Tuesday, December 10, 2013

Matei Ctlina, Filosofie, An I, Grupa 352

Prof. Mirela Adscliei
Essay topics: 1. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing (Alexander Pope)
2. Science & Ethics

The choices we make

I had a hard time figuring out which topic I should choose for this essay, not only because
there are quite a few, but mostly because all of them present some sort of interest to me.
Therefore, I chose two.
Firstly, I am going to start by saying that I neither agree, nor disagree with Alexander
Popes quotation A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and I shall support my thesis by
making an appeal to another authority, Albert Einstein, who said something quite intriguing
about this topic A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot. Another argument I
intend to bring up to discussion, this time against Popes affirmation, is related to the well-known
phrase Ignorance is bliss. I will not deny he is right but I cannot help but ask How can he be
so sure a little knowledge is dangerous?. Caves man thirst for knowledge brought us to an
incredible progress in science. Technology advanced in more ways than any man would have
ever thought possible and yet, once we discovered our abilities, we also began to question the
morality of our actions and so, ethics was born. Along with knowledge, came conscience and
consequence.
Secondly, my purpose is to combine these two topics and hence I have to define a bit my
own concept concerning science & ethics. Nowadays, I believe, people either see science as a
threat, or as a miracle. Nevertheless, progress has brought humanity to a place where ethics is no
longer vital. As far as I am concerned, ethics and science have to stand together as one, because
there is no science without man and there is no man without ethics.
How much knowledge is enough?
We should ask ourselves: is there a limit to knowledge? How much is enough? Or better
yet, should we affirm that when it comes to knowledge no matter how much, too much is never
enough? It is all about the choices we make and we must choose wisely.
According to Pope, we should embrace ourselves with knowledge, lots of it, because little
acquaintance brings no good to us. But is that really so? For all I know, ignorance is bliss. Not
because we should not know things but because knowing too much ruins us. My point is, there
are times when we are better off without too much knowledge.

Lets take an example which will bring the problem of science & ethics to light: when I was a
child, I believed, like (almost) any another child in the world, in Santa Claus. This is the funniest
and also the easiest thing I could come up with at this very moment, but I find it extremely
relevant to the argument I am about to raise. Why is that? Mostly because the reason I found out
Santa does not exist was because of science, namely the Internet. So you can see why I find
ignorance bliss. - Science turned from miracle to disappointment in just a second. Now, where do
ethics belong in all of this? Some of you might say that ethics does not fit in the context, because
Santas existence does not concern moral problems. I will prove you wrong. For a human being
and above all for a child, trust is essential. Obviously that trust is broken, once we discover our
parents lie and we wish that they would have told us the truth from the beginning. This proves
that, in a way, even though we were raised to be moral and ethical people, we were
subconsciously taught that adults can lie (or hide things from us).
So, on one hand we have science and on the other hand we have ethics both
incorporated in one single word: knowledge.
Since I already admitted that Pope is not entirely wrong, I am going to find another
example, one that can support his thesis. So, he believes that a little knowledge is a dangerous
thing. He is indeed right, if we connect our knowledge to empirical facts. Lets say you go
camping for the weekend and you do not know how to set a tent. In this case, knowledge is bliss
and ignorance is curse. But science could help you with this difficulty because you can find on
the internet (if you have a mobile phone and a good signal) many tips on how to put up a tent.
But what if you do not know how to use a mobile phone? And so rises a number of infinite
possibilities through which we see the importance of knowledge but only if we refer to
concrete actions and practical situation. Otherwise, it is hard for me to prove that - knowing less
is dangerous.
Now, lets go back to Einstein, who agreed with Pope on the importance of knowledge
but also admitted that too much knowledge is dangerous. This is precisely where I stand,
somewhere in between. Lets say, for instance, that you have just found out your mother had
killed an innocent man. What can you do? There are only two options: protect your mother or
protect your conscience. But what should you do? Science cannot tell you what to do but ethics
might. If you are an ethical man, a man of principle, you would say that the right thing to do is to
denounce your mother. However, being ethical involves a dose of objectivity and we all know
people are driven by emotions.
This is exactly why I cannot seem to find the right answer to any knowledge-related
question. Because we are (or should be) rational human beings but we live in a world where
empiricism and feelings are indispensable. In the end, I suppose we ought to find a balance
between not knowing enough and knowing too much.

Can science be ethical?

2

So far Ive only scratched the surface of knowledge and the ways progress constantly
influences our lives. Starting from the assumption that there must be a balance of knowledge, I
shall invoke another modern problem: ethics in science.
Our species evolved unthinkably fast over the past few decades, thing that led people to
question their own ethics. If not too long ago science was considered to be a good thing, a
positive one, making humans life easier, today it is considered to be also dangerous for our kind.
That being said, not only can knowledge be dangerous, but also can our actions, because we act
in accordance to our way of thinking.
I see this science & ethics problem as a great paradox: they want to fix reality with
imaginary instruments. They want the brain to project and construct real things that could help
our lives in empirical ways. And this is, of course, working because so far progress in science has
been higher than ever. We can now print organs in order to help peoples lives, we can see the
loved ones over the internet in just a few seconds just by clicking the right buttons and many
other things that our ancestors would have never thought possible.
Those are great examples of why science is important in our lives, but none are
conclusive. Can science be ethical? That is the real question here. Did we create science in order
to fix things or in order to break them?
Lets take for example cloning. Is cloning ethical? Why should we be able to create other
human beings? From a religious perspective the answer is no it is not ethical at all. Why? One
of the many reasons is because we were born to procreate, and cloning makes this natural act just
a possibility. This is exactly why Einstein said that a lot of knowledge is dangerous too, because
if we play with the fire within our mind we will get burned.
Not only from a Christian perspective can cloning be considered wrong, but also can it be
from any other perspective. If we truly believe in authenticity, then cloning becomes an
enormous issue. Even if the clone doesnt copy someones personality, it will be hard for it to
accept the fact that it is not unique, like we, humans, are. Being born in a laboratory could
destroy many emotions and not fix them, like scientists presume. We feel the need to be loved
and protected; we feel the need to call someone mother and father. A clone is nothing more
than a copy a damaged one. A clone, as far as I am concerned, cannot be more effective than a
human being. Knowledge, in this case, is too much for us to handle. We do not need to create
better human beings, we do not need to overcome nature. We ought to accept it.
We tried to find God and when we finally accepted the fact that God cannot be found, we
tried to become gods ourselves. We pushed the limits of our knowledge by creating fantastic
science researches. The thing is, science is great and benefic just up to a certain point. From that
on, science becomes a liability. We should be held responsible for our actions, because we
thought A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and we discovered more and more things
about ourselves and the way our brains could turn possibilities into realities. But after that, we
3

forgot that not everything is in our hands, that not everything is meant to change. We should not
seek perfection, for we will never find it. We should not seek to create what nature could not.. It
is wrong and unethical.
I think we should not push the limits of science by leaving ethics behind. Ethics and
science should remain together, always and forever. What good does it do to find a cure against
nature when nature is what created us? We try to overcome this natural balance in order to
become the best, without realizing that we cannot become better than we already are. My opinion
might offend some of you, or it might sound a bit disappointing, but I truly believe that there is
no better version for this world. And sciences purpose is to make this word a better place. The
intention is admirable, but the result could be a disaster. This is why I think ethics should belong
within science; ethics should guide the steps of science towards a brilliant future. Otherwise,
science will become a sea of monsters, and its waves will affect all of us.