Photo: Enoch Lai
A couple years ago, a controversial scientist testified before Congress that "The development of human cloning is inevitable." If his statement is true, would advocating against human cloning or for restraint be futile? Would it be anti-science?
It is inevitable that political partisans will use unethical arguments and mudslinging to persuade the weak to their cause. Does that justify using ad hominem and mischaracterization to push a political agenda?
Cheating in school is inevitable. There are a surprising number of students who cheat on college and graduate school entrance exams. Most polls seem to show that a majority of both high school and college students cheat. Since others are getting a leg up, is it ok to level the playing field by cheating?
The answer to all four of these questions is a resounding NO. It is not inherently anti-science or anti-progress to oppose the inevitable. The announcement of inevitability does not signal ethical finality. The assertion of inevitability in ethical disputes is not an appeal to morals at all; it is an effort to abandon ethical considerations altogether. Just because something will happen does not mean we shouldn't fight against it. Courage is standing for what is right even if you stand alone.
