Moral Values in Driving Discovery

Scientific discovery is viewed as a place for progress and innovation by many people, and this progress creates a place for ethical concern. One ethical dilemma present in science is if moral values should limit discovery or whether ambition should be a priority. The dilemma depicted in Experiment With an Air Pump and Einstein’s Gift shows a conflict between characters who defend having moral responsibility and those that reject it because of personal, political, or national pride. This is shown through tensions between characters, dependence on the government, and by depicting classism of lower classes. The plays depict the ethical dilemma to represent how personal background, a want for power, and ambition can be different factors in deciding how morals work with discovery.

To begin, the ethical dilemma of whether moral values should drive discovery is shown through tensions and arguments between characters who believe in opposing ideas of science and its neutrality. This can be seen in Experiment, when Armstrong and Roget have a debate over the neutrality of discovery and when Armstrong says, “[the] dead are just meat” when working with cadavers, and Roget responds with how he feels, “slightly uneasy” about the situation (Stephenson 70). The indication of Roget’s unease in Armstrong’s statement and how he treats cadavers reveals contrasting ideas between the two and how they go about discovery. Armstrong’s idea of cadavers just being “meat” and not considering them human anymore shows how he disassociates the subjects for his discovery from humans, in order to not have to associate them with compassion and morals. Roget’s concern shows how he connects discovery and morals, debating with Armstrong. Similarly, in Einstein’s Gift an argument between Clara and Haber breaks out when World War 1 starts in Germany, and Haber wants to use chemical weapons to “[bring] a quick end to the war”, meanwhile Clara says she thought “[they] were using science to help people” (Thiessen 66). Clara’s ability to recognize how Haber’s discovery can affect lives in a negative way, shows how she links moral responsibility with discovery. In contrast, Haber’s submissive attitude to the lives his discovery will affect shows how he doesn’t place value on connecting discovery with moral values. In both situations, the characters who disregard morals playing a role in discovery have alternative motives that are more powerful than compassion: for Armstrong it’s ambition and personal desire and for Haber it’s social status. By showing the ethical dilemma in this light within the plays, the authors depict how personal ambitions and a want for power can lead characters to determine whether or not morals play a role in discovery.

Continuing, both plays show how compassion and moral responsibility are left disregarded when scientific ambition and reasoning come into play. For example, in Experiment Armstrong states in a conversation with Roget that “moral qualms” will lead to “the death of science” (Stephenson 71). This shows how Armstrong wants to create a separation between scientific ambition and moral responsibility, by stating how science will literally die if they are connected. He works to convince himself to detach the two, in order to feel better about his work and everything he does immorally in the field of discovery. Armstrong uses science dying as a justification to continue acting without moral responsibility. Additionally, in Einstein’s Gift, Albert and Haber have a conversation about the war and Haber says “[his] principles lie in science and its application” and how “political nonsense will help neither” (Thiessen 105). This shows how Haber doesn’t associate science with anything other than what it’s applied for. It shows how when the scope of science is faced with limitation, Haber focuses only on its application instead of the numerous lives and people it may affect. The plays both show how the characters are driven by personal desires and scientific ambition, that they fail to implement their discoveries on the real world and gauge its effects. It shows how compassion is given up for progression and morals are not utilized in the process of discovery.

To add on, in both plays the influence of the government provides characters with rewards when they ignore involving morals in their discoveries. For example, in Experiment, Armstrong is in search for cadavers and Roget asks him why he seeks out “potential cadavers before they’re even dead”, to which he responds that the institution encourages it, because an “unusual specimen” is hard to find (Stephenson 70-71). This shows how the medical institution supports Armstrong’s pursuit for cadavers and is wanting more advancement in medical knowledge rather than keeping integrity. Armstrong receives more recognition for being immoral rather than getting a punishment, which motivates him more to continue doing the wrong thing. It shows how the institution’s silence in this situation shapes Armstrong’s moral detachment and his scientific ambition. Similarly, in Einstein’s Gift, when the government asks Haber to release the chlorine gas, and he does it, the general says “[he’ll] be sure a promotion to captain be put in order” (Thiessen 78). Haber acts rashly because the government promises him a better rank. They encourage the dangerous discovery because it aids in their country’s progression and is detrimental to their victory in the war. It shows how Haber’s desire for power and rank overrides his moral responsibilities. Both the plays indicate how discovery becomes a tool to get ahead in state, and influence from the institutions cause these characters to ignore utilizing their moral values in discovery.

To continue, the ethical dilemma involving moral values in Discovery also shows a broader social conflict with classism. In Experiment, Armstrong reduces the value of human bodies to mere objects when he says that “[the] dead are just meat” (Stephenson 70). His statement shows how Armstrong detaches human values from his subjects before using them for discovery, so he can disregard his moral values towards them as humans. The cadavers he looks for are usually from lower classes who are more vulnerable. Them being low in class and having no power makes them easier to exploit and use easily for research. Armstrong’s higher social status makes it easier for him to do this and protects him from any form of punishment from the government. Similarly, in Einstein’s Gift, Haber devalues people when he’s asked to kill them using the chlorine gas, and when he does, his friend Otto questions, “why [he would] want to kill people” (Thiessen 77). Otto’s question reveals how Haber is failing to think morally, and uses people as tools to get ahead. Haber’s nationalism and personal desire for status led him to justify killing so many people and making death necessary for victory. This shows how Haber’s class influences him and causes him to treat people like props for his own progression in class and hierarchy. Both plays show how class and status play an immense role in determining whether moral values should continue to drive discovery or not. It shows how influence from classism changes the values of lives and ambitions.

In conclusion, the ethical dilemma in Experiment with An Air Pump, and Einstein’s Gift, show how economic pressure, political influence, and personal ambitions drive deciding whether morals are a part of discovery. Armstrong is driven by his odd ambition for discovery that ethics and morals don't matter in his research. Haber is driven by his nationalism for Germany and for political expectations of what his discovery should do during war. This conflict mirrors modern ethical concerns because there are similar concerns seen surrounding artificial intelligence. Like in both the plays, AI development raises concerns over moral responsibilities and its effects. In today's world, technology develops at a rapid pace and with it shifts moral impact. Artificial intelligence creates problems relating to morals in how fast it can think morally in certain situations. Today, AI bots are used to think and respond to humans differently in situations. However, an issue lies in the bots’ ability to sense moral responsibility and be held accountable. Similarly to how Haber and Armstrong never faced punishment for their immoral acts in discovery due to their status as a scientist. The bots are treated with respect despite disregarding ethics in situations because people look to them for support and understanding. Both the plays and real life show that progression cannot occur without morals being at the stake and how morals drive everyday discoveries with AI. Morality can’t be separated from discovery without ethical consequences and discovery reminds people of moral responsibility and recognition in moments of discovery.