Revised Analysis with Additional Article

Rhetorical Analysis of “Science and Morality”

In his article “Science and Morality”, Jim Kozubek asserts that while science can
influence people’s morals or disillusion them from holding certain values, it should not be used
as a basis of morality; morality is the director of the tool that is science. Kozubek composed a
well-written and interesting article, but for most of it he is only musing on the subject and
offering bits of evidence supporting this or that, not really arguing either way. He presents a
subject and offers various opinions and interpretations, but lacks solid arguments and doesn’t
persuade one way or the other. Even though Kozubek uses rhetorical devices to shape the
audience’s understanding of the subject, because he focuses more on discussing the subject
than actually supporting a claim, his article is ineffective as a persuasive essay. Most of the
article revolves around the debate of genetic modification, which is used as an example of how
science can define or contradict society’s morals. CRISPR-Cas9 is a gene-editing tool that has
ignited enormous controversy in biological ethics, with some calling it a perversion of
humanity’s natural dignity and some praising it as a life-saving technological development. As
the Catholic Health Care Association stated: “Catholic health care is right to be skeptical of the
glamor of high technology, especially when it asks us to cross moral lines.” While the Catholic
Health Care Association may not have a high opinion of gene-editing, Vox magazine
optimistically muses that “Down the road, CRISPR might help us develop drought-tolerant crops
and create powerful new antibiotics. CRISPR could one day even allow us to wipe out entire
populations of malaria-spreading mosquitoes or resurrect once-extinct species like the
passenger pigeon.” Kozubek frames his argument that science does not define morality using
the debate over CRISPR as context.
In his article, “Science And Morality: You Can’t Derive 'Ought' From 'Is'”, Sean Carroll
mandates that morality cannot be defined and quantified with science. Carroll’s argument is
distinct, clear, academic, and heavily based on his personal definition of science. His definition
of science is that science can be fact, whether true or not, and can therefore be proven or
disproven by some experiment. If one cannot imagine an experiment in which a clear moral
hypothesis could be tested, morality is unprovable and therefore completely separate and
indefinable by science. While this method of thought-testing may seem vague, it actually makes
a great deal of sense when the readers are asked by Carroll to imagine a quantity or empirical
experiment and apply it to morality.
First, Kozubek describes the intricacies of the gene-editing debate and how in the
1970’s, a temporary moratorium was even held for gene-modification, scientists and the
general public alike fearing its potentially devastating power. He discusses the argument that
“genes embody a sort of sacrosanct character that should not be interfered with” (par. 6) and
how that argument is hardly valid, seeing as genes mutate every time a virus is introduced or
they are passed onto the next generation. This is a very logical observation to make, utilizing
logos to discredit an argument. However, this discredits an argument for morality, which is the
argument Kozubek is trying to support.
Kozubek goes on to claim that the dignity of life itself is difficult to quantify, since
“science tends to challenge the belief in abstract or enduring concepts of value” (par. 7). He
admits that science often goes against our morals by respecting nothing for its inherent and
society-given value, instead violating what people hold inviolable to find truth. He further
develops the idea that if science is a method of truth-seeking, then technology is the power
that science uses to get what it wants. Kozubek’s use of pathos and logos is interesting because
instead of using these rhetorical devices, he exposes them and enters a sort of meta-discussion
where logos is science and pathos is morality, pitting them against one another and letting the
audience decide which they agree with. Although this is a very novel idea, it doesn’t support
much.
Kozubek claims, extensively quoting other authors to do so, that dignity is
inherent within human nature, and gives humans a right to hold beliefs and use science to
disprove those beliefs. This places the morality and dignity of humankind above science. He’s
saying, in more basic terms, that morality directs people but science is directed by people. This
is a great use of pathos, appealing to people’s pride that they are smarter and more dignified
than the world they discover and the rules they create to describe it. Kozubek knows people
want to feel like they are in control of science, and uses this to further the argument that
humankind’s morality directs humankind’s science. In this, he finally makes a comprehensive
argument in favor of morality’s supremacy of science.
Carroll’s article is less concerned with what is supreme over what but more how
mutually unexplainable science and morality are. While both Kozubek and Carroll are arguing
that science can’t direct morality, Kozubek claims that science can update morality by
disproving it if people so choose, yet Carroll claims that science cannot be applied to morality at
all. The differences in their arguments are subtle, but distinct. Carroll frames all his arguments
assuming that general well-being and how to achieve this is why morality is. His first argument
is that there is no single definition of well-being. Of course, there are people and principles that
are almost universally considered “bad”, but Carroll uses this to pose the question of where is
the line drawn to separate “universally bad” from “debatable”? Furthermore, if such a rational
line could be drawn, what experiment or determining variable would draw it, as science would
solve a problem? Carroll’s answer is that all of these questions are impossible to answer within
the factual nature of science, which is why morality exists to debate them. This is a brilliant
piece of logos to convince the audience that it is impossible to scientifically determine what is
right or wrong, largely based on the audience’s inability to formulate a different conclusion.
Kozubek claims that the supremacy of human morality and wisdom over science
was omnipresent a century ago. Kozubek uses Anton Chekhovs’ 1889 “A Boring Story” to
support this claim, in which a scientist becomes melancholy because he feels that no one really
values his life’s work, because humanity is so confident in themselves that they have
“outgrown” science. The author claims the current mood towards science is the opposite of this
late-1800s ideology. Nowadays, people are looking to science to spoon-feed them their values.
