This house believes that science and morality don't mix - Closing speech(es)

Third proposing speech
[To come... UPDATE: never came!]

Third opposing speech
First of all, I would like to state a fundamental difference in the fields of science. 

On the one hand, we have what some call “pure science”, such as theoretical physics or biology. This science has truth as sole aim, and only wishes to expand human knowledge.

On the other hand, we have something we are going to call applied science, which exists in all fields. This type of science aims at using theoretical discoveries to transform them into something valuable for any industry willing to pay for it. Under the cover of security, health, happiness… the real goals are money and power. [Continues below...]

by PS

These two ways of practising science are both bond to morality and more generally to human values. I want to distinct these two concepts more precisely. 

Human values are what make us belong to humanity, as a difference from animal nature. These are what everyone believe in and want to see respected at all time. Among these values, we can state the respect for human life and body, equality, freedom and solidarity, free will, love and seek for happiness, but also respect for the Earth.

Morality sets norms that are to be taken into account in every action. It aims to respect all human values, with the belief and knowledge of the time. This is why morality tends to evolve throughout the ages, as knowledge and beliefs change. These changes are most of the time helped by scientific breakthrough.

Thus we see that morality and theoretical science are intertwined, as science makes morality progress toward something taking more into account human values.

Indeed, theoretical science seeks, through research from quantum physics to astronomy, answers to the vast questions of humanity, such as the mystery of life, of our presence on Earth, or of the creation of the Universe. These questions are part of every myth and every religion, which have built morality. Answering to some of them helps morality evolve. For example, the belief in Western countries that the “white race” was superior to all other “races” has been deeply rooted in society until the 20^th century, and made horrible actions, as slavery, exist without being considered as immoral. Scientific breakthroughs in genetics, plus the discovery of the DNA have permitted to make morality evolve, as equality of all men was proven. The same thing can be said for the discovery that human beings are not superior to animals as they are from the same origin.

Of course all these discoveries created huge distrust toward the scientist who found that, because people think that some truth must remained unveiled due to the fear of change stated by CS. But that shows anyway that science and morality are mixed together.

Then, we disagree with CS about the fact that science should not be regulated.  Here again, we must make a difference between the two types of science. For the one whose goal is knowledge, I agree that morality is not to be taken into account otherwise it would be a brake to its progress.

But for the one whose unnamed goal is money and power, and who has led to the atomic bomb, or genetic manipulations, morality must remind of human values and enforce laws to ensure that no harm is done to humanity.

Let’s take the example of genetic manipulation, which could aim for example at eradicating some types of genetic diseases such as trisomy 21, this kind of practise being against the value of equality. But then, no one knows what could be the consequences of such eradication. Genetic code is complex and we could discover that people with trisomy 21 are the only people able to resist to other lethal diseases. Destroying all genes of trisomy 21 would then be a great loss to humanity.

Saying that morality has nothing to do with science would mean that men are skilled enough to know all the consequences of their acts, and then stop by themselves when there is a doubt. We can see nowadays that it is not at all the case, as with climate change, human beings are leading themselves to their destruction by their own actions.

Finally, I want to state a simple idea. Morality and human values can sometimes lead science to new paths. Indeed, sustainability and respect for nature, added to the risks of climate change are nowadays leading sciences on the fields of new means of transportation and new means of producing energy. 

PS