The scientific method can be applied to more than what is distinctly objective. Just like you can probe a scientific instrument you can probe a human, ask them to rank their peers.
OP is making an ethical judgement, saying that the monkeys dying in the Neurolink studies makes them unethical. I believe the studies fundamentally had unethical elements as the monkeys couldn’t even consent. But if a class taught concepts related to either of these ideas, someone designing or carrying out these studies who had learned these concepts could be seen as not having grown practically from the ethical teachings, you don’t have to accept that the teachings are correct in the first place.
I hypothesize an issue with simply teaching ethical ideas is that humans are incredibly good at maintaining cognitive dissonance, or even more simply not thinking about how what they learn applies to their own behaviors and convictions.
The scientific method can be applied to more than what is distinctly objective. Just like you can probe a scientific instrument you can probe a human, ask them to rank their peers.
OP is making an ethical judgement, saying that the monkeys dying in the Neurolink studies makes them unethical. I believe the studies fundamentally had unethical elements as the monkeys couldn’t even consent. But if a class taught concepts related to either of these ideas, someone designing or carrying out these studies who had learned these concepts could be seen as not having grown practically from the ethical teachings, you don’t have to accept that the teachings are correct in the first place.
I hypothesize an issue with simply teaching ethical ideas is that humans are incredibly good at maintaining cognitive dissonance, or even more simply not thinking about how what they learn applies to their own behaviors and convictions.