Kurt Vonnegut Quotes

Science is not inherently good.

One cannot but regret the deliberate absence of every transcendental moral reference in governing the so-called developed society.

At the end of the day, if there are truly ethical considerations, those have to override scientific considerations.

I think ethics is always there; it's not always a very thoughtful or reflective ethics.

Science is a magnificent force, but it is not a teacher of morals. It can perfect machinery, but it adds no moral restraints to protect society from the misuse of the machine. It can also build gigantic intellectual ships, but it constructs no moral rudders for the control of storm tossed human vessel. It not only fails to supply the spiritual element needed but some of its unproven hypotheses rob the ship of its compass and thus endangers its cargo.

You do not settle whether an argument is justified by merely showing that it is of some use. The distinction is not between useful and useless experiments but between barbarous and civilized behaviour. Vivisection is a social evil because if it advances human knowledge, it does so at the expense of human character.

Researchers should always consider ethical concerns on scientific research and disclose their data to the public. Scientists also need to discuss issues surrounding their research with those who are concerned.

To address questions of scientific responsibility does not necessarily imply that one needs technical competence in a particular field (e.g. biology) to evaluate certain technical matters.

I have always felt that, aside from research that violates universal human mores, when it comes to technological applications, that which can be done will be done.

It is difficult to separate oneself from one's design moralities.

In civilized life, law floats in a sea of ethics.

We are now facing a problem more of ethics than of physics.

When the goals of science collide with moral and ethical judgment, there are certain times when science has to take a time-out.

One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue ... Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.

I would not allow CIA to undertake activity that is immoral, even if it is technically legal.

I strongly oppose cloning, as do most Americans. We recoil at the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts or creating life for our convenience. And while we must devote enormous energy to conquering disease, it is equally important that we pay attention to the moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell research. Even the most noble ends do not justify any means.

Vivisection is a social evil because if it advances human knowledge, it does so at the expense of human character.

The market has no morality

While I'm the Attorney General, we will address each issue with one question: What's the right thing to do?

As for Hollywood, there was an offer. But I declined to do it because of certain moral and ethical values.

Rule-following, legal precedence, and political consistency are not more important than right, justice and plain common-sense.

I am someone who tunes into more ethical journalism, and I'm not someone who dwells a lot on the negative, so I think I'd rather focus on the positive and forge ahead.

Do you trust in your fellow citizens, in a sense that whatever they will have in additional tools they will use in balance more to the good or more to the bad? If you think they will use it more to the bad, you shouldn't do science, you know.

Humans are the only ones who are the custodians of other people's morals.

Right and wrong as moral principles do not change. They are applicable and reliable determinants whether the situations with which we deal are simple or complicated. There is always a right and wrong to every question which requires our solution.