Ethics Essay — The Scientist-Engineer as Idealist

Q1: Defining the Scientist-Engineer

Q: What do we mean by a “scientist-engineer”?

A: “Science and technology” is defined, in the dictionary sense, as “a collective term for the means by which natural science, applied science, engineering, and the like are actually applied and processed to be useful for human life.” A scientist-engineer, then, can be understood as someone who works in fields of this kind.

Q2: The Scientist-Engineer’s Motivation — Value vs. Profit

Q: Don’t scientist-engineers do research for financial gain rather than academic value?

A: Not necessarily. That’s not to say there are no scientist-engineers who do research purely for money, but in many cases, value and a contribution to humanity are also important motivations.

Q3: The Possibility of Profit-Seeking Among Scientist-Engineers

Q: That’s too abstract. There are plenty of IT companies built on science and technology, and they make up the mainstream of contemporary society while generating substantial profit. So how can you claim that scientist-engineers don’t do research purely for money?

A: People say a company’s purpose is profit, but a company chasing money alone doesn’t necessarily achieve great success. Companies that succeed over the long run generally have a firm sense of direction and insight into the future, and they turn their own imagination into reality. In other words, in the sense that they use science and technology to realize the ideals they hope for, scientist-engineers can be said to have something of the idealist in them.

Q4: The Difference Between Scientist-Engineers and Academic Ethics

Q: There’s a difference between a scientist-engineer and a natural scientist, philosopher, or mathematician. For the latter, establishing an entirely new academic theory is itself of great value, so pursuing profit is sometimes seen as unethical, on the grounds that it corrupts the essence of the work. For example, there are philosophers who, chasing money, teach only mainstream theory and cling to trends and popularity rather than developing a philosophy of their own. Scientist-engineers, by contrast, often use technology to generate profit, as in a startup — and that’s even seen as desirable. Isn’t a scientist-engineer, then, using technology to satisfy their own desires rather than to realize an ideal? And if, per the maxim “knowledge is power,” they’re simply using their knowledge to extract gains from a relatively weaker party, how is that any different from Thrasymachus’s claim that “justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger”?

A: Take Edison’s light bulb as an example. Edison is better classified as a scientist-engineer and entrepreneur than as someone who established a brilliant scientific theory or a concept in mathematics or philosophy. He made the light bulb practical, allowing people to carry out productive activity even in the dark of night, and this was an enormous contribution to humanity. Of course, part of his motivation may well have been the desire to make money. But from the standpoint of the public good, the light bulb he made practical greatly expanded humanity’s productivity, and as a result, his actions contributed, in their own way, to bringing us closer to a human ideal. In other words, motive and outcome don’t always conflict with one another.

Q5: The Role of Science and Technology in Realizing Ideals

Q: What does it mean to act in a way that brings us closer to an ideal?

A: It refers to actions that contribute to expanding human will and pushing back its limits. Science and technology have contributed enormously to this kind of expansion. For example, the internet lets the entire world share information; connecting brain and nerve signals has made it possible to build prosthetic limbs for people with disabilities; and artificial intelligence, as in the case of AlphaGo, has achieved feats in the game of Go that surpass even the very best human players (though, given that AlphaGo did lose one game to 9-dan Lee Sedol, it would be more accurate to describe it as a case of surpassing top-tier human skill rather than being “absolutely invincible”). These are cases in which something once beyond the human limit was drawn into the range of what humans can do. Just as scientists of old regarded understanding nature as a meaningful pursuit in itself, today’s scientist-engineers can be seen as carrying on that very same role.

Q6: On the Notion of Progress

Q: It seems to me that the claim “an ideal world exists” is a subjective philosophy resting on a metaphysical belief. Nietzsche’s more extreme followers, in particular, would find that view hard to accept.

A: It’s a fair point that the phrase “ideal world” can sound somewhat metaphysical. But even without presupposing some grand ideal, it’s hard to deny that humanity has, through technology, become able to do more than it once could. Put in terms of “will,” there’s a sense in which technology has developed in a direction that lets human will grow stronger and extend further. Even without necessarily using the word “ideal,” humanity has steadily expanded its capabilities through technology.

Q7: The Advancement of Science and Technology, and War

Q: The periods in which science and technology advanced most rapidly were wartime periods, like the First and Second World Wars. Science and technology were used, and developed, more than anywhere else in the making of weapons. Was this, too, developed in order to realize humanity’s ideals?

A: This can be seen as a case in which science and technology were misused. Take, for instance, nuclear fission: the very same technology can be used to generate electricity at a nuclear power plant, or to build a nuclear weapon. Just as Einstein worried about the use of nuclear weapons, many scientists have been wary of science being misused. And just as Socrates refuted Thrasymachus’s claim that “justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger,” it’s hard to call it justice when the strong, armed with knowledge, trample the weak. This very question is explored in depth in Plato’s Republic.

Q8: The Ethics of Science, Technology, and Weapons Development

Q: What about the people who developed science, technology, and weapons in order to protect their own families and country?