Kozubek asserts that science defines people’s moral directive and determines what people
decide, giving examples such as algorithms deciding our dating life and statistical reports
determining how we see the world. The author gives a definite reason to all his claims,
appealing heavily to logos by using evidence. These claims effectively paint society as trusting
too much in science, but because Kozubek does not refute this trust as a bad thing, support for
any argument is highly interpretable by the audience and weak in general.
A further development in today’s scientific culture is present, however.
Technology has become less associated with society benefiting off one person’s genius, and
more associated with big business and capitalism’s greed. As Kozubek says in the article, “[The]
Free inquiry of science has been linked to technology, and thus to modes of institutional power,
and monetization.” (par. 12) Because science is directly linked to capitalism, people are more
likely to distrust science, supposing it to be false or twisted data to support an economic or
political standpoint. Kozubek gives the examples of half-million-dollar cancer drugs and a
billion-dollar CRISPR patent battle. In this case, the author uses pathos because many of the
readers of his article may relate to paying exorbitant prices for life-saving drugs, emotionally
connecting with the frustration that exploited science can cause. The emotional connection is
alluded to, but it only persuades the audience to agree that big-money science is seen as a bad
thing. The author does not connect this to his claim that science itself is only a tool and not a
moral compass.
Kozubek effectively uses pathos to sway the audience to agree that science
cannot always be trusted to be good, but Carroll never goes beyond the appeal of logos. He
asserts that it is not even determined that general well-being is the goal of morality in the first
place. Is it the ultimate emotional and physical outcome or purely the state of one’s neurosis
that defines their well-being? Carroll throws pathos out the window at this point, never
acknowledging that people may feel very strongly concerning the answer to the last question.
He simply, once again, states that since a consensus defining well-being and morality is
impossible to reach, through hypothetical or actual experiments, science is logically unable
to determine morality.
To further portray science as a small contribution to a person’s moral opinion
rather than the director of such, Kozubek uses a final example to illustrate the ridiculousness of
basing one’s reality and purpose off of science. The author explains that some scientists deny a
Theory of Everything, which would imply that “there is no logic at the basis of reality.” (par. 16)
Seeing as this prospect is unhelpful and leads nowhere, Kozubek asserts that while science is a
useful tool, it can only take one so far before they must rely on their own morality, wisdom, and
common sense. This is a great piece of logical evidence that effectively uses logos to support
Kozubek’s claim of the supremacy of human wisdom and morality.
 Kozubek establishes his credibility as a scientist and author by mentioning that
he recently wrote a book describing the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-modification system, appealing to
ethos. This is the only ethos he uses directly in the entire article, but more than makes up for
the lack of credibility this would cause by quoting so many obscure intellectuals and writing in a
prose so sophisticated the audience must believe he is trustworthy. This is an effective, if
indirect use of ethos that only works if the audience can understand what Kozubek is writing.
Because the author’s writing is so nuanced and occasionally disjointed, a less educated or
simply less devoted audience would get nothing out of the article, thereby discrediting any
claims the author tried to make by the simple fact that it’s incomprehensible. There were a few
grammatical errors here and there, greatly debilitating Kozubek’s ethos; grammatical errors
naturally make an author less trustworthy. At one point, he quotes other writers far too much
and needs more original content. This article overall is incredibly nuanced and rather thick, so
distractions like grammatical errors and extensive quoting inhibit the audience’s
comprehension significantly.
Carroll is introduced as a well-known theoretical physicist, blogger, and author of a book
concerning the essence of time. This is the only use of ethos in the entire article. HIs prose is
sophisticated and his arguments are clear, strengthening his credibility indirectly. He relies
solely on logos, pure logic, to disprove the idea of a “science of morality” in which science
proves what morality is and how to apply it to individuals and society. The disappointing fact
that he basically only uses one rhetorical appeal to argue his point is compounded in that he
uses the same piece of logic for every argument he brings up: if you can’t prove it empirically by
a definite experiment or quantify by a definite variable, it isn’t science. Because nothing about
morality satisfies this logic, science cannot dictate morality. In this way, Carroll is effective and
clear, if repetitive and colorless.
In conclusion, Kozubek attempts to make an obscure and easily misunderstandable
argument that science is a great tool, but morality is what people should use to make decisions.
He effectively utilizes logos and pathos to reason and connect with the audience, and supports
the use of these rhetorical appeals with relevant evidence from other writers’ work. He does
not, however, maintain a clear argument to prove and mostly muses on the debate between
science and morality. His only use of ethos is stating that he recently wrote a book on CRISPR-
Cas9, which is an important part of the gene-editing/ethics debate. By using the gene-
editing/ethics debate as a background for analyzing science and morality, he effectively uses
kairos as well, considering how the ethics of gene-editing are currently being debated
worldwide. Kozubek uses all of these rhetorical appeals to present an interesting subject, but
lacks support and clarity to argue much. Although Carroll’s argument is more one-sided and less
diverse, he argues the same point Kozubek was trying to prove far more effectively and with
much more clarity.
Works Cited:
Log in. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.chausa.org/publications/health-care-ethics-
usa/archives/issues/spring-2019/ethical-currents---the-rapidly-evolving-debate-over-
crispr.
Plumer, B., Barclay, E., Belluz, J., & Irfan, U. (2018, December 27). A simple guide to CRISPR, one
of the biggest science stories of the decade. Retrieved October 14, 2019, from
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/23/17594864/crispr-cas9-gene-editing.
Kozubek, J. (2017, December 27). Science and Morality. Retrieved October 14, 2019, from
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/science-and-morality/.
Carroll, Sean. “Science And Morality: You Can't Derive 'Ought' From 'Is'.” NPR, NPR, 4 May 2010,
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2010/05/04/126504492/you-can-t-derive-ought-
from-is.