Notes on Panel Discussion at Markel Foundation Meeting, Yosemite

September 29 - October 2, 1964

1.  Principle of technological evasion.  Scientists of course cannot shirk
the general responsibilities of educated members of their comnmities in
setting social policy and even in alleviating some of the problems that are
aggravated by scientific advance.  However, they rarely have special qualffi-
cations in making social decisions.  On the other hand, es technicians they
may have a special capability (a) to foresee stresses that may arise from
scientific advance in which they or their colleagues are participating, and
(b) to help define and accelerate technical means for mitigating them. In
this sphere the technically trained person is irreplaceable.

2.  Ethics as a Process.  Other speakers made what seemed to me a rather
unsatisfactory elaboration of the humanistic basis of ethics.  Many questions
rapidly became bogged down on the matter of human purpose.  In particular
there has been considerable confusion concerning the proper application of
analogies from evolutionary biology to the ethical sphere.  The point that
seems to be generally overlooked is that man is perfectable, that is to say,
highly imperfect at the present time.  In fact, given the existing context
of human conflict, it would be surprising if contemporary man were able to
give ultimate answers to an& important questions of purpose. This suggests
that the residual objective which is available to contemporary man is to
conduct a holding action for the species (a) to help insure the possibility
of its nnrvival, and (b) to maintain the maximum variety and flexibility in
approaches to ultimate questions so ao to leave open at least some possibility
of a closer approach to adequate answers at a more highly integrated stage of
human evolution.  This this proves to be a rationalitatfon for a democratic
ideology which does not requkre the prepostrous deification of contemporary
man.  The expediency of maintaining some semblaqce of social order as a frarne-
vork for the possibility of further progress then becomes the leading pr+ciple
of present activity without being the basis of any absolute dogma as to eternal
ethical positions.