A: There’s a sense in which scientist-engineers, in these cases, were mobilized by the needs of power. It’s hard to lay the blame for an entire arms race — the competitive drive to build ever more powerful weapons — on any individual scientist-engineer. Still, the idea that “technology itself is pure, and responsibility lies solely with whoever wields it” needs to be handled with care. Technology already comes to embody a particular purpose and set of values in the very process of being created, and the developer’s choices are inevitably involved in what gets designed and how. So the claim that the technology itself holds no malice is a separate matter from the claim that the people who design and develop it bear no responsibility at all. This is exactly why engineering ethics today emphasizes not just the user’s responsibility, but the responsibility of designers and developers as well. And of course, it would be hard to call someone who deliberately misuses technology for their own private gain the ideal image of a scientist-engineer.

Q9: Industry-Academia Research and the Role of the Scientist-Engineer

Q: Many university labs carry out research and development projects in partnership with companies. Isn’t this, too, a case of misusing science and technology for corporate profit?

A: This comes down to the judgment of the scientist-engineer, and above all, to what kind of project it is. Rather than taking on a project just because a company wants it and it’s profitable, one also needs to weigh what value that project creates and what positive impact it might have on society. This is also exactly why so much science and engineering education requires students to take courses in the humanities and social sciences alongside their technical training, aiming to cultivate scientists with broad, well-rounded literacy — precisely to build this kind of judgment.

Q10: Artificial Intelligence and Jobs

Q: As artificial intelligence advances, people are losing their jobs and being replaced by AI. Isn’t this — science and technology harming humanity — ultimately just another case of the strong dominating the weak?

A: It’s true that AI is eliminating jobs, and the pain that particular occupations and generations experience in that process is by no means trivial. Even if new jobs are created, it’s not as though someone who lost their old job can simply move straight into a new one. That’s why we need transitional mechanisms — retraining and a social safety net — put in place alongside this shift. When that kind of support exists, even as technology takes over simple, repetitive tasks, the value of newly learning and thinking creatively can actually grow. And no matter how far AI advances, using it to create value remains, fundamentally, a human task. For example, the role of people who handle and refine the data needed for training matters just as much as the role of the people who design the AI itself.

Q: This all sounds nice, but isn’t it still, in the end, a way of dominating people through technology? For instance, there’s research showing that social media can be addictive, and that companies use the information gathered from users to advertise particular products or nudge people toward particular ways of thinking (political leanings, for example).

A: Manipulation of that kind — exposing people only to biased articles designed to push their thinking in a particular direction — is clearly wrong. But it isn’t enough to lay all the blame on whichever group profits from it while letting the technology and its developers off the hook, because how a recommendation algorithm is designed can make addictiveness or bias either stronger or weaker. So if social media’s addictiveness or the spread of biased information is causing real problems, that’s a challenge developers and scientist-engineers need to take responsibility for and work through, starting from the design stage.

Q12: The Future That Science and Technology Will Open Up

Q: Do you think technological advancement will lead humanity toward a better future?

A: I believe there’s a good chance of that. It will expand the range of what humans can experience and feel into territory we haven’t yet reached. There’s research, for instance, suggesting that brainwave stimulation could be used to convey the sensation of having wings. A day may come when humans can feel the same senses other animals feel, and when humanity expands into space to settle new planets. That said, a future like this won’t arrive in a good direction on its own — how it turns out will depend heavily on how it’s designed and what values are built into it.

Q13: On Pessimism About Artificial Intelligence

Q: There’s also a view that humanity will destroy itself through the very technology it created — pessimism about AI, in particular, tends to take this shape. What’s your opinion on this?

A: It’s hard for me to fully agree. At the time this piece was written, AI, however impressive it looked, was not actually thinking for itself. It relied on machine learning built on big data — deep learning in particular, which mimics the human neural network — and all of it is grounded in mathematical theory. So while it’s specialized at producing optimal answers within a defined range, it cannot, on its own and without human involvement, define and solve real-world problems for itself. Still, given how rapidly the technology is advancing, rather than dismissing the risks pessimists raise as baseless, we need an attitude that takes those concerns seriously while continuing to develop the technology safely.

Closing Thoughts

A scientist-engineer, much like a natural scientist, philosopher, mathematician, or artist, uses technology to realize the ideal they envision. Using technology solely to satisfy personal desires — a hunger for power or possession — without any such orientation, is not something to be welcomed. Just as peace is more beautiful than war, and sharing more beautiful than greed, a scientist-engineer can put their knowledge to work building a more valuable world. As the saying goes, “knowledge is power” — and for a scientist-engineer, knowledge is a tool for changing the world, just as the pen is for a writer, the paintbrush for a painter, and the voice for a politician. Used to realize a grander dream, beyond mere personal greed, it can create far greater value.

The people who understand and gain insight into how to concretely realize the futures humanity has dreamed of are also scientist-engineers. As technology advances rapidly, the responsibility a scientist-engineer must bear grows right alongside it. Tomorrow’s scientist-engineers need to do more than simply master technology and make money — they need to work with a real sense of mission toward society and humanity. And because today’s scientist-engineers, in particular, can move so easily into other spheres of influence — becoming entrepreneurs or politicians — education in humanistic literacy and ethics becomes all the more important. If the people raised this way come to hold the right perspective, society can move forward in a better direction alongside them. If scientist-engineers who view and understand the world objectively come to exert greater influence on society, I believe we can look forward to a future that is, if only a little, brighter than the one we have now.