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

[mikkel_the_dane]

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???

Well, if you had actually read them, you would find that in effect they are about meta-ethics.
In other words not about how you should do morality, but rather the observation of how people do morality. Do you understand this?

 

[Madsaac]

Well, if you had actually read them, you would find that in effect they are about meta-ethics.
In other words not about how you should do morality, but rather the observation of how people do morality. Do you understand this?

Yeah, okay but the point is, we can still learn plenty about morality from studies like this. Do you agree?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah, okay but the point is, we can still learn plenty about morality from studies like this. Do you agree?

Well, no, we can't learn using science how to do good and bad. But yes, we can observe how different people do good and bad.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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

I seem to be making a distinction that you are not. The above studies are wonderful. But what they do is describe what morals humans have and why. They are not prescriptive. IOW they don't tell us what is moral and what is not. They ONLY tell us what WE think is moral. I'm not sure if you see the difference.

Descriptive: Much of human morality does not come from our reasoning minds. They are instinctual reactions to moral problems, which are decided deep within the brain before the conscious mind is even aware of the choice.

Prescriptive: It is wrong to cheat on your income taxes.

 

[Madsaac]

I seem to be making a distinction that you are not. The above studies are wonderful. But what they do is describe what morals humans have and why. They are not prescriptive. IOW they don't tell us what is moral and what is not. They ONLY tell us what WE think is moral. I'm not sure if you see the difference.

Descriptive: Much of human morality does not come from our reasoning minds. They are instinctual reactions to moral problems, which are decided deep within the brain before the conscious mind is even aware of the choice.

Prescriptive: It is wrong to cheat on your income taxes.

Yeah fair enough, you may be right but my point is that these studies can help us understand something like morals more wholistically.

Studies can help us in all facets of life, on the way we think, the way we interact with others, in all aspects of life. Having said that they are certainly not the only way to help us.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Studies can help us in all facets of life, on the way we think, the way we interact with others, in all aspects of life. Having said that they are certainly not the only way to help us.

No disagreement there. I too appreciate the research into morality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

In very simplistic and Sam Harris inspired expression:
- that which increases well-being / decreases suffering = good
- that which increases suffering / decreases well-being = bad


Which doesn't mean the answers are always "easy" to find. Moral / ethical dilemma's are also very real. Sometimes both options suck or one sucks just a bit more then the other. Sometimes it might be even impossible to tell which option is "best".

However, we CAN pretty objectively discern well-being from suffering.
Just like we can discern "healthy" from "sick".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Gathering data, drawing a conclusion from that data and then further testing that conclusion against additional data being gathered in the future (I assume), sounds pretty sciency to me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No it's not.

Yes it is.

Sometimes the ethical thing to do means a sacrifice on our part.

To accomplish what? More suffering?

