Modern Times
Responsibility (responsibility), social role and responsibility (obligation), legal responsibility (obligation) and social responsibility (responsibility) have slightly different meanings. Moral responsibility is a relatively new term, and its root is Latin "responsibility", which means "promise one thing to another" or "answer". This is to accept or reject the call of God in western traditional religious ethics. It means "who is responsible for asking God and answering our actions for us in our revelation is free ... well, it is always God." The earliest English abstract (1776) was used to describe the self-correction of rulers. The word "public responsibility" is his famous "responsibility". Every action in the exercise of power only appears in France, Spain, Germany and China, which is the most common social role and responsibility of a specific job or institution. In this sense, we should or should not make a good start.
The most commonly used term "responsibility" affects people's ethical and legal aspects of their behavior, which shows that such behavior should be answerable. If the law often discusses the future behavior responsibility, it is a positive moral responsibility, a forward-looking causal relationship, an obligation and the ability and function of the legal system, and an established rule of the traditional moral system. However, citizens' demands only do their part in social status. The concept of responsibility is not an important role. Today, there are still many encyclopedias in China, including the encyclopedia of philosophy that cannot be translated into "responsibility".
In modern society, people are not just actors who play a more important role in society. Modern people's behavior can be freely chosen, but it is recognized that freedom is the responsibility of human freedom, justice and social order. Because the original caste system has been washed away, pursuing their own interests and personal struggle will lead to social chaos, so people must learn to consider the equal status and responsibility of others. Therefore, more and more modern people think about "responsibility". German scholar Max Weber distinguished "responsibility ethics and moral belief". The belief of moral believers only needs "the fire of faith". Don't let it go out. It is meaningless to talk about the possible consequences of his actions. To be responsible for moral behavior, you must consider the possible consequences of your actions. He emphasized the priority action areas of moral responsibility.
The moral theory of a certain responsibility emphasizes the actor, based on the action of responsibility, and lays the foundation for the morality of social roles and professional actors (such as Kant's autonomy-self-responsibility-because of his moral philosophy); Emphasize the relationship between oneself and others, emphasize self-existence and the activities of others in the world. In short, the relationship between the actor and the consequences of his actions is the core responsibility.
From a philosophical point of view, the relationship between responsibility and causality in a certain sense. The most common responsibility, the first condition is the power of cause and effect, our actions will affect the world; Secondly, these behaviors are controlled actors; Third, to a certain extent, he can foresee the consequences. "However, one-way linear causality is usually the corresponding relationship between things, but complex direct and indirect causes may lead to one cause leading to different results, and the result may also lead to species with multiple reasons. Some of them understand, while others don't. Therefore, the discussion of responsibility is not a simple matter.
Responsibility is a function of knowledge and power. In any society, there are always some people, such as doctors, lawyers, scientists, engineers or rulers. Because they have knowledge or special power, their actions may cause others and have a greater impact on society and nature. Therefore, they have to bear more moral responsibilities than others and need a special code (such as Hippocratic oath) to restrain their actions.
People's habits are still quite limited in knowledge and strength, so many consequences often press the eternal natural law of fate. With the development of the times, all attention is focused on the growth of scientific and technological knowledge, and the improvement of ability has also changed the nature of human behavior. The consequences of personal behavior are more complicated, more serious, more lasting and unpredictable. Modern science and technology have introduced the technical force of the purpose and result of this large-scale action, and this responsibility has become a new moral principle that must be observed, especially the future of obligation. The philosopher Jonas's "command responsibility" and "command" don't use it in a way that destroys nature according to other people's things.
It is said that for a long time, the western citizen theory also paid more attention to the rights and interests of individual citizens, and in recent decades, it has increasingly emphasized "responsibility". Exerting "responsibility" on a larger scale than before has become the dominant concept of social norms and the most common normative concept. Carl mitcham's words were born in contemporary society? Live broadcast? ? Life? Responsibility has become the touchstone for discussing western ethical issues such as art, politics, economy, commerce, religion, ethics, science and technology. Penetrating into all fields of society, scientists and engineers, in today's era, science and technology are not only huge, but also scientists and engineers taking part in major decision-making and management with social and moral responsibilities have become a topic that cannot be ignored.
Is science value-neutral?
