Poll: Can Science Improve Moral Awareness?

[MSizer]

I won't challenge anyone on their opinion, I simply would like to get an idea of what people think. When I say "science" in this case, I'm thinking about neurology, cognitive sciences, social psychology and biology, but really any scientific study is game for the purpose of this poll.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Science, and I do not just mean the 'hard' sciences, but all fields that rely on the basic scientific method, can be used in a humanitarian way to move humanity forward in ethics and morality.

This is not to say science=morality, but that it is the best tool we have for ethical humanism.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm sure that, utilizing the scientific method, anything that has a rational basis, can be achieved or augmented. It's simply a matter of understanding and defining the problem and the variables sufficiently, and having the right tools to obtain desired results.

 

[Beyondo]

To me moral awareness means understanding how and why morals are as they are, it doesn't mean that an individual or society becomes more moral on some relative basis if science is used to understand it.

 

[painted wolf]

Science can help us understand some ofthe mechanisms that drive behavior... hormones and so on... but philosophy/religion is how we culturally deal with such behavior.

wa:do

 

[Beyondo]

Science can help us understand some of the mechanisms that drive behavior... hormones and so on... but philosophy/religion is how we culturally deal with such behavior.

wa:do

True, but despite cultural biases we, as animals, still form into these eerie networks of social clicks that can be described mathematically, such as "Six degrees of separation".

 

[painted wolf]

True, but despite cultural biases we, as animals, still form into these eerie networks of social clicks that can be described mathematically, such as "Six degrees of separation".

true, and we still have our "monkey sphere"... but science can't tell us if a particular behavior is "moral" or not.
That is where philosophy/religion and cultural bias come in.

wa:do

 

[MissAlice]

Yes it can contribute but I don't think it will accomplish a great deal.

We still have a long way to go as far as the human mind is concerned. /:

 

[Peacewise]

Science IS contributing to building morals and ethics.
Funny thing though, is that my intuition suggests that science will simply rediscover what the religions knew thousands of years ago.

It's the social sciences, psychology and such that in my opinion are where the building of ethics and morals is being done.
I don't know anything about neuro cognition or such, but again intuition is suggesting to me that the study of the brain will reveal much about ethics and morality.

 

[Beyondo]

true, and we still have our "monkey sphere"... but science can't tell us if a particular behavior is "moral" or not.
That is where philosophy/religion and cultural bias come in.

wa:do

Yeah, but I can't help but see how morality is nothing more than a social communication mechanism that works no differently than ant swarms that use pheromones. It all about being cooperative...

 

[Peacewise]

and I'm sorry, the voting options don't have the option that I think.
Science does contribute to building moral awareness, as does religion. But they are not both required to work together, it is just that in my opinion they do work well together.
Subjective and Objective working together hand in hand for a deeper and more full understanding of truth.

 

[prometheuspan]

the only way out of morality as used as an excuse for fascism, war, genocide, sexism, and so forth is to use the other side of things- the rational universe, to make real passes at ethics and morality not based on manipulating people and controlling them.

 

[painted wolf]

Yeah, but I can't help but see how morality is nothing more than a social communication mechanism that works no differently than ant swarms that use pheromones. It all about being cooperative...

Really? Cultures seem to get along fine with institutions like slavery/indentured servitude.... yet we have morally turned away from this practice as evil. Both sides tried to use science to support themselves.

wa:do

 

[Beyondo]

Really? Cultures seem to get along fine with institutions like slavery/indentured servitude.... yet we have morally turned away from this practice as evil. Both sides tried to use science to support themselves.

wa:do

When I say "being cooperative" I meant from a sociological premise where societies are no different than other animal societies, that they compete with other societies means that morality is relative to those within that society and is to gain the cooperative effort of those recognized by the peer group. But that the outlaw of slavery is based entirely on moral grounds? Rome had a revolt of slaves, slavery eventually becomes too expensive to support. Besides even ants have salves.

 

[Storm]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "moral awareness?" Is it understanding morality as a scientific phenomenon (origins, history, etc.)? Or more immediate, as in developing better moral systems?

 

[MSizer]

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "moral awareness?" Is it understanding morality as a scientific phenomenon (origins, history, etc.)? Or more immediate, as in developing better moral systems?

As in "developping better moral systems".

I believe that science is the only method by which we can improve our moral systems.

 

[Storm]

As in "developping better moral systems".

OK, thank you for clarifying.

I voted no, though "it has nothing to offer" is a little stronger than I would have preferred.

Science can lead to our moral choices being more informed, which is a valuable contribution. However, it is absolutely helpless to tell us which choice is moral.

The reason for this is simple: morality is completely outside of science's area of concern. Science deals with what is; morality with what should be.

I believe that science is the only method by which we can improve our moral systems.

Not just a valid tool, but the only one? That's quite a strong stance. How do you justify it?

 

[Beyondo]

As in "developing better moral systems".

I believe that science is the only method by which we can improve our moral systems.

I would have to disagree that a moral system can be improved...Let me explain the morality of humans is really a social regulatory process that is inherent to an animal society. Humanity is distinctive from other animals because of its use of language that allows abstract thinking. Now where is the efficacy of this abstract thinking? Well when it comes to tool making its quite obvious that humans out perform any other animal. But when it comes to social cooperation or regulation we are no better than ants using pheromones.

Just to give you an example of how my thinking generalizes social organization; At one time there was such a thing as debtors prison for those who would not pay back their debts. Today this concept is considered inhumane but society still punishes the individual that doesn't payback his debts. Also tax penalties can involve prison and is a form of debtors prison. So while how punishment is applied changed for defaulting on debts society stills punishes the defaultor and so morality from a social regulatory process never changed.

 

[Commoner]

I won't challenge anyone on their opinion, I simply would like to get an idea of what people think. When I say "science" in this case, I'm thinking about neurology, cognitive sciences, social psychology and biology, but really any scientific study is game for the purpose of this poll.

Science (in the broadest sense) is probably the best way to address ethics and morality.

 

[Storm]

Science (in the broadest sense) is probably the best way to address ethics and morality.

How and why?