Poll: Can Science Improve Moral Awareness?

[Storm]

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.

Stupid internet, stripping non-verbal communication....

What I meant was, saying my conclusions are false without explaining why came off as more argumentative than explanatory.

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 see how it can mean anything else, I truly don't.

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. To my mind, that means that science does not determine morality.

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

Fair enough.

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

Actually, let's just skip the analogy.

Do you see how one does not follow from the other?

I see how science does not determine morality. I do not see how "science determines morality" leads to anything other than "scientific facts = morals." It's very frustrating (to both of us, I'm sure).

Basically, every time you explain yourself, I see you bolstering my position. Then you turn around and say that science determines morality, and I get very confused.

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".

Agreed again.

Could you point out a contradiction?

Well, saying "your logic is false" without explaining why.

It's not my job to show that one does not follow from the other - it's your job to show how it does.

Fair enough.

It's about precise language, for me. "Determines" means to authoritatively show something to be true. Science means data, facts.

Science tells us about the world as it is, regardless of what we want. Morality, otoh is all about what we want the world to be.

Saying that science, with no input from philosophy, determines morality is (to me) saying that what is = what should be. That what we want doesn't matter.

I think we agree that minimizing harm is a key element of morality, yes? But science doesn't show us that we should do that. It shows "nature, red in tooth and claw." Rapists increase their breeding oppurtunities, xenophobia strengthens family groups, killing rivals boosts survival rates. All scientific.

It takes philosophy to take what is and imagine something better.

 

[painted wolf]

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.

We are not ants... who use chemical mimicry to usurp hardwired behavior. Which again demonstrates that science can not define morality alone.
I agree that we are animals and that biology is at the root of our behavior... however knowing why a behavior happens does not tell you if a behavior is moral.

Slavery is economically lucrative (or it would not be so widespread and long lasting) the slavery in Rome was simply replaced with a similar system under a different name: fiefdom/serfdom... but the issue of owning a human as a piece of property is a moral one. Economic desire over personal freedom.

The instinct to mate and reproduce is natural and biological... but the mating systems employed by human cultures are not... they are cultural/moral. (otherwise we would have a single mating system employed by the whole species).

wa:do

 

[MSizer]

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.

I agree with you on the idea that morality is nothing more than a suite of behaviours which facilitate social cohesion among animals, but I think the human suite of behaviours is influenced by a capicity not shared with any other creature - metacognition. We have the capacity to extend our moral consideration beyond simple reciprocity. I think that distinguishes us from other creatures from a moral perspective. I also think that a better understanding of the cause-effect relationships of various kinds will lead us to use reason to conclude that behaviour that was moral in the past and promoted by socio-biological means must be abandoned and replaced with utilitarian principles.

 

[MSizer]

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?

No Storm, your example of comparing the fact that we are biologically omnivourous to concluding that we should eat meat is an example of the naturalistic fallacy. A comparable example would be to say that murders have taken place throughout history, therefore it is natural for murders to take place, therefore a society absent of murder is an immoral one. No, not at all.

What I'm saying is that morality is influenced in part by our emotions, becuase in the past we didn't have the intellect to make judgements that were conducive to social cohesion. We simply weren't smart enough, so mother nature forged socio-biological tendencies through natural selection such as ingroup loyalty, which remains today for many people a moral imperative.

I think simple logic makes it obvious that ingroup loyalty has a dark side called outgroup contempt, and that even though we still have a natural biologically driven urge to be ingroup loyal, we can see that it is maybe not as good an idea as it feels. Only correct information and rational thought can elicit those types of evaluative conclusions. I think the next step in human moral enlightenment can only be acheived through the scientific method.

 

[painted wolf]

Rats have metacognition.

wa:do

 

[Commoner]

Stupid internet, stripping non-verbal communication....

What I meant was, saying my conclusions are false without explaining why came off as more argumentative than explanatory.

Well, I thought that once I put the premise and the conclusion in the same sentence - it would become evident how it's false. Guess not...

I don't see how it can mean anything else, I truly don't.
I agree. To my mind, that means that science does not determine morality.

Well, then you don't think that science determines speed, for instance? That's an incorrect use of the word "determine"?

Really, I think this is a straw man you've created. Unintentional, I'm sure, but still...

I see how science does not determine morality. I do not see how "science determines morality" leads to anything other than "scientific facts = morals." It's very frustrating (to both of us, I'm sure).

But, I've just explained it. Then you either believe the Theory of Gravity is not based upon scientific facts or you believe "scientific facts = gravity". And I'm pretty sure I can say neither of those hold true for you.

Basically, every time you explain yourself, I see you bolstering my position. Then you turn around and say that science determines morality, and I get very confused.

That's not necessarily my position, per se. All I'm explaining is what does not follow from that position. I'm not defending it, I'm not opposing it.

Well, saying "your logic is false" without explaining why.

Ah, but that does not "a contradiction make".

And I certainly intended my posts to be an explanation.

