I believe that our morals are improving. We are developing more dangerous technologies, yes, and we have the ability to consider an "immoral" action and still do the "wrong" choice, yes, but we have been making advancements. I feel as though technology improving is just our moral boundaries expanding. The example that we find a way to cure cancer and, at the same time, develop a doomsday device does not make us immoral, it just gives us further moral consideration. We simply have two new things to think about, one that can be answered fairly simply because of its obvious goodness and one that is a little more tricky because of its inherent wrongness. The cure for cancer then becomes question number one, "Should we use it?", and I believe, yes, we should. Question two then is, "We've developed a doomsday device, should we use it?", to which I believe most people would answer, "No." Contemplation of a larger field of morals does not necessarily mean that we are not making progress, it could also mean that we are simply discovering more of the world which we must take into consideration when making our decisions. A cave man both does not have the capacity to make a doomsday device nor the capacity to understand its ramifications. If he were to discover one somehow and use it, would that make his actions immoral? Or is it simply his lack of understanding that makes the event into an innocent accident? On the other hand, we have, in the original hypothetical scenario, a scientist or team of scientists, most likely, that have made this weapon, and fully understand what would happen if they used it. Can we consider their actions immoral if they decide to use it? I feel as though there is a certain level of innocence in ignorance and a bit of maliciousness in misuse.
My question is then:
Is it right for us to judge our ancestors with the same criteria we use to judge ourselves today?
No comments:
Post a Comment