Poll: Can Science Improve Moral Awareness?

[isobella]

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.

As in "developping better moral systems".

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

I agree, MSizer. Remove the guess work. We've not been able to do that until recent history, say the last 50 years or so. Philosophy and religion stood in the gap, but gave no clue as to the true nature/cause of 'immorality', imo. One example below:

"Children who experience early damage in the prefrontal cortex never completely develop social or moral reason. As adults, even on an intellectual level, they cannot refer to such behavior because they have little concept of it. In contrast, individuals with adult-acquired damage are usually aware of proper social and moral conduct, but are unable to apply such behavior.

Their brains were just not capable of acquiring social and moral knowledge even at a normal level. Researchers at the University of Sweden have found the prefrontal cortex to be precisely the area of the brain that is impaired in murderers, rapist, and other violent criminals who repeatedly re-offend."

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Every 15 seconds, someone in the United States suffers a traumatic brain injury.[/FONT]"


Newbie here. Unable to post the full URL until I've reached 15 posts.

Source: The Human Brain from the Franklin Institute
fi.edu/learn/brain/head

Great OP, btw.

 

[Archer]

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.

Well I did not vote because I did like the options. There was nothing wrong with them but I just feel that #2 was closest to my opinion.

"but it must be accompanied by religion or philosophy" This really has nothing to do with the way I perceive the question.

 

[painted wolf]

so isobella... what you propose be done with people who may have such a brain injury but haven't committed a crime?

What do you think science says is the 'moral' thing to do with them?

wa:do

 

[isobella]

so isobella... what you propose be done with people who may have such a brain injury but haven't committed a crime?wa:do

Hi painted wolf. Thanks for your questions. =)

As you can see, every 15 seconds someone sustains a TBI in the US. That doesn't mean that everyone who has a TBI will have issues with immorality, nor has the post addressed all causes of inappropriate behavior. We are organic beings first and foremost. For example; when a child sustains a brain injury in a specific area, and at the right age (brain development), behavioral problems may not show up for another 10 - 20 years. Having awareness about this is of the utmost importance, otherwise we are just spinning our wheels like we've done for the last 5000+ years. Laws like the 10 commandments are to no avail.

What do you think science says is the 'moral' thing to do with them?

As far as what I think science says is a 'moral' thing to do with them?

What is moral about the way religions and governments (based on religious discipline) govern 'immorality' ?

Happy Friday, btw.

 

[painted wolf]

As you can see, every 15 seconds someone sustains a TBI in the US. That doesn't mean that everyone who has a TBI will have issues with immorality, nor has the post addressed all causes of inappropriate behavior. We are organic beings first and foremost. For example; when a child sustains a brain injury in a specific area, and at the right age (brain development), behavioral problems may not show up for another 10 - 20 years. Having awareness about this is of the utmost importance, otherwise we are just spinning our wheels like we've done for the last 5000+ years. Laws like the 10 commandments are to no avail.

I never said anything to the contrary, However laws like the 10 commandments in a basic sense are no more than general animal morality. (killing, sharing, mating constraints)

As far as what I think science says is a 'moral' thing to do with them?

What is moral about the way religions and governments (based on religious discipline) govern 'immorality' ?

I think we've made decent process since humanism entered western thought. We are naturally limited by our animal natures.

But other than being aware of these limitation and striving to overcome them what can science tell us is or is not a moral action?

wa:do

ps. happy friday!

 

[isobella]

I never said anything to the contrary,

I don't think I said you did. I really wasn't sure where you were coming from with your questioning, to be honest, but I'll give it another shot.

However laws like the 10 commandments in a basic sense are no more than general animal morality. (killing, sharing, mating constraints).

Empathy is natural, yes.

I think we've made decent process since humanism entered western thought. We are naturally limited by our animal natures

I agree.

But other than being aware of these limitation and striving to overcome them what can science tell us is or is not a moral action?

What can science tell us about morality, like in defining it? I'm not sure I'm following here, so please forgive me while I sort through this. IMO, immoral action is an action that causes harm. It doesn't take science to figure that one out.

ps. happy friday!

Thank you, painted wolf. =)

 

[painted wolf]

What can science tell us about morality, like in defining it? I'm not sure I'm following here, so please forgive me while I sort through this. IMO, immoral action is an action that causes harm. It doesn't take science to figure that one out.

Well, like the OP said...

Science is ultimately the only way to improve our moral awareness.

Do you see a role for philosophy of any kind in determining morality? Or is morality to be determined purely scientifically?
If science the only way... how could one determine what is scientifically moral?

wa:do

 

[isobella]

Well, like the OP said...

I think, therefore I am? Have you ever read Descartes' Error? Wasn't Decarte a dualist and believed in separation of mind and body, rationality and emotion?

How would he assess morality in the case of Phineas Gage, a 19th century American railroad foreman who survived an accident in which a large iron rod was driven completely through his head, destroying much of his brain's left frontal lobe. That injury caused profound changes in his personality and behavior. How would he be assessed by a philosopher?

Do you see a role for philosophy of any kind in determining morality? Or is morality to be determined purely scientifically?

