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. Karl mitcham, living in contemporary society? 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, did the fledgling scientists of the Royal Society ensure the neutrality of royalists and not interfere in theology, metaphysics, politics and morality? 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. Scientists (experiments) should conform to the humanitarian principles (such as Nuremberg Code) and the principles of animal protection and ecological protection (for example, in the animal kingdom, the United Nations Declaration "The Right to Protect Animal Rights", 1978 Alliance, all animals are born free and live freely, 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, 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. Scientists are no longer indifferent to the ecological crisis of human existence, and the scientific thought of atomic scientists embodies the responsibility for social consequences in 1945. Report of the Scientists' War Committee: "In the past, how people used their selfless discoveries, they may be wrong. Scientists who are directly responsible now, we feel it is necessary to take more active measures to achieve greater success. The research on developing nuclear energy is more dangerous than before. " They feel their responsibility, "public science education on atomic energy management science, technology and social issues" was released, and I believe that "they are committed to public education, and they widely understand 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 Pew VAS conference since 1957 and the Asiloma conference since 1975. In the early 1970s, scientists discussed the potential dangers of recombinant DNA research, and their own scope of responsibility was a new way of thinking about "scientists, researchers and unrestricted". In recent years, this idea has continued, but it is still controversial that scientific research, especially those that may be potentially dangerous, should be restricted. It is called the reason why scientists refuse to be worried and emphasize the responsibility of scientists and unnecessary restrictions. However, scientists believe that the scientific knowledge they have mastered in the Utopia project can predict the application prospect of possible scientific knowledge more accurately than others, and they have the responsibility to predict the negative impact of science and public popular science education and give positive comments. Because modern scientists are not only engaged in their own professional work, but also 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 modest and cautious. They have the responsibility to publicly express their views, conflicts of interest in all aspects, and even withdraw from certain projects when their conscience decides.
What is the engineer responsible for? Who is it?
What is the social consequence of scientists' responsibility? If the generation of scientific knowledge (indirect influence) is caused by the significant difference of social consequences, then the opinions of theoretical scientists on engineers' responsibility seem to have little difference. Engineers explore applied 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 duty of engineering philosopher Samuel froman is to do a good job in a project; Engineer Stephen unger is an advocate engineer who is committed to public welfare responsibility. Engineers continue to even refuse to assume whether he is conducive to freedom. "In the past, it mainly involved whether to consider whether to do a good job.
What is the essence of engineer's responsibility? Does it conform to some occupations with controversial engineering ethics, 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 guided by the state in peacetime. 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 in his work, and belong to external social institutions (governments).
With the increasing number of engineers and technicians in some industrial countries in the19th century, engineers need an independent engineer, and various engineers have been established. 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 they also have a broad responsibility 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 completing the project without posing a threat to good people, and you should remind the public that it is not qualified in any project." For example, American engineer Morrison (George Trumpeter) proudly and confidently declared, "We have made great progress in our work, so that others can also enjoy the development of fruits, the source of natural forces, and the power of our mind to control matter. The priest is a new age, but he is not superstitious. Another engineer said: "It is engineers who lead human progress, not others. The responsibility facing mankind has never been called. It fell on the shoulders of engineers in the early19th century and 1930s, and this ideology was put forward against the background of technocrats in western countries. The movement did not succeed, but the world politics, which 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 to control the operators or political families and their own courses, rather than the responsible engineers. Who will be responsible for the consequences of dereliction of duty? Take responsibility, or deliberately destroy your work, but what will be the impact of unintentional negligence (such as product defects) or unclear responsibility (such as earthquake prediction errors)? What is important is that in the former case, the number of large-scale projects controlled by operators or politicians, if the project itself, who is responsible for the public engineers? Projects (bridges, houses, cars, etc. ), the user's employer or the overall social status? When there is a conflict between interests, employers' interests, and the long-term interests of society and mankind, engineers will safeguard their rights and interests at the first time? Ideally, the scientific community should be unified for three years, as the responsibility of civil society and the responsibility of research institutions for practitioners, but in fact, various conflicts often occur between the two.
A controversial issue, engineers, should be the work of natural "informers" (informers) scientists and engineers, so they are often the first to know about some companies or other institutions, such as product quality, performance, public safety and health or environmental defects, and have no right to disclose whether they are true or not in real life. These informers are often dismissed and transferred and 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 ethical regulations, which require engineers to take the first place in the public task of occupational safety, health and welfare.
But this requirement obviously deviates from Merton's autonomy requirement to ensure the "selflessness" of scientific activities. On the other hand, if you don't get recognized peer review, the whistleblower's judgment is based on their scientific and standardized actions. Whether they are in charge of professional work or not, you need to analyze specific problems. Of course, to fundamentally solve your own understanding, the conflict of interest between the government, enterprises and the public needs the transformation of the whole society, such as all large-scale technology planning, democratic management of public participation, science education and public responsibility, and engineers and scientists to predict and evaluate the positive and negative effects of science and technology applications. Even so, it will be useless to open computers, democratic management, science and technology science and perfect quality.
With the new development of modern science and scientific and technological revolution, scientists and technicians have been endowed with unprecedented strength. The consequences of their actions are often unpredictable, such as IT, Internet, genetic engineering, nuclear energy and new material technology, which not only bring benefits to human beings, but also cause foreseeable and unpredictable damage and even disasters, 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.
The first letter of the Greek alphabet.
The first letter of the Greek alphabet.