Self-study
Ethicist: Although science is frequently said to be morally neutral, it has a traditional value system of its own. ███ ████████ ██████████ █████████ ███████ ████ █ ████ ██ ███████████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ █████ ████████████ ████ █████ █████████ ████ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ ████████████ ████ █████████ ██ █████████ ███████████ █████ ███████ ████ ████████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ ████████ ███████ ██ ██████ ████ █████████ ████████ █████████ ██ █████████ ████████ ████ ██ ████ ███ ███████████ ████████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ███
Summary
Some people say that science is morally neutral, but science has its own traditional value system. For example, scientists can sometimes predict that their research will have harmful consequences. However, science’s traditional value system holds that these consequences aren't relevant when deciding what to research. In contrast, ordinary morality would require considering the foreseeable consequences when deciding what to do.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
Sometimes science's traditional value system yields a conflicting judgement of what someone should do, compared to ordinary morality.
12.
The ethicist's statements, if true, ████ ████████ ███████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
Scientists should not ██ ████ ███████████ ███ ███ ████████████ ██ █████ █████████
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus does not suggest what scientists should or should not be held responsible for. The stimulus is limited to the contrast between two value systems, but doesn't choose one over the other, or assign responsibility in any other way.
b
According to the ████████ ██ ████████ █████████ ██████████ █████ ████████ ████ ██████████ █████ ███ ██ █████ ███████ ████████████ ███ ██████ ██████████
This answer is unsupported. We only know that ordinary morality requires taking foreseeable consequences into account. If an action has unforeseen harmful consequences, or if someone considers the foreseeable consequences but goes ahead anyway, we don't know what ordinary morality would say.
c
Science is morally ███████ ███████ ██ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██ ███████████ █████████
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus strongly implies that science is not, in fact, morally neutral. Besides, we don't know whether or not science's value system assigns value to the consequences of theoretical research, just that foreseeable consequences needn't affect the decision of whether to conduct research.
d
It is possible ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██████ ██ █████ █████ ███ ███████ █ █████████ ██ ████████ █████████
This answer is strongly supported. Scientists’ traditional value system does not require taking into account foreseeable consequences, while ordinary morality does.
e
The uses and ███████ ██ ██████████████ ████████ █████████ ███ █████ ██ ██████████ █████████
This answer is unsupported. It’s entirely possible that these effects can be adequately foreseen, it’s just that the traditional value system for science does not require scientists to take these effects into account.