Some basic premises – often fashioned by leaders and supported because of the led – exercise the collective conscience of the led in as long as they stimulate a willed development. The development is frequently superior but not necessarily civilized.
The premises you want are of this form: “Our level of technological advancement is second to none. Upon reaching this level, we also have to prepare our society for peace, in order to guarantee the peace, technology must possibly be revised to foster the policy connected with war. ” Technological advancement that is pushed in this particular direction sets a dangerous precedent intended for other societies that fear a threat on their respective sovereignties. They are pushed to help also foster a war technology.
From the domain of civilization, this mode of development seriously isn’t praiseworthy, nor is it morally justifiable. Since it is not morally justifiable, it is socially irresponsible. An inspection of the premises will reveal it’s the last one that poses problems. The last premise is the realization of two preceding premises but is not in the slightest logically deduced. What it shows is usually a passionately deduced conclusion, and being and so, it fails to be reckoned to be a conclusion from a rationally prepared intellect, at least at the time when it was deduced.
A society that advances using the above presuppositions – and especially using the illogical conclusion – has transmitted this psyche of non-negotiable superiority to it is people. All along, the power connected with passion dictates the pace of people conduct. Whether in constructive engagements or maybe willed partnerships, the principle of equality fails to work precisely with the superiority syndrome that grips the leader along with the led. And a different society that will not share in the collective sensibilities or maybe passion of such society has, because of the expected logic, become a potential or maybe actual enemy and faces confrontation with all possible fronts.
Most of cures learn about the present world, certainly, via the media, is dominated by means of state-of-the-art technology. Societies that have by far the most of such technology are also, over and over again, claimed to be the most state-of-the-art. It is not only their advancement that lifts those to the pinnacle of power, superiority, in addition to fame. They can also use technology to simplify and proceed an understanding of life and nature within a different direction, a direction that can eliminate, as much as possible, a prior connection between life and nature that had been, in many respects, mystical and harmful. This last point does not necessarily indicate that technological advancement is a mark of any superior civilization.
What we need to recognise is that civilization and technology will not be conjugal terms. Civilized people may produce an advanced technology or they may n’t have it. Civilization is not just some sort of matter of science and technology or maybe technical infrastructure, or, again, the brilliant of buildings; it also has to do with the moral and mental reflexes of people together with their level of social connectedness into their own society and beyond. It is on the general behaviour makeup of people that each forms of physical structures could possibly be created, so too the question connected with science and technology. Thus, the style of bridges, roads, buildings, heavy machinery, a few, that we can see in some sort of society could tell, in a normal way, the behavioural pattern of folks. Behavioural pattern could also tell lots about the extent to which the natural environment has been utilized for infrastructural things to do, science and technology. Above all, behavioural pattern could tell lots about the perceptions and understanding on the people about other people.
I complete believe – and, I think, the majority of people do believe – that upon augmenting the rate of infrastructural activities in addition to technology, the environment has to recede with its naturalness. Once advancing technology (and attendant structures or ideas) competes while using the green environment for space, this setting that houses trees, grass, flowers, lots of animals and fish has to shrink bigger. Yet the growth of population, this relentless human craving for quality lifetime, the need to control life without based on the unpredictable condition of the natural environment prompt the employment of technology. Technology need not pose unwarranted danger towards natural environment. It is the misuse of technology that is certainly in question. While a society may justly utilize technology to improve well being, its people also have to consult: “how much technology do we ought to safeguard the natural environment? ” Suppose society Y blends the moderate by using technology with the natural environment as a way to offset the reckless destruction of this latter, then this kind of positioning prompts the that society Y is a lover on the principle of balance. From this process, one can boldly conclude that society Y favours stability in excess of chaos, and has, therefore, the good sense of moral and social responsibility. Any state-of-the-art technology points towards sophistication of the human mind, and it also indicates that the natural environment has become cavalierly tamed.
If humans do not want to live subject to the natural environment – which, certainly, is an uncertain way of life – but in line with their own predicted pace, then the employment of technology is a matter of training. It would seem that the process of balance that society Y possesses chosen could only be for a short while or that this is more of any make-believe position than a real just one. For when the power of the human mind gratifies itself after having a momentous achievement in technology, retreat, or maybe, at best, a slow-down is rather unusual. It is as if this human mind is telling itself: “technological advancement should accelerate without any obstruction. A retreat or maybe a gradual process is an insult towards inquiring mind. ” This kind of thought process only points out the enigma on the mind, its dark side, not it is finest area. And in seeking to interrogate the existing mode of a certain technology using the instructions of the mind, the purpose of ethics is indispensable.
Is it morally right to use such a technology for this kind of solution? And is it morally right to use such a product? Both questions hint that the goods or products in question are often harmful or not, environmentally friendly or maybe not, or that they do besides cause harm directly to humans but on to the environment too. And if, as i have stated, the purpose of technology is to improve the products life, then to use technology to make products that harm both humans and the natural environment contradicts the aim of technology, and it also falsifies a assertion that humans are rational. On top of that, it suggests that the sophisticated level which the human mind has reached is unable to grasp the essence or rationale connected with quality life. In this regard, a peaceful coexistence with the natural environment would have been deserted for the health of an unrestrained, inquiring human mind. This human mind would, as it were being, become corrupted with beliefs or ideas that are untenable in several ways.