I believe that Darwin did have a moral obligation to publish his scientific results. Scientists also are obliged to present as much data as possible, rather than rushing to a publisher with incomplete information. In the time between the start of developing his theories and the publication of Origin of the Species, he worked on other publication, had health problems, and continued to develop and refine his evolution theories.
Check this site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_of_Darwin's_theory
how would i apply the princple of privacy to charles darwin and his reluctance to publish his results on natural selection?
(princple of privacy= respect personal privacy and confidentality)
as in, how would i explain that he had no moral obligations to the science community to publish his results?
3 answers
thats what i think too, but i'm supposed to argue for the other side.
I suppose you could argue that no one has an obligation to publish what s/he knows. The theory of evolution wasn't of immediate benefit to mankind -- as say a cure for a deadly disease would greatly benefit the world.
1 answer