aware of his/her commitments, and then decides accordingly. Therefore, a moral deed calls for the recognition of a moral commitment and taking measures for its implementation. But realizing a commitment does not necessarily imply positive or negative consequences. If the implementer of an action is aware of the outcome of his deed and the reason why he does it, he is then out of the domain of ethics and freedom.

It seems as if science and ethics cannot unite, or it is better to say that ethics begins where science ends. Yet how is it possible to make a decision in the darkness of ignorance? Decision making based on certainty is impossible in ethics. One should choose a way, and this option may begin with deciding if it is moral. How is it possible to make a decision when one is uncertain? At least in our age, morality appears as a paradox where one must make a decision when decision making is impossible. And such decision making is a negative deed. That is, one does not make a moral decision. One does not choose one of the existing options. Rather one avoids certain options and may confront a deadlock, or one may find the one option that has been left for her/ him. In such conditions ethics is not founded on science but its domain is beyond that of science.

With respect to this introductory part, discussions about science and ethics as two independent realms will not be fruitful. It may be appropriate to look at a problem from a different view and raise these questions: What status do science and ethics have in the modern world? Is there any match between science and ethics in the world of modernity?

One cannot think of the modern world without technological science. In this world, science and technology are present everywhere, and almost everything and everybody depends on them. In this world neither science nor politics depends on ethics, and each has its own origins and fundamentals. But this is not the end of the story. Science and politics do not need ethics, and in today’s technical-political system, there is usually no need for making moral decisions, simply because decision making is required to correspond to the universal system.

Until recent decades, the values of the modern world were considered absolute. It is believed that as people gradually enter the modern scientific and intellectual system, they will accept and realize its values universally. Still, while most people of the world, including those of the under-developed nations, have the same opinion, it seems that this universal perspective has gradually dimmed. When economy, commerce, living traditions, and production and consumption patterns are globalized, the fulfillment of those universalistic values is less probable, and even their validity is doubted.

This skepticism is also manifest in practice and politics. Such manifestation may be considered undesirable, particularly when it contrasts with western values. In some cases, it may turn out to be violent, inde



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement