"The March Of Ethics Is Curbing Progress"
Essay on Ethics, Science and Technology

Deacon Robert M. Pallotti, D.Min.

Dr. John Kerr Award for Outstanding Essay
Oxford Summer Theology Programme, 1998
Oxford University, England

On the morning of July 16, 1945 the world would be changed forever. Sometime after 5:30 a.m., in a section of the New Mexico desert called, the journey of death, the sky was illuminated with an incandescence so bright that a young blind girl one hundred miles away was able to see this light. Soon after, followed a roar of which the world had never heard prior to that day. The Trinity test of the first atomic bomb was the dawn of a new, and the most dangerous, age humanity was ever to live through up to the present. The primal force of the universe of matter was harnessed and unleashed in the form of converted matter into pure energy--made possible by some of the world's top physicists. We have experienced this force as one that could lead to the destruction of a large part, or all of humanity and the creation as we know it.

At this present time in history the major nuclear powers and other nuclear powers--including India and Pakistan--are still trapped by the nuclear dilemma of Deterrence.

This nuclear force, that has been summoned up by the scientists and politicians of our age, reminds us of the sorcerer's apprentice whose summoning up of forces on so grand a scale, found himself unable to control them. It is the irony of our times that those who control this power are in the most peril. But how could such a nightmarish situation develop and remain in our world?

Perhaps its origins can be traced back to the way scientists, politicians and others respond to the problems posed by an ever-increasingly technically advanced culture that is confronted daily with the question: Because we can do something, ought we to do it ? Such a question raises the moral-ethical questions concerned with human behavior. In the twentieth century this question has taken on proportions never before witnessed in human history. With the introduction of the scientific method by men such as, Francis Bacon, in the sixteenth century science and scientists made extraordinary advances in knowledge and technology in ways that have helped to create a much improved standard of living for a great many people. The noted physicist, Ilya Perogine, once remarked, Despite the problems we face with the consequences inherited from some technological and scientific breakthroughs, never before have so many people enjoyed life. There is little doubt that many wonderful and life-enhancing changes have been made because of science and technology by those motivated by a moral imperative to improve the human condition--not least of which are those in telecommunications and medicine. But there does exist a form of moral positivism among some scientists that results in a moral relativism that often concludes, I don't care what others think; its right for me ! Still, to be fair, many scientists are desirous of working in a moral-ethical framework that supports the notion that some actions are intrinsically good or bad in themselves--a deontological ethics.

In 1983, President of the United States, Ronald Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative. Many scientists refused to work on this project and labored to have members of the scientific community boycott the SDI program--refusing billions of dollars in the process. Many joined the boycott (close to 5,000) because they believed that such a program was unethical; that it would not promote the good of insuring peace, but rather, produce a more unstable international political and military environment.

The statement, the march of ethics is curbing progress, seems to suggest most forcefully, that ethics and ethical considerations concerning science and technology are a hindrance to progress. It also seems to presume that discovery and progress are one and the same thing! Or, to put it another way, it seems to assume that change and invention are good simply because something new has been developed by human ingenuity and technical prowess.

The word, progress, itself is a rather vague term in the context of its usage in the statement. What does it really refer to in this context? Is it a reference to improving the living conditions of all humanity, or to those who can afford to do so? Is it the realized dream of the inventor who may or may not have taken account of ethical considerations in such activity? Is it a reference to helping human beings come closer to the fullness of imaging Christ to the world? Is it a reference to nurturing and healing creation, or contributing to its plunder by those unconstrained by law and/or ethics?

So often discovery can be ambiguous in its pursuit and accomplishment, yielding the good at best; or the destructive and diabolical at worst. For those who first manufactured Zyklon B gas the work to produce it promised to lead to the ability to control disease-bearing vermin in German cities. Could anyone have foreseen that this same product would be the chief instrument of extinction and near extinction of millions of human beings in the killing factories of the Third Reich?

In all human endeavor there is risk. We cannot always foresee the consequences of our actions. That is why we need each other. We are not created to be atomistic creatures, separated in an fantasy world of separateness. We are by constitution personal and social creatures. We rely on the counsel, dialogue and accountability of others and to others to act wisely, ethically and humanly. All of reality is a system composed of sub-systems--in the words of the U.S. Catholic Bishops document, Renewing the Earth, 1991:we are members in a web of life. Therefore we cannot operate as human beings in a vacuum. Anything or any action that participates in being affects the system or web. Some of these effects can be the result of small changes in other parts of the system. Such a realization lays bare a fundamental fact of our existence, that we are not self-contained creatures only accountable to ourselves, but to all living and material reality as well. As a Christian, of course, that would be to God as well as through the Lord's mediated immediacy, or sacramental presence through all. In the words of the U.S. Catholic Bishops:

The web of life is one. Our mistreatment of the natural world diminishes our own dignity and sacredness, not only because we are destroying resources that future generations of humans need, but because we are engaging in actions that contradict what it means to be human. Our tradition calls us to protect life and the human person, and it is increasingly clear that this task cannot be separated from the care and defense of all creation.

Renewing the Earth, 1991

As Christians we believe that we are co-creators with God and others; accountable to God and each other; and in a unique way, to the creation. As the Lord's stewards we have been called, and we are expected, to care for and cultivate the creation---not use it as if it were merely something to use and to dispose of when through plundering it. It is not only good theology and discipleship, it is eminently practical! What we do to the earth we do to ourselves!

Value-free science is at best an illusion; at worst irresponsible, or even diabolical at times. To pretend to simply be an observer rather than a participant in the global community is to opt out of responsibility and reality ! This type of detachment from the world and others has brought us to a point where we as a world community stand at a crossroads of survival of thrival, or chaos and perhaps, annihilation. The modern day scientific ontological dualism that many scientist still labor under is simply too dangerous for the world in which we live, and the issues of genetic research, environmental responsibility--and the lack thereof--war and peace etc... that confront us in our time.

The age old temptation to make ourselves and our desires the center of moral judgment has been the fundamental sin of humanity (Gn. 3). Believing we are not accountable to anyone but ourselves has created a world of both great promise and great apocalyptic-like peril. The only way we can successfully navigate the treacherous opportunities and perils is in the human spirit and praxis of solidarity directed toward accomplishing the good. There are no guarantees that we will get it right together, but if we approach the world in a sacramental reverence for God and the creation we stand a chance of making it work. Furthermore, as a Christian I believe we do not walk alone in all of this. The Lord of life is with us, inspiring, leading and inviting to try our best.

The need for an ethical framework in the world in which we live has witnessed an upsurge of interest in the scientific community. And now, the world's great religious and philosophical traditions are being called upon to help frame the discussions on the issues of our time. Hans Kung, in his book entitled, Global Responsibility, remarks:

...Leading ethicists now agree that we need a preventive ethics. And this should not just begin with industrial production, but already at the stage of experimentation (which has extremely serious consequences in both atomic and gene technologies), indeed even at the stage of scientific and theoretical reflection, with its priorities and preferences. p. 15

In conclusion, we can respond to the statement, the march of ethics is slowing progress, with the march of ethics is promoting human responsibility and a healthier planet with a more promising and just future.

Deacon Robert M. Pallotti, D. Min.
Created 5/28/1999