Poll: Can Science Improve Moral Awareness?

[Commoner]

Science deals with what is; morality with what should be.

Well, but that doesn't mean (a) science couldn't deal with what "should be", don't you think?

 

[Commoner]

How and why?

Well, I guess it depends on how you define morality. If you define it as minimizing harm, for instance, the scientific method could easily be applied to addressing morality.

And science could probably address the question of defining morality as well - cognitive neuroscience, psychology, biology (to a lesser extent) can all bring us closer to a good definition, to a better understanding of the extent and the function of morality.

I think the question is - why not?

 

[Storm]

Well, but that doesn't mean (a) science couldn't deal with what "should be", don't you think?

No, I don't think it can. That's philosophy. Science is hard data.

An example (as much for MSizer's benefit as yours):
Biology declares humans omnivorous, yet MSizer is vegetarian for moral reasons. If science was the arbiter of morality, this would be unjustifiable.

ETA: To avoid cluttering the thread, I'll wait for your response to this post to address post #22.

 

[Commoner]

No, I don't think it can. That's philosophy. Science is hard data.

An example (as much for MSizer's benefit as yours):
Biology declares humans omnivorous, yet MSizer is vegetarian for moral reasons. If science was the arbiter of morality, this would be unjustifiable.

What? Why exactly would it be unjustifiable to "not eat meat"? Why exactly would a general atribute (or whatever you want to call "omnivorous") of "human" make something moral/immoral?

I don't get it...

You're trying to apply morality to existing sciences, when you should be doing the opposite.

 

[Storm]

Well, I guess it depends on how you define morality. If you define it as minimizing harm, for instance, the scientific method could easily be applied to addressing morality.

1) Minimizing harm is just the tip of the iceberg of morality.

2) Why should harm be minimized? Science shows us that inflicting harm is a valid survival strategy. The lion who kills his rival's cubs eliminates competition for his own offspring.

3) "Harm" itself requires definition. Is it limited to physical damage? Emotional distress? Temptation to sin? All this is philosophy.

And science could probably address the question of defining morality as well - cognitive neuroscience, psychology, biology (to a lesser extent) can all bring us closer to a good definition, to a better understanding of the extent and the function of morality.

I'm not saying that science brings nothing to the table. It helps inform morality, which can only be beneficial. But morality is about the world we want to build, not the one we start with.

I think the question is - why not?

Have I made my position sufficiently clear? I always have trouble telling whether someone disagrees or misunderstands.

For myself, I don't understand your position. That science can shed light on the origins and processes of moral reasoning, I understand and agree with. How science can tell us what is moral? I'm at a total loss.

What? Why exactly would it be unjustifiable to "not eat meat"?

Because there's nothing in biology that supports it.

That said, I may be arguing a strawman where you're concerned. MSizer said that science is not just the best, but the only valid means of determining morality (paraphrased from memory), and that's what I'm arguing. If you disagree with that stance (which I find rather extreme), please clarify.

Why exactly would a general atribute (or whatever you want to call "omnivorous") of "human" make something moral/immoral?

I don't get it.

My question exactly. Science can only give us the data. What we do with it is philosophy.

 

[Storm]

*sigh* I try to avoid cluttering the thread, and you go and do a ninja edit!

You're trying to apply morality to existing sciences, when you should be doing the opposite.

I'm not sure of either meaning here. How am I applying morality to science, and what would the opposite look like?

 

[Beyondo]

1) Minimizing harm is just the tip of the iceberg of morality.

2) Why should harm be minimized? Science shows us that inflicting harm is a valid survival strategy. The lion who kills his rival's cubs eliminates competition for his own offspring.

3) "Harm" itself requires definition. Is it limited to physical damage? Emotional distress? Temptation to sin? All this is philosophy.


I'm not saying that science brings nothing to the table. It helps inform morality, which can only be beneficial. But morality is about the world we want to build, not the one we start with.

Your stance begins to address the relativeness of morality and why it is relative. What is moral has more to do with how to get a group on the same page so as to promote cooperative effort. Why Aztecs could morally make human sacrifices to the sun god, most if not all Aztecs agreed that the sun god needed human soles to defeat the evil darkness. From that agreement the Aztec nation grew and flourished...

With that said we as a species in comparison to other animals are no better at social regulation.

 

[Commoner]

1) Minimizing harm is just the tip of the iceberg of morality.

Really? Can you think of something immoral that doesn't cause harm? But it doesn't really matter - I'm not here to define morality. I'm saying that depending on how you define it, you can decide how the scientific method can be applied to studying it.

2) Why should harm be minimized? Science shows us that inflicting harm is a valid survival strategy. The lion who kills his rival's cubs eliminates competition for his own offspring.

