without anything, with a very good chance they would freeze or starve to death. Technically i increased their freedom - they are now free to make their own choices, including taking responsibility for their own survival - but did i do a good thing? |
I would counter that by saying you have not really increased freedom. Without the ability to act on choices then there is no real freedom. Unless the slaves had the ability to feed, clothe and house themselves then the notion of additional freedom is illusory. I would say you have increased autonomy, not freedom.
| Bikerman wrote: | | Yes, I have come across this before. My own preference is to use the data but it is a very difficult thing to justify philosophically. I take the view that once knowledge has been obtained then not to use it would be perverse. |
Perverse is an interesting choice of word. ^_^ But yes, i agree. Discarding the data will not undo the crime, obviously, and even if the participants were unwilling subjects one would hope that since the damage has been done they would prefer that someone benefit from their suffering rather than making it totally meaningless.
However...
| Bikerman wrote: | | I don't accept the argument that using the data validates the methods used to gain the data. If someone dies in a car accident then are we validating car accidents when we use the data to improve safety? |
Tsk, that's a red herring argument - the car accidents were not the method used to gain the data, they were the data. This situation would only be relevant if the experimenters caused the car accidents (that would make it part of the method, not the data).
Now, in reality, scientists do endanger human beings for the sake of experimentation as part of the method. Mind you, they do everything possible to minimize the risk, and they get consent from all subjects - factors which obviously don't apply to the Nazi experimentation, or the Japanese Unit 731 or similar cases.
| Bikerman wrote: | | I think the more serious counter argument is that by using such information you give tacit encouragement to the methods used to gain it (rather like the argument that paying a ransom encourages kidnapping). My own judgement is that this argument is not sufficient to counter the potential gain that such data could provide. There is nothing we can do about the Nazi experiments - they happened. I do not believe that using the data would actually encourage similar behaviour since the data was not the reason for the original immorality - it was, in effect, a side-effect of a system of brutality setup for other instrumental reasons. |
i'm not sure that's a fair analysis of the situation. While it is true that torment of Jews was systemic in Nazi Germany, i don't see that someone sat there and said, "Well, we got a lot of Jews to torment today, so what should we do? Any ideas? Gunther? Oh, good one! Subject them to extreme conditions and record the results - they may even be useful! Good idea!" More likely someone said, "i want to get data on human responses to extreme conditions, and since you're going to be throwing these Jews away anyway...." In other words, these experiments were not a side-effect of antisemitism, they were independent of it but took advantage of it. They were a direct by-product of scientific curiosity... and really the only difference between us and the Nazi scientists is that we do not think of Jews as subhuman.
History is on my side, in this case, too. All throughout history, whenever people have been identified as having less or no rights, they have been exploited for the "scientific" curiosity of those in charge. In America early in the 20th century disease testing was done on blacks and/or native Americans; they used to test the blades of katana in Japan on criminals (or sometimes just non-samurai peasants if no criminals were available); in France they guillotined people (aristocrats or commoners depending on the period) and then tried to determine how long they lived as just heads.... it goes on and on. The common factor is that whenever a people have been identified as "lesser" - having fewer or no rights - they have been exploited for scientific data. And since this crosses cultures and eras, i think it is quite clear that the guilty part is not the age or the culture, but the scientific curiosity.
Given that fact, and given the almost unquestionable assumption that somewhere somewhen in the future, there will be another group that is considered "subhuman", it is almost inevitable that this will happen again. So how do we prevent this? And as scientists, i think we have a moral imperative to do our best to prevent it. Since we can't prevent groups from being declared subhuman by someone, somewhere, we can't stop them that way. We also can't stifle scientific curiosity. What we can do is take away the one thing that scientists ultimately work for - immortality through their work. If we use the data, the Nazi scientists who got it can die knowing that although they were hated, they still contributed somehow. If we do not use the data, we take that away, and turn them into nothing more than a blight on human history, with no benefits for their having existed at all.
| Bikerman wrote: | | I would counter that by saying you have not really increased freedom. Without the ability to act on choices then there is no real freedom. Unless the slaves had the ability to feed, clothe and house themselves then the notion of additional freedom is illusory. I would say you have increased autonomy, not freedom. |
i have not done anything to take away their ability to act on their choices. That is nature's problem. Theoretically, if the weather goes well and they stumble upon a fertile field in a nice area with all their needs provided for by the bounty of the land, they may even be better off than i am after a time. It may be unlikely, but it is not impossible - and it is not my fault whichever way it goes.
Under my thumb, they had no choices, and so no ability to act on them. When released, they have choices, and it is up to nature, luck and their own ingenuity whether or not they can act on them (as it would have been even if i had never existed). As you see, i have taken nothing away, and have increased their freedom.
|
