Subjects under University of Sydney
Document Details

Science and Philosophy

User Description:
"Scientists just make discoveries. They should not be held responsible for how the knowledge gets used". Is that right? To what extent is science purely theoretical, and what harm can it cause?

Thinkswap Satisfaction Guarantee

Each document purchased on Thinkswap is covered by our Satisfaction Guarantee policy. If you are not satisfied with the quality of any document, or you believe the document was incorrectly described or categorised, Thinkswap will provide a full refund of exchange credits so you can check out another document. For more information please click here.

This student studied:
Claim a Thinkswap Bounty

Do you know if the Subject listed above has changed recently? Click report to earn free Exchange Credits!

Document Information:
4 Pages Essays / Projects < 1 Year old
Share

2 Ex Credits


Document Screenshots:
Science and Philosophy
Topics this document covers:
Ethics Philosophy Normative ethics Meta-ethics Philosophy of life Social philosophy Philosophy of science Deontological ethics Social responsibility Consequentialism Scientific method Moral responsibility
This is an Essay / Project

Essays / Projects are typically greater than 5 pages in length and are assessments that have been previously submitted by a student for academic grading.

What are Exchange Credits:

Exchange Credits represent the worth of each document on Thinkswap. In exchange for uploading documents you will receive credits. These can then be used to checkout other documents on Thinkswap.

Topics this document covers:
Ethics Philosophy Normative ethics Meta-ethics Philosophy of life Social philosophy Philosophy of science Deontological ethics Social responsibility Consequentialism Scientific method Moral responsibility
Sample Text:
Is that right The theoretical work of scientists has, historically, led to tragic consequences. The link between a discovery and its application must be assessed in order to determine the extent to which a scientist is responsible for the outcome of his research. Polyani (1986) proposes that the primary role of a scientist is to put truth ahead of all else. The objective nature of science means that conclusions are universal, and so it is not correct to judge morality from the pursuit of truth. Nonetheless, the ethical principle of non-maleficence still applies to the obligation for scientists to do no harm, but it is difficult to ascertain who they are harming. Forge (2008) believes that scientists have a duty to refuse to do research that have a foreseeable negative applications. But since the clientele of scientists is both broad and undefined, I believe ...
Similar Documents to Science and Philosophy

BSB111 Study Notes Week 1- 8

This student studied:
Queensland University of Technology - BSB111 - Business, Law & Ethics

Lecture notes from week 1 - 8, helps with revision with final exam

5 Ex Credits

View Details

ACCG250 - Ethics

This student studied:
Macquarie University - ACCG250 - Information Systems and Business Processes

Notes on the topic of Ethics for ACCG250. These notes cover all the things you need for the final exam , particularly strong emphasis on the ethical scenarios.

1 Ex Credit

View Details

Ethics, Law and Justice Notes

This student studied:
University of Technology Sydney - 70103 - Ethics, Law and Justice

All topics in the UTS course outline covered from the seminar materials booklet given.

5 Ex Credits

View Details

Ethics - Kant, virtue and Util and Kohlberg

This student studied:
Queensland University of Technology - BSB111 - Business, Law & Ethics

Kolhberg's theory of moral development states that we progress through three levels of moral thinking, each composed of two stages, that build on our cognitive development. From the information provided regarding Morris and Nguyen’s moral thinking it can be reasoned that they participated in the fraudulent acts under the belief that they would not be caught. This suggests if they had been caught they would not have participated. Therefore, level one, stage one of Kohlberg’s theory, when a person acts morally in order to avoid punishment reflects them. The case also indicates both men participated in the act to increase profits, reflecting Level one, Stage two of the theory, where agents act morally if there is benefit in it for them. In the case Morris and Nguyen regarded the material rewards to be considerable when they pushed clients into inappropriate high-risk products. Therefore, Morris and Nguyen’s moral reasoning reflects the ‘Pre-Conventional’ Level one of the theory as it contains elements of both stage one and two. There is no indication of any reasoning regarding observing the law, social duties or universal ethical principles.

2 Ex Credits

View Details