It's not that harm should be minimized. That's simply what morality is (if you define it as such - let's not get started on that), science can then tell you how to do it. I don't get the lion analogy, are you saying morality is purely a survival strategy?

3) "Harm" itself requires definition. Is it limited to physical damage? Emotional distress? Temptation to sin? All this is philosophy.

Energy, force, matter,... sure, everything has to be defined in terms of other things. That is philosophy, but that doesn't mean the "things that get defined" are philosophy.

Have I made my position sufficiently clear? I always have trouble telling whether someone disagrees or misunderstands.

For myself, I don't understand your position. That science can shed light on the origins and processes of moral reasoning, I understand and agree with. How science can tell us what is moral? I'm at a total loss.

Not what is moral - what morality, the moral sense, whatever you want to call it, is. To determine whether or not something is moral, you have to first define "moral".

Because there's nothing in biology that supports it.

I just don't get why this would make it moral/immoral. What does humans being omnivorous have to do with morality. It's like saying it's immoral for the Sun to rotate around Earth.

That said, I may be arguing a strawman where you're concerned. MSizer said that science is not just the best, but the only valid means of determining morality (paraphrased from memory), and that's what I'm arguing. If you disagree with that stance (which I find rather extreme), please clarify.

Well, in any moral decision you make, you pretty much have to use the scientific method to some extent - if nothing else, to understand the situation properly. So, I would say that without science, there is no good way to go about addressing morality. "Science" is the necessary, but might not be the sufficient condition to determining morality.

I'm not sure of either meaning here. How am I applying morality to science, and what would the opposite look like?

You're trying to define morality as biological facts, when you should be establishing whether specific biological facts are moral/immoral/amoral.

 

[Storm]

Well, in any moral decision you make, you pretty much have to use the scientific method to some extent - if nothing else, to understand the situation properly. So, I would say that without science, there is no good way to go about addressing morality. "Science" is the necessary, but might not be the sufficient condition to determining morality.

I have no quarrel with this. Indeed, I agree completely.

So, since it turns out we're on the same page after all, shall we stop there, or is there some nuance you're unclear on?

 

[Commoner]

I have no quarrel with this. Indeed, I agree completely.

So, since it turns out we're on the same page after all, shall we stop there, or is there some nuance you're unclear on?

That's strange...we agree? Wtf?

I do want you to concede that the "omnivorous=moral" point makes no sense.

 

[Father Heathen]

Science is all about knowledge and understanding, and knowing and understanding the cause and consequences of people's actions (psychology, sociology, etc.) helps us to develop our morals and ethics.

 

[Storm]

That's strange...we agree? Wtf?

I do want you to concede that the "omnivorous=moral" point makes no sense.

The absurdity was intentional. Science says we're omnivorous. If what science proves dictates what is moral, vegetarianism is immoral because it contradicts science.

The fact that it makes no sense was my entire point.

 

[Commoner]

The absurdity was intentional. Science says we're omnivorous. If what science proves dictates what is moral, vegetarianism is immoral because it contradicts science.

The fact that it makes no sense was my entire point.

"If what science proves dictates what is moral..." - what?!

That's a false premise. What science "proves" does not dictate what is moral. That does not follow from the assertion that "science is able to determine what is moral" at all.

 

[Revoltingest]

Can Science Contribute to our Understanding of Morality?

Yes. I think that morals are an emergent property of evolution, rather than some absolute truth.

 

[Storm]

"If what science proves dictates what is moral..." - what?!

That's a false premise.

I agree completely, but it's how I understand MSizer's position.

What science "proves" does not dictate what is moral. That does not follow from the assertion that science is able to determine what is moral at all.

It strikes me as the inevitable conclusion, but I freely admit that I may not understand the original argument.

Please, elaborate. How does one accept the proposition that science determines morality without concluding that morality is based upon scientific fact?

 

[Commoner]

I agree completely, but it's how I understand MSizer's position.


It strikes me as the inevitable conclusion, but I freely admit that I may not understand the original argument.


Please, elaborate. How does one accept the proposition that science determines morality without concluding that morality is based upon scientific fact?

That's just false logic, across the board.

No, asserting that science can explain morality does not mean that a scientific fact is moral.

And again - morality being based upon scientific facts (which it is, in any case) does not mean that scientific facts are moral - or that they are what is moral. That would also make "being omnivorous" gravity. Gravity is based on scientific facts, right? Humans being omnivorous is a scientific fact. Therefore "humans being omnivorous" is gravity?

Come on now, you can't be serious?

 

[Beyondo]

Please, elaborate. How does one accept the proposition that science determines morality without concluding that morality is based upon scientific fact?