"Responsibility" is a modern topic, but the responsibility of scientists seems to be regarded as an exception. In the past 300 years, many people think that science is value-neutral scientific knowledge (pure science) and does not reflect its value? Personal motivation or scientific activities, especially for scientific purposes, will not directly affect the social consequences of scientists who have made theoretical achievements in the social sciences.
"Neutral" logical positivism is the most representative and widely influential in the scientific community. According to this view, only those declared experiences and useful knowledge that are not influenced by subjective and value factors are the accuracy and system stability of Scientific Outlook on Development, and only after mathematical formulas and strict logical reasoning. Therefore, social, historical, cultural and psychological factors are excluded from science. Science is regarded as objective knowledge based on facts and logic and influenced by social values. Whether there is good or evil is value neutral.
It is also believed that not only the motivation of scientific knowledge itself is value-neutral scientific activities, but also the only purpose of science is not to participate in individual values. For example, Max Weber, as a scientific tool rationality and scientific purpose, guides the actions of rational people, and makes the demands of bureaucratic tools (bureaucrats, an effective and reasonable organizational form) of research institutions choose effective means to achieve their goals, make rational calculations, and obey the attitude of reasonably controlling the outside world. Their occupation should be "science and science", and they can only honestly establish the relationship between facts, logic and mathematics. He even asserted: "a scientist, he proved his value judgment, in fact, when it was over."
The "neutral theory" has different forms and purposes in different periods, including the reasons for comprehensive understanding, social, political, economic and cultural reasons. It reflects the development of science to a certain stage, the division of professional work is too fine, highly specialized, paying attention to the local, ignoring the overall restrictions (social consequences of independent scientific activities), reflecting other activities of science as a rational person and reflecting nature (such as art) and religion. ) (Science does have its objective empirical facts based on empirical facts and logic) Understand the basic picture (the modern mechanical world outlook is completely divorced from the second natural connection of the world spirit in the material world, and the fundamental reason of value is not God or nature, but the industrial and utilitarian value of nature is regarded as the scientific object itself), which reflects the requirements of the independent development of science as a social system (ensuring the normal operation of scientific activities, science and systems). It is precisely because of this that the so-called "neutrality" is a mask, a shield, and even a sword. For example, in the17th century, the fledgling scientists of the Royal Society ensured that royalists were neutral and did not interfere in theology, metaphysics, politics and morality? Really? Please don't accept the right of censorship and express and communicate freely. In the increasingly powerful 20th century, in science, it even became the main theme of the times, and "neutrality" was not a weapon of "politics" and "scientific ethics" (lysenko, Nazi exterminated Jewish scientists).
"Scientific value neutrality, in a sense, seems to be established within a specific scope, and it is still very influential in academic circles. It often acts as a shield and refuses to consider the moral responsibility of scientists. If we understand the development of society from the whole social science, especially the scientific background of modern society, then we can only be a myth or an ideal neutral theory. Criticism of "value neutrality" of logical positivism, Marxism and other schools of scientific philosophy. Weber unconsciously tools rationality and personal knowledge and gears "bureaucratic restrictions, you need to pay attention to the problem."
The integration of science and technology, "the integration of science and technology-economy-society", the era of big science, big science and big industry have played an irreplaceable role in the military and scientific development of various countries and become the ideal of national behavior and value neutrality. The pure scientific foundation no longer exists. The concept of "pure science" has always been applied to science, not a scientific concept replaced by pure science, including basic research, applied research and development, including R&D as a whole for a long time, which does not fully represent science. The "basic science" of rejuvenating the country through science and education. The slogan of "national interests" of science and technology clearly puts forward that from a scientific point of view, the social goal of state investment in science and technology is unpredictable. Modern science has become a social undertaking, and scientists generally belong to an organization or group (members or employees, because scientific research has become a career for a living). Science cannot be rewarded with development, although it is not necessarily short-term or direct support to the community (capital and social resources). "Separation of aristocratic science and science" does not meet the requirements of the times. Skilled workers must consider the social consequences of scientific and social responsibilities and moral responsibilities.
Paying attention to the social consequences of science is a departure from moral responsibility. "The scientific attitude of science and scientists can be summarized as universal, * * * productism and altruism (selflessness).
