Technical Morality

“Our technologies establish the truth of many of our scientific laws.” Is there any comparable means of establishing moral rules and norms?

Making a statement that science and technology are synonymous is fundamentally wrong as well. Science is a process and technology is a possible outcome of the process.

Technology should never define morality. It should not be a factor in what people decide is right and wrong. Instead, humanity should work to define what actions are right and wrong in respect to their morals. What we do with the technology we have is argued about frequently. This is a problem that has plagued the human race since the dawn of time. Just because a caveman CAN bash someone’s head in with a club doesn't mean SHOULD. Just because someone can point a gun and pull a trigger doesn't mean they should. Technology does however cause the norms of society to change. Technology can improve the standard of living and often does. If a family can afford the expense, it is unlikely that they will not have a cell phone. This is a phenomenon that is very heavily relied on in today's busy lifestyle. Not having a cell phone can be seen as a disadvantage in many cases. As a teenager it is socially crippling to not be able to be in direct contact with your friends. This may isolate you because you are not as easy to reach and make plans with. Many kids my age wouldn't know what to do if they didn't have a way to talk to their friends on a constant and regular basis. In business, there is a very big disadvantage to not being accessible at all times of the day. This can result in missed deals or less opportunity. Wireless technology has brought the world even closer. If you are not a phone call away, your success will be extremely limited if possible at all.

Although technology has changed the way we see the world there are still basic moral rules that should be followed. Does technology make the way we look at things change? Killing is seen as wrong in almost every culture around the world. However, throughout history there have been more attempts to create new ways to torture or kill another human being than any other focus. Why would there be so much effort put into something that the majority of the world sees as inherently wrong? It could be human nature to go against the social norm. It also may stem from our animal idea of survival of the fittest. This has changed from the smaller fight of who has the bigest stick to who has the biggest bomb. The ability to kill the most people in the quickest and easiest way has defined the world leaders since international trade began. Has the relative ease of murder changed the idea that it is morally wrong to take the life of a fellow human? I think the justice system has proven that this although there is a faster increase of the ways you can commit murder, that does not make it okay to do so. Can you blame someone for murder when there are so many means of doing so? Common law around the world has answered this with a YES.

Clearly, there are ways that technology can change teh ways in which people interact, but not the way in which they should act.