Morality isn't based on scientific fact, which is why I compared other animals' ability to establish social order and regulation without science. Science could only provide the impetus for agreement on what should be moral. But why a society agrees as to what is moral has more to do with power, economics and cooperative effort than what most believe to be some kind of empathizing conscience. What is moral therefore will not be decided by science. In the Aztec example science would take away the need for making human scarafices but science doesn't do so on the basis of defining morality, it only would prove that making the scrafices is a waste of time...

 

[Storm]

Commoner, I'm not debating you anymore. Once you clarified your position, I agreed with it. Now I'm trying to understand you better. Belligerance is not conducive to that.

That's just false logic, across the board.

"Show, don't tell." How is it false?

No, asserting that science can explain morality does not mean that a scientific fact is moral.

While I don't think it was intentional, this is a slight twisting of my words.

My understanding of MSizer's argument is "science determines morality." Changing "determines" to "explains" opens the door to alternate interpretations. For example, the ideas (on which we agree) that science can inform moral choices and reveal evolutionary origins.

I agree with all that, but it's not what I think he was saying. The post I originally responded to was

As in "developping better moral systems".

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

I do not see how science, without philosophy, can improve moral systems. I don't even see how it can justify minimizing harm.

If you do, don't just tell me I'm wrong, show me how you think it works. Please.

And again - morality being based upon scientific facts (which it is, in any case) does not mean that scientific facts are moral - or that they are what is moral.

Why not?

That would also make "being omnivorous" gravity. Gravity is based on scientific facts, right? Humans being omnivorous is a scientific fact. Therefore "humans being omnivorous" is gravity?

You lost me completely.

Come on now, you can't be serious?

Serious and sincere. I want to understand what you're saying, but I don't. So far, all you've done is contradict. You haven't explained your reasoning.

 

[Storm]

Morality isn't based on scientific fact, which is why I compared other animals' ability to establish social order and regulation without science. Science could only provide the impetus for agreement on what should be moral. But why a society agrees as to what is moral has more to do with power, economics and cooperative effort than what most believe to be some kind of empathizing conscience. What is moral therefore will not be decided by science. In the Aztec example science would take away the need for making human scarafices but science doesn't do so on the basis of defining morality, it only would prove that making the scrafices is a waste of time...

Agreed.

 

[Commoner]

Commoner, I'm not debating you anymore. Once you clarified your position, I agreed with it. Now I'm trying to understand you better. Belligerance is not conducive to that.

Ok...what have you interpreted as me being belligerent? Saying that your conclusions are false? I hope not. In any event, I did not mean it to come out that way, sorry. Maybe I should have used a or two.

While I don't think it was intentional, this is a slight twisting of my words.

My understanding of MSizer's argument is "science determines morality." Changing "determines" to "explains" opens the door to alternate interpretations. For example, the ideas (on which we agree) that science can inform moral choices and reveal evolutionary origins.

It wasn't intentional and it doesn't make a difference in my argument. Let me correct myself:

Asserting that science determines morality does not mean that a scientific fact is necessarily moral.

I don't know how more plainly I can put it - one does not logically follow from the other. Morality is a dimension, right? Things can be moral, immoral (to a varying degree) or even amoral. Science being the one to determine which is which does not mean anything that is proven to be the case is moral "by default". Not everything is a necessarily a moral issue at all.

I agree with all that, but it's not what I think he was saying. The post I originally responded to was
I do not see how science, without philosophy, can improve moral systems. I don't even see how it can justify minimizing harm.

If you do, don't just tell me I'm wrong, show me how you think it works. Please.

I'm not about to start arguing another person's case. I think I better leave it to MSizer to explain what he meant.

Why not? You lost me completely.

It's an analogy. Let's start from the top:

Morality being based upon scientific facts (which it is, in any case) does not mean that scientific facts are moral - or that they are what is moral.

Morality is based on scientific facts. Therefore, scientific facts are moral.
The theory of Gravity is based upon scientific facts. Therefore, scientific facts are Gravity/gravitational/Gravity-like.

Do you see how one does not follow from the other? Furthermore, "morality" does not equal "moral". Morality is a bit like speed - it doesn't just mean fast, it also means slow and it can also mean not moving at all. To say that science determines speed does not make everything that is a scientific fact "fast".

Serious and sincere. I want to understand what you're saying, but I don't. So far, all you've done is contradict. You haven't explained your reasoning.

Could you point out a contradiction? I don't know how to explain that a conclusion does not follow from a premise without using an analogy or something like that. Imagine trying to explain how asserting that pigs can fly does not mean that glasses are made of bricks. It's not my job to show that one does not follow from the other - it's your job to show how it does.