Q12 - Ethicist: although science

[maryadkins]

We have an inference question. So let's review what we know:

-Science has a traditional value system (TVS) of its own.
-Scientists sometimes see that their research could do harm, but according to the TVS, they don't have to consider this when deciding whether to keep researching or not.
-Ordinary morality, however, requires that we consider consequences.

(A) is out of scope. There is nothing in the stimulus about responsibility.

(B) is incorrect because the stimulus doesn't actually tell us that doing research that does harm is immoral. It tells us that ordinary morality requires that we consider the consequences--that we at least take them into account. That's different than calling it outright immoral. Maybe we'd consider them and then decide they're not immoral, actually.

(C) is the opposite of what the stimulus tells us; science is not morally neutral.

(D) is correct.

(E) far exceeds the scope of the argument.

Hope this helps!


#officialexplanation

[jamiejames]

Why is B incorrect?

[tzyc]

I'm still not sure why (C) is incorrect and (D) is the answer...
"(C) is the opposite of what the stimulus tells us; science is not morally neutral"
Is it the opposite because of this part "Although science is...it has a traditional value of its own"?
I thought at first it is neutral because from their traditional value system scientists do not have to think about the consequence to take an action, so they are not bound...
And what (D) says seems they are "neutral"...
What did I miss?
When I did review I felt the part "it assigns no value to the consequence" of (C) may be skeptical...but not sure

[scott.callin66]

I went with (C) originally when I did the test for the same reason as you tz. Now I think it may be incorrect, not because it's the opposite, because the argument never really says science is morally neutral. It implies that in certain situations they don't consider the moral consequences, and that is their moral system.

[daniel]

I went with (C) originally when I did the test for the same reason as you tz. Now I think it may be incorrect, not because it's the opposite, because the argument never really says science is morally neutral. It implies that in certain situations they don't consider the moral consequences, and that is their moral system.

I think we're on the same page, but wanted to add to the discussion. I eliminated (C) because the idea that "science is morally neutral" is an opposing perspective that the Ethicist is arguing against. Since the Ethicist argues against that perspective, it is not supported by his statements. Why is science not morally neutral? Because it has a traditional value system of its own.

Nevertheless, I think there is support for eliminating (C) based on the second part of the answer choice (after the "because"). It's not that science assigns no value to the consequences of the research (this is a distortion of what is stated in the stimulus). Rather, the stimulus says that the foreseeable consequences don't have to be considered as part of the decision as to whether or not to pursue the research.

[haeeunjee]

I eliminated B for a different reason, although I can see how Mary's explanation makes sense.

(B) says that scientists doing research that "ultimately turns out to yield harmful applications are acting immorally." This does not indicate whether or not the scientists were aware of the harmful consequences of their research. And ordinary morality is all about whether we account for "the foreseeable consequences of our actions." Perhaps the harmful consequences in (B) were unforeseeable and there was no way for the scientists to have accounted for them; then they were not violating any ordinary morality.

Hope this helps someone!