Fair enough.

It's about precise language, for me. "Determines" means to authoritatively show something to be true. Science means data, facts.

That's a definition that is incompatible with science, so I don't know why you'd assume it. It's clear what "determine" means when it comes to science - it means to establish after investigation, to come to a conclusion, to ascertain.

Science tells us about the world as it is, regardless of what we want. Morality, otoh is all about what we want the world to be.

Well, I would say that's quite an oversimplification. Science also tells us how best to achieve something - the best strategy to use. Of course science doesn't define morality for us - we do, that's not the issue here. We pretty much agree on what morality is, even if we can't put it into words. The questions of "is this moral or isn't it?" aren't problematic because we don't agree upon what morality is, but because of our different interpretations of the "moral situation". It's not because of having a different definition of "morality" that a mother kills her child to prevent it from going to hell. It's because she mistakenly believes that that is the best thing to do for the child. And while it's clear (to most rational people) that she is mistaken in this case, many situations exist, where it is not so clear, which choice is best. That is the function of science in moral an ethical decisions.

Saying that science, with no input from philosophy, determines morality is (to me) saying that what is = what should be. That what we want doesn't matter.

I'll say it again - philosophy might "decide" what we mean by "morality", but science can then determine whether or not something is moral.

I think we agree that minimizing harm is a key element of morality, yes? But science doesn't show us that we should do that. It shows "nature, red in tooth and claw." Rapists increase their breeding oppurtunities, xenophobia strengthens family groups, killing rivals boosts survival rates. All scientific.

Well, actually, that's not quite true. Societies in which such behavior is widespread do not do very well - that's quite demonstrable.

I don't think rapists increase their breeding opportunities - not in the long run. Killing is not a behavior which will generally increase your safety. Yes, it might help you to survive in a specific situation, but as a general strategy, it's horribly self-defeating. Xenophobia might strengthen a group, but it also isolates it - again, might be beneficial in the short term, but is almost certainly not effective in the long run.

I mean, that's why we live in societies, right? You give up some potentially beneficial behaviors, because the benefits of living in a society outweigh them (by a huge margin).

 

[yogidog]

Science is a wonderful thing. But I don't believe it can change morals. The world is held hostage by MAD. Science made that possible. If science made us more moral, we should now be living in a peaceful and fair world, living at the zenith of human decency. We are not. I think our world seems to be morally crumbling. The bible predicted this situation:

(2 Timothy 3:1-5) "But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self-assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal, 3 having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, 4 betrayers, headstrong, puffed up [with pride], lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away."

(2 Timothy 3:13) "But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled."

I love science. I hope to live forever and learn from Jehovah and Christ more about science than any living human now knows or can know. But for now I'll focus on getting into God's paradise so I can realize that hope.

(1 Timothy 6:17-19) . . .Give orders to those who are rich in the present system of things not to be high-minded, and to rest their hope, not on uncertain riches, but on God, who furnishes us all things richly for our enjoyment; 18 to work at good, to be rich in fine works, to be liberal, ready to share, 19 safely treasuring up for themselves a fine foundation for the future, in order that they may get a firm hold on the real life.

 

[painted wolf]

really? once upon a time it was morally ok to torture the mentally ill for being possessed or cursed... today thanks to science we know better.

wa:do

 

[MSizer]

Science is a wonderful thing. But I don't believe it can change morals. The world is held hostage by MAD. Science made that possible. If science made us more moral, we should now be living in a peaceful and fair world, living at the zenith of human decency..

No, that would only be true if scientific literacy were prevalent throughout the globe, but it is woefully absent even in some industrialized nations

I think our world seems to be morally crumbling..

Well it's not the case at all. Never before has the world had so few per capita war deaths when considering the capacity for destruction of modern war machines. If missiles were available in the 10th century, the vatican would have wiped the planet of muslims. Never before have universal health care programs been in place to improve access to health for the poor. Never before have labour conditions been as fair as they are in most countries today. Equity among races, gender and sexual orientation has never been so much addressed as it is now.

It is simply a fact the number of global citizens (per capita) enjoy a higher standard of living than those of generations past, and this is directly due to increased social efforts by governments around the world and improved access to education.

 

[MSizer]

...I think we agree that minimizing harm is a key element of morality, yes? But science doesn't show us that we should do that. ...

Yes actually, it does show us that, through the research of Jonathan Haidt et al. 23 000 people were interviewed about what they consider to be of moral significance, and literally every single person said that "prevention from harm" was a moral matter. It is the first of 5 moral domains that were revealed from his research, the first two which were universal (the second universal one was fairness).

So yes, science indeed does tell us that harm is immoral. Literally.

 

[MSizer]

Rats have metacognition.

wa:do

Perhaps I'm wrong about that, in which case my explanation may not be quite right, but I still strongly suspect that it's true that we have the capacity to understand the implications of our actions on other creatures to a much more granular degree than any other concious animals. That's why I think bears can get away with eating rabbits, but humans don't IMO. We both are omnivores, but we understand that we induce harm to a concious being when we kill a rabbit. I doubt bears understand that.

 

[Commoner]

Perhaps I'm wrong about that, in which case my explanation may not be quite right, but I still strongly suspect that it's true that we have the capacity to understand the implications of our actions on other creatures to a much more granular degree than any other concious animals. That's why I think bears can get away with eating rabbits, but humans don't IMO. We both are omnivores, but we understand that we induce harm to a concious being when we kill a rabbit. I doubt bears understand that.

Come on now, bears can't catch rabbits! :run:

 

[MSizer]

Come on now, bears can't catch rabbits! :run:

You're right, it's usually voles and mice they catch, but few people eat voles, so I used rabbits for the example.

Jerk.

 

[painted wolf]

Perhaps I'm wrong about that, in which case my explanation may not be quite right, but I still strongly suspect that it's true that we have the capacity to understand the implications of our actions on other creatures to a much more granular degree than any other concious animals. That's why I think bears can get away with eating rabbits, but humans don't IMO. We both are omnivores, but we understand that we induce harm to a concious being when we kill a rabbit. I doubt bears understand that.

I think that is a valid point. Humans mull over our actions and weigh them as "moral" or not... While there is a biological basis for this process... the decisions we reach are not biological.
(otherwise there wouldn't be a choice in the matter... Eating rabbits would be moral or it wouldn't.)

Given the fact that many of our companion animals were originally raised for food (and still are in many places), shows a shift in our morality, not accounted for by biology alone.

wa:do

 

[Storm]

No Storm, your example of comparing the fact that we are biologically omnivourous to concluding that we should eat meat is an example of the naturalistic fallacy. A comparable example would be to say that murders have taken place throughout history, therefore it is natural for murders to take place, therefore a society absent of murder is an immoral one. No, not at all.

What I'm saying is that morality is influenced in part by our emotions, becuase in the past we didn't have the intellect to make judgements that were conducive to social cohesion. We simply weren't smart enough, so mother nature forged socio-biological tendencies through natural selection such as ingroup loyalty, which remains today for many people a moral imperative.

I think simple logic makes it obvious that ingroup loyalty has a dark side called outgroup contempt, and that even though we still have a natural biologically driven urge to be ingroup loyal, we can see that it is maybe not as good an idea as it feels. Only correct information and rational thought can elicit those types of evaluative conclusions. I think the next step in human moral enlightenment can only be acheived through the scientific method.

Science has its dark side, too. It's as likely to lead us to nuclear war as life saving medicine. It is an inherently amoral endeavor. So, how can it tell us what is moral?

 

[Storm]

Yes actually, it does show us that, through the research of Jonathan Haidt et al. 23 000 people were interviewed about what they consider to be of moral significance, and literally every single person said that "prevention from harm" was a moral matter. It is the first of 5 moral domains that were revealed from his research, the first two which were universal (the second universal one was fairness).

So yes, science indeed does tell us that harm is immoral. Literally.

No, that shows us that people agree harm is immoral. It does not provide a scientific rationale for that position.

 

[painted wolf]

No, that shows us that people agree harm is immoral. It does not provide a scientific rationale for that position.

Things get really interesting when you start defining "harm". That is where scientific explanations begin to really break down IMHO.

wa:do

 

[Beyondo]

Perhaps I'm wrong about that, in which case my explanation may not be quite right, but I still strongly suspect that it's true that we have the capacity to understand the implications of our actions on other creatures to a much more granular degree than any other concious animals. That's why I think bears can get away with eating rabbits, but humans don't IMO. We both are omnivores, but we understand that we induce harm to a concious being when we kill a rabbit. I doubt bears understand that.

Hmm...Then explain why my dogs will not bite down on my fingers when I hand feed them? But cats will bite down on their owners fingers. Dogs seem to understand that they can inflict harm but cats don't.

 

[Commoner]

Hmm...Then explain why my dogs will not bite down on my fingers when I hand feed them? But cats will bite down on their owners fingers. Dogs seem to understand that they can inflict harm but cats don't.

Nah, cats are just being nasty.

 

[Beyondo]

I think that is a valid point. Humans mull over our actions and weigh them as "moral" or not... While there is a biological basis for this process... the decisions we reach are not biological.
(otherwise there wouldn't be a choice in the matter... Eating rabbits would be moral or it wouldn't.)
wa:do

I disagree, our decisions are biological in that the use of symbolic communication is used to coerce cooperation or act by socially accepted moral standards. We are effectively acting as a society individually when we make moral decisions, no different than bees or ants acting on pheromones. Humans however do have a biological antithesis which forces factionism, this is healthily for the species in that it promotes diversification by testing ideological and genetic adaptations which in turn filters for the better adaptive solution. Of course humanity is at a critical point since it can annihilate itself with technology but strangely enough nature's brakes that prevent complete self extinction appear to be working so far...