Merton, an American scientific sociologist, has the same spiritual temperament and professional ethics, organized skepticism (doubt) and originality (originality). There are many controversies. This article leaves the open discussion of these norms, followed by tenderness, rational spirit, neutral feelings, respect for other people's intellectual property rights, respect for facts, no fraud, and so on. Research scientists (experiments) should conform to humanitarian principles (? Such as the Nuremberg Code), as well as the principles of animal protection and ecological protection (such as in the animal world, the United Nations declaration "the right to protect animal rights", 1978 alliance, all animals are born free, live free, and every animal is respected.
In order to ensure the normal operation of science and the independent development of scientific knowledge production and scientific social environment, these norms should be supplemented by: accountability, that is, scientific knowledge that has the responsibility to think, predict and evaluate possible social consequences, such as physicist Sam and American college Schweber who makes TV programs. "New scientific enterprise creation-design objects that never existed create a conceptual framework. Based on the known understanding of emerging complexity and novelty, it is obvious that we must bear material and moral responsibilities because we have created these objects and statements. "
Science (whether it is a direct scientist) should be responsible for scientists, scientists and other adverse consequences caused by science to human well-being? The application prospect is not clear, so it is difficult to ask. Scientists discover the basic principles and unpredictable consequences of applications and try to apply scientific theories to practice (industrial, military or other). Scientists (the most modern scientists), regardless of their subjective motives, should carefully consider the consequences of scientific activities. "And his design does not go beyond the design of the experiment, but the side effects of man-made products or the design of technical solutions, providing the concept of application, and you can try to do evil or harm." As long as their behavior is free, they are an integral part of the causal chain of scientific application, and they bear moral responsibility for the consequences of scientific application. Of course, not all direct actions "Weber's responsibility in the field of morality" take precedence over the belief of Tao Te Ching. We must consider the possible consequences of our actions and the unity of the motivation and effect of dialectical materialism. Motivation, mass and popularization are inseparable, because practice must be United and unified.
Since the 20th century, the application of science in military and industrial fields has significantly increased the negative impact on society and science and technology. In nuclear war, the development of genetic engineering technology plays a decisive role. The ecological crisis of scientists from human existence is no longer a social consequence caused by indifference, which reflects the scientific thinking of atomic scientists in 1945. The report of the Committee's scientists responsible for the war: "In the past, how people used their selfless discoveries, they may be wrong. Scientists who are directly responsible now believe that it is necessary to take more active measures to achieve greater success in developing nuclear energy research. " They feel responsible. "I think the release of public science education on science, technology and social issues in the atomic energy industry is devoted to public education, and they have a broad understanding of the potential risks of unprecedented development of science.
The responsibilities of scientists all over the world have been widely discussed on various occasions, including the famous Pi Juvas Congress since 1957 and the Asilo Horse Congress since 1975. In the early 1970s, scientists discussed the potential dangers of recombinant DNA research. Scientists have their own responsibilities in the field. In recent years, this idea has continued, but scientific research, especially those that may have new methods, should be limited to people. This is a potential danger, which is still controversial. The so-called scientists are worried about refusing to consider utopian projects that may endanger them, emphasizing the reasons, scientists' responsibilities and unnecessary restrictions.
However, scientists have mastered scientific knowledge, and they can predict the possible application prospect of scientific knowledge more accurately than others. They have the responsibility, because modern scientists have not predicted the negative impact of science and public science education and given positive comments. Only engaged in their own professional work, as the elite of society, they often participate in major decisions of the government and industry and enjoy a special reputation. Their opinions will be more trustworthy, so non-professional knowledge should be moderately cautious. They have the responsibility to express their opinions publicly in all aspects of conflicts of interest, and even withdraw from some projects when their conscience decides.
What are these four engineers responsible for? Who are they?
/& gt； What kind of social consequences are scientists' responsibilities? If the generation of scientific knowledge (indirect effect) is caused by the significant differences in social consequences, then theoretical scientists seem to have little differences in their views on engineers' responsibilities. Engineers can explore the application of knowledge and put it into practice. It has affected their work and theoretical research, especially basic theoretical research, and the consequences brought by this project are highly clear. Should the engineer be responsible for the consequences of the project?