If science the only way... how could one determine what is scientifically moral?

wa:do

I'm trying to wrap my head around this. Science isn't in the morality business, religion is. Science has found causes for immoral actions and has brought awareness. Religion and philosophy make assumptions based on lack of understanding about the human condition. Emotions and rationality are not separate. The mind and body are not separate. Humans are organic. IMO, religion and philosophy understand little about this.

Edited to add:

The poll question was: Can Science Contribute to our Understanding of Morality?

Yes.

 

[painted wolf]

Not all philosophy upholds the mind-body duality. How philosophers dealt with cases like Gage is part of why.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this. Science isn't in the morality business, religion is.

Philosophy as well.. philosophy need not be religious, just as Richard Dawkins or any secular humanist.

Science has found causes for immoral actions and has brought awareness. Religion and philosophy make assumptions based on lack of understanding about the human condition.

And through astute observations of human nature... not all philosophy holds humanity as above nature... or lack understanding of "the human condition".

Emotions and rationality are not separate. The mind and body are not separate.

I agree... as do several philosophers Monism for example, Materialism as another.
Modern materialist philosophers like Richard Dawkins spring to mind.

Humans are organic. IMO, religion and philosophy understand little about this.

My religion has no problem understanding it... We have been saying so for many thousands of years.

wa:do

 

[LuisDantas]

I chose the third option because it is the closest to what I think. I don't feel that science does necessarily make religion irrelevant, however.

 

[isobella]

Not all philosophy upholds the mind-body duality. How philosophers dealt with cases like Gage is part of why.

Philosophy as well.. philosophy need not be religious, just as Richard Dawkins or any secular humanist.

Agree

And through astute observations of human nature... not all philosophy holds humanity as above nature... or lack understanding of "the human condition".

Observations? How would a philosopher observe a brain tumor that may cause a person to act immoral? How would a philosopher know that an infant turned adult might have been born in survival mode, perhaps wartime, the mother was ill/died or separated from his/her caregiver at a critical stage in brain development. In these conditions the infant often receives little stimulation necessary for proper brain development/connecting the billions of neurons. When development is hindered it can lead to a number of conditions i.e. Attachment Spectrum Disorders. Any form of an attachment spectrum disorder can interfere with an individual’s ability to form appropriate relationships both in childhood and adulthood. Behaviors observed include poor peer relationships, hyper vigilance, anxiety, destruction to self or others, superficially engaging phoniness, indiscriminate affection with strangers, extreme measures to gain and exert control, lying, extreme anger, manipulation, violence, poor impulse control, lack of conscience, cruelty to animals, and learning delays or disabilities. Attachment spectrum disorders primarily affect the part of the brain called the pons. Pons usually develop in babies between one to five months of age.

So a philosopher observing these conditions in the adult would assume what?

My religion has no problem understanding it... We have been saying so for many thousands of years.

wa:do

Please note that I mean no disrespect towards anyone's religion. It's just that religion doesn't generally utilize tools beyond observation/judgement. For example, a person having a seizure might be judged as having a demon. 1 in 10 people will have at least one seizure in their lifetime. Jesus cast out demons, when it was clear that these individuals were having convulsions/seizures.

" In Capernaum, a man with a demon cried out at Jesus. Jesus rebuked it, saying, “Be quiet, and come out of him!” The demon then convulsed the man and cried out with a loud voice. It threw the man down and came out of him." Mark 1:25-26

Those are clearly symptoms of seizure activity, perhaps even epilepsy. The famous writer Fyodor Dostoyevsky was observed by others as making loud, non-human sounds while having a seizure. He had epilepsy.

So even though observation is a tool, it's certainly not the only tool, and by itself, observation does not take into account many other variables. Hope that helps to clarify.

 

[painted wolf]

Observations? How would a philosopher observe a brain tumor that may cause a person to act immoral?

How about by studying cases and keeping up with modern medicine? Philosophy isn't something that only happened hundreds of years ago.

So a philosopher observing these conditions in the adult would assume what?

I suggest you look into Philosophical Materialism.

Please note that I mean no disrespect towards anyone's religion. It's just that religion doesn't generally utilize tools beyond observation/judgement.

Observation is a powerful tool... science is quite fond of it. Not all religions are about judgment.

For example, a person having a seizure might be judged as having a demon. 1 in 10 people will have at least one seizure in their lifetime. Jesus cast out demons, when it was clear that these individuals were having convulsions/seizures.

Yeah, or that might have been due to general lack of medical knowledge... not religion. You will notice that few religious people attribute seizures to demons today. In some cultures seizures were a sign of holiness.

wa:do

 

[Falvlun]

I believe that scientific advances and knowledge can contribute to our ability to create more moral morality areyoucra Did that last bit make sense?). For example, science destroyed the idea that certain "races" were genetically inferior, paving the way for the idea that racism and slavery are wrong.

But I think Painted Wolf and others are correct in stating that science cannot necessarily tell us which action is moral or immoral. I'm a fan of philosophy. However, the philosophical musings must be rational in order for them to be useful-- and the best way to insure rationality and unbiasedness is to employ the scientific method.