Who hear thinks..........

[Quintessence]

No not really, mythos are often stories that are not true, used to help make sense of the world we live in.

Whereas logos, is more rational, where observations are made with more logical deductions.

Mythologies are stories that are true but in a different sense than stories of logos. Understanding the different purpose and role of various stories is key to parsing what the "best" explanation for something is as well as understanding why peoples of all cultures and historical eras that came to them. Simplistic "our ancestors were dumb therefore they concluded supernaturalism" doesn't cut it. Of course modern folks would tell it that way, they want to feel better and superior to their ancestors for some reason. Curiously, it is its own sort of mythology - something that is not literally true, but true in a sense of deep meaning. So too is putting the sciences on a pedestal its own sort of mythology - any sort of value judgement like that is suffused with mythos, less so the logos.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Can't say I fully agree with this, on various levels.

First, I disagree heavily that ethics is the purview of religion. Ethics is the purview of reason. And I'll add that this reason is also heavily informed by science - likely in far more ways that people who like to claim it in the domain of religion would care to admit.

Ethics / morals is fundamentally about well-being. Science has quite a few things to say about well-being. About how to distinguish well-being from suffering. In the extremes it's obvious, but there is a lot of less obvious things also. Also about what the causes of certain types of suffering are. To say it simplistically: if you don't understand the consequences of your actions, you will not be able to tell if and when you are inflicting suffering if it is not mega-obvious. So you actually need a good understanding of the world in order to be able to make intelligent and ethical decisions. You also need to understand the nature of suffering and well-being (both in physical as well as in mental / psychological terms). I'ld say that science is a quite important aspect to figuring that stuff out.


Secondly, I don't see how religion has anything useful to say about anything in general. I can certainly see value in story-telling, which is something that also commonly happens in religion - but by no means is it exclusive to it. And it that sense, I can see value in it. But not in a dogmatic way. I see it as a nice way to open a discussion about certain aspect of "the human condition", but by no means would I consider such to have any kind of "truth value" by default, just because it is "religion" or in the sense of "moral of the story".

Well, it depends on the defintion of religion and also science. And what you consider reason to be.

But yes, you can divide science into natural, social and Geisteswissenschaften and include ethics if you like. But as far as I can tell reason alone won't cut it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The one who figured out the earth was a sphere could actually demonstrate it to others in such a way that they could verify for themselves that this was the case.

The Ancient Greeks did that sans science. Many people independently did. They also charted the Cosmic bodies entirely without the scientific method.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes but in regards to ethics, social cohesion, human emotions and so on. Would you call the countless beneficial studies done in these areas 'science'?

If you need science to be a good person you're probably just as morally rotten and corrupt as someone who must have a Bible to instruct them to engage in pro-social behaviors.
Philosophy has been exploring and solving these things for thousands of years. After all, science is utterly unable to give us ethics. It can't. At most it gives us some more pieces of the puzzle.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, it depends on the defintion of religion and also science. And what you consider reason to be.

But yes, you can divide science into natural, social and Geisteswissenschaften and include ethics if you like. But as far as I can tell reason alone won't cut it.

I didn't say reason alone would cut it.
Didn't you read the post?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Ancient Greeks did that sans science. Many people independently did. They also charted the Cosmic bodies entirely without the scientific method.

Did you not read the rest of the post?

You cut that one sentence from it and then (deliberately?) ignored everything else I said.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I didn't say reason alone would cut it.
Didn't you read the post?

As long as you understand that at best you can do ethics as intersubjective and not all objective for all elements, we can agree.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you need science to be a good person you're probably just as morally rotten and corrupt as someone who must have a Bible to instruct them to engage in pro-social behaviors.
Philosophy has been exploring and solving these things for thousands of years. After all, science is utterly unable to give us ethics. It can't. At most it gives us some more pieces of the puzzle.

Science provides you with pretty vital information which in turn allows you to make ethical decisions.

The better informed you are about what well-being is about, what suffering is about, what the consequences of your actions are, etc... the better equipped you are to make informed ethical decisions.

I'ld say that the "ethical" part of your choices have to do with your motivation.
I'ld say the result thereof, the success you'll have, will come from your understanding of reality in all aspects relevant to ethical decision making (which is to say: how your decisions affect well-being / suffering).