The basic responsibility project of engineering philosopher Samuel Florman? The teacher's purpose is to do a good job in a project; Engineer Stephen unger is an advocacy engineer who is committed to public welfare responsibility. Engineers continue to even refuse to think that he is not conducive to freedom. "In the past, mainly to participate in? Whether to consider whether to do it well. "
What is the essence of engineer's responsibility? Is it in line with engineering ethics disputes and certain professions, such as doctors and lawyers? In fact, apart from the fact that medical and health services have different legal efficiency in the goal of fairness, the project itself has no clear internal and independent ideal. Until the end of18th century, early engineers had been building and using "war machines". Engineering, military engineering and civil engineering are largely guided by the state. The engineer with strong technical force must obey and obey orders first. His main duties, even if mechanical, chemical and electrical engineering continue to develop, have not changed the social institutions (government or enterprises) belonging to the outside world in his works.
With the increasing number of engineers and technicians in some industrial countries in the19th century, engineers need an independent engineer to establish various engineers. They believe that the main driving force of reform is engineering technology, which is the main force of human progress. They are not prejudiced by specific interest groups and have a wide range of responsibilities to ensure the reformed technology and ultimately benefit mankind. What they should abide by, you can call it an "order": "You should only design or assist in the completion of projects that do not pose a threat to happiness, and should remind the public that in any project, it does not meet the requirements." For example, American engineer Morrison (George Trumpeter) proudly and confidently declared, "We have mastered the pastor of material progress, and our work has enabled others to enjoy the development of achievements, the source of natural forces, and the power of our mind to control matter. A priest in the new era, but never superstitious, another engineer said, "Engineers, not others, will lead to human progress that has never been called for by human beings, right?" "The responsibility of engineers falls on the shoulders of1at the beginning of the 9th century. In 1930s, it was put forward under the ideological background of technocratic movement in western countries. The technocratic movement has not been successful, but world politics will have a long-term and far-reaching impact.
What we are discussing here is, because engineers of scientific and technological achievements need to accept all the glory, should they also bear all the engineering failures? In fact, it is very limited, because the work of all engineering and technical experts is largely controlled by operators or political families, their own courses, rather than by the responsible engineers. Engineers should be responsible for the consequences of dereliction of duty, or intentionally destroy their own work, but unintentionally neglect (such as product defects) or unclear responsibilities (such as earthquake prediction errors). What's the impact? What is important is that in the former case, a large number of project control operators or politicians and engineers have the responsibility to deal with who is responsible? Projects (bridges, houses, cars, etc. ), the user's employer or the overall social status? If the project itself, the interests of the public, the interests of employers, and the long-term interests of society and mankind conflict, what about the "three unifications" between the responsibility of civil society and the interests of the scientific community in an ideal situation? Employees of research institutions, but in fact, they often have all kinds of conflicts.
A controversial issue, engineers, should be the work of natural "informers" (informers) scientists and engineers, so they often know first and foremost whether some companies or other institutions, such as product quality, performance, public safety and health or environmental defects, are true in real life, and they have no right to disclose them. These informers are often fired, transferred or regarded as "troublemakers". The playwright Ibsen's Public Enemy vividly describes this phenomenon. Some scientific and professional technical associations support informers, such as engineers and ethics regulations, which first require engineers to have a public task of occupational safety, health and welfare.
However, this requirement obviously deviates from Merton's policy of demanding autonomy to ensure the "selflessness" of scientific activities. On the other hand, the informant's judgment is based on his own understanding. If you don't recognize peer review, even peers, it is scientific and standardized to oppose him. Whether they are in charge of professional work or not, you need to analyze specific problems. Of course, fundamentally speaking, to solve the conflict of interests between the government, enterprises and the public, it also needs the reform of the whole society. For example, all large-scale technology planning, democratic management of public participation, science education and the public's responsibility for the positive and negative impact on the application of science and technology are still predicted and evaluated by engineers and scientists. Because without computers, democratic management, science and technology, science and perfect quality are useless.
With the new development of modern scientific and technological revolution, scientific and technological workers have been endowed with unprecedented power, and the consequences of their actions are often unpredictable. IT, Internet, genetic engineering, nuclear energy and new material technology have also brought benefits to mankind, and will also cause damage or even disaster in the foreseeable future and unpredictable circumstances, or the benefits of hurting others. The moral responsibility of scientific and technological workers is shorter and needs urgent attention, far exceeding the moral responsibility of scientists and engineers to do their jobs well in the highly developed era of science and technology.