Ethics question

[bunny]

Recently I read an article outlining a NASA plan (far, far off) to send a probe to one of the gas giant moons (ganymede I think) - burrow through the ice, enter the presumed water underneath and snoop about for signs of life (microbiological in nature). One of the problems they were considering was how to do this without contaminating the ocean within the moon. I couldnt see any ethical reason for protecting the environment of a lifeless moon (assuming it was devoid of sentient life, anyway) but they were talking as if it was a clear ethical problem they had to deal with. What do you think? Would it be ethically wrong to contaminate one of these moons?

[The Dude]

I think there are ethical implications involved in studying something using a method that ruins it's value for future study - assuming there is reason to want to study it further, and/ or a reasonably less intrusive method of study.

That there might be signs of life in this ocean doesn't have anything to do with why they are considering ethical implications, I don't think.

[guesswest]

Apologies for the fuzzy emotional response - but how about just the idea that a pristene ocean is awesome and beautiful? Seems like sufficient reason to me.

[DougShrapnel]

I think that you have come up a with good suffering neutral example of ethics. Contamenation could prevent the further study of lifes origins. Allthough, no real suffering, denying one possible source of knowledge, has been classified by NASA scientists as incorrect action, and thus unethical. I don't believe there is any easier way to discuss ethics than to think about it as a means to incorrect and correct actions.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Apologies for the fuzzy emotional response - but how about just the idea that a pristene ocean is awesome and beautiful? Seems like sufficient reason to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree this is a good reason, but is there an ethical requirement or is it something else...perhaps aesthetic?

[guesswest]

Well - I think destruction of beautiful things does impact sentient beings, whether they witness the destruction first hand or not. I'd be pretty sad if I heard that the sistene chapel had been willfully destroyed, even if I was sure I'd never make it back to the Vatican to see it myself. And if somehow nobody knew about it, it'd be no different from any other unethical action which someone 'got away with'.

The job of aesthetics is primarily to try and and quantify/delineate/explain beauty. But I'd suggest that assigning human value to beauty is maybe more the job of ethics. It's all extremely qualitative I know. And the attached epistemic question as to the indepedent nature or otherwise of things to their observer remains. But I don't think direct experience of something is necessary to be impacted.

[FlFishOn]

Maybe Europa?

Anyhow, they can do a decontamination job that is likely to be secure. I have no worries.