For example...............
If your "understanding" of the world is that being gay is a "lifestyle choice" informed by the devil and "against god", then you will with the best intentions think that being homophobic and having anti-gay legislation is an ethical way to go about it.

If however, with the help of science, you understand how being gay is a matter of biology and aren't bound to certain dogmatic iron age myths, and how as a gay person being confronted with anti-gay situations in all forms is detrimental for psychological (and sometimes physical) well-being, then you will understand how being homophobic and having anti-gay legislation is in fact extremely unethical.

In both cases you may be acting with the best intentions.
But only in the latter case will your best intention actually have a positive effect on well-being and thus an actual ethical outcome.

So I would say that there definitely ARE right and wrong answers to ethical questions. And that these definitely can be, and are, informed by an understanding of reality. And where does such understanding come from?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

So I would say that there definitely ARE right and wrong answers to ethical questions. And that these definitely can be, and are, informed by an understanding of reality. And where does such understanding come from?

I have tried to do that only as objective and I can't find any method that does that. How do you do it if only objective?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Science provides you with pretty vital information which in turn allows you to make ethical decisions.

The better informed you are about what well-being is about, what suffering is about, what the consequences of your actions are, etc... the better equipped you are to make informed ethical decisions.

I'ld say that the "ethical" part of your choices have to do with your motivation.
I'ld say the result thereof, the success you'll have, will come from your understanding of reality in all aspects relevant to ethical decision making (which is to say: how your decisions affect well-being / suffering).


For example...............
If your "understanding" of the world is that being gay is a "lifestyle choice" informed by the devil and "against god", then you will with the best intentions think that being homophobic and having anti-gay legislation is an ethical way to go about it.

If however, with the help of science, you understand how being gay is a matter of biology and aren't bound to certain dogmatic iron age myths, and how as a gay person being confronted with anti-gay situations in all forms is detrimental for psychological (and sometimes physical) well-being, then you will understand how being homophobic and having anti-gay legislation is in fact extremely unethical.

In both cases you may be acting with the best intentions.
But only in the latter case will your best intention actually have a positive effect on well-being and thus an actual ethical outcome.

So I would say that there definitely ARE right and wrong answers to ethical questions. And that these definitely can be, and are, informed by an understanding of reality. And where does such understanding come from?

John Stewart Mill has provided me with more for ethics than what science has. I don't need science to look out in the world and realize homosexuality is normal and common.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

John Stewart Mill has provided me with more for ethics than what science has. I don't need science to look out in the world and realize homosexuality is normal and common.

So you looked out in the world, gathered data and drew a conclusion from said data.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So you looked out in the world, gathered data and drew a conclusion from said data.

Yup. In a way that didn't involve science, either.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes but in regards to ethics, social cohesion, human emotions and so on. Would you call the countless beneficial studies done in these areas 'science'?

The kind of research science has used to study ethics and morality is very limited. Sure we have the Trolley Car research, and there has been studies into where in the brain moral choices have made. The studies into social cohesion and emotions only describe what is -- they do not evaluate whether what is is moral. But there is absolutely no study to determine what is right and what is wrong. If you want to live a moral life you have two choices: the first is to join a faith community; the second is too trust your gut.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Ethics / morals is fundamentally about well-being.

No it's not. Sometimes the ethical thing to do means a sacrifice on our part.

One example is standing up against injustice. During the civil rights movement in the United States, many activists faced severe repercussions for standing up against racial injustice. In fact MLK jr was killed for this.

Another example is rescuing others at personal risk. And I'm not just talking about firemen and police officers. In wartime or during disasters, individuals often risk their own safety to save others. One example is the story of Oskar Schindler during the Holocaust.

Secondly, I don't see how religion has anything useful to say about anything in general.

Really? You don't think things like the command to "love your neighbor as yourself" has any bearing on ethical behavior?

 

[Madsaac]

If you need science to be a good person you're probably just as morally rotten and corrupt as someone who must have a Bible to instruct them to engage in pro-social behaviors.
Philosophy has been exploring and solving these things for thousands of years. After all, science is utterly unable to give us ethics. It can't. At most it gives us some more pieces of the puzzle.

No science helps in a much broader sense when understanding social behaviours. Now these might not be 'scientific' studies but that follow a methodological approach from an objective view point. For example.

And would you agree they would help humanity?

The countless Psychology studies such as:

Scientific Research in Psychology – Research Methods in Psychology – 2nd Canadian Edition​

Emotions Studies:

Emotion Theory and Research: Highlights, Unanswered Questions, and Emerging Issues​

EVOLUTION OF HUMAN EMOTION: A View Through Fear

Language:

Carving the World for Language: How Neuroscientific Research Can Enrich the Study of First and Second Language Learning​

Stylistic Features of Scientific English: A Study of Scientific Research Articles | Ahmad | English Language and Literature Studies | CCSE​

Social Cohesion:

Australian Social Cohesion: Exploring New Directions | Australian National University​

Opinions:

Are opinions based on science: modelling social response to scientific facts - PubMed​

I could have added, politics, commerce, anything

Actually, anyway you look at it science can help us understand nearly anything better. And dare I say, better then anything else.

 

[Madsaac]

The kind of research science has used to study ethics and morality is very limited. Sure we have the Trolley Car research, and there has been studies into where in the brain moral choices have made. The studies into social cohesion and emotions only describe what is -- they do not evaluate whether what is is moral. But there is absolutely no study to determine what is right and what is wrong. If you want to live a moral life you have two choices: the first is to join a faith community; the second is too trust your gut.

No, I disagree, there have been countless 'Studies' done on ethics, morality, social cohesion, emotions. See just a few examples above.

These are really what can make the world we live in a better place.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It certainly appeared to me that all the studies you cited had nothing to do with morality. Howeveer, this one in part stood out.

Emotions Studies:

Emotion Theory and Research: Highlights, Unanswered Questions, and Emerging Issues​

EVOLUTION OF HUMAN EMOTION: A View Through Fear

Emotions have no relationship to morality. There are times when doing the right thing gives us warm fuzzy feelings, but there are other times when our emotions pit us AGAINST doing the right thing. And honestly, there can be no morality unless a person is willing to do the right thing even when it is hard.

 

[Madsaac]

It certainly appeared to me that all the studies you cited had nothing to do with morality. Howeveer, this one in part stood out.



Emotions have no relationship to morality. There are times when doing the right thing gives us warm fuzzy feelings, but there are other times when our emotions pit us AGAINST doing the right thing. And honestly, there can be no morality unless a person is willing to do the right thing even when it is hard.

Here's two I found on Google and I'm sure there are many more. And I'm sure people who make the laws effecting our morals would look at these type of studies more then the bible.

The Psychology of Morality: A Review and Analysis of Empirical Studies Published From 1940 Through 2017

We review empirical research on (social) psychology of morality to identify which issues and relations are well documented by existing data and which areas of inquiry are in need of further empirical evidence. An electronic literature search yielded a ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Scientific Study of Morals

The scientific study of morals has been subject to a tremendous change throughout the past decades, eliciting various theoretical models, paradigms, and methodologies from disciplines as philosophy, social and developmental psychology, cognitive science, or...

link.springer.com

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Here's two I found on Google and I'm sure there are many more. And I'm sure people who make the laws effecting our morals would look at these type of studies more then the bible.

The Psychology of Morality: A Review and Analysis of Empirical Studies Published From 1940 Through 2017

We review empirical research on (social) psychology of morality to identify which issues and relations are well documented by existing data and which areas of inquiry are in need of further empirical evidence. An electronic literature search yielded a ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Scientific Study of Morals

The scientific study of morals has been subject to a tremendous change throughout the past decades, eliciting various theoretical models, paradigms, and methodologies from disciplines as philosophy, social and developmental psychology, cognitive science, or...

link.springer.com

How much of the 2 articles have you read?

 

[Madsaac]

How much of the 2 articles have you read?

A little, not sure I understand them much but my point is that there are many studies with methodical, objective approaches which are carried out in in all aspects of life, even emotions and morality.

And humanity gets lots and lots of value from these studies. And to be frank, how can you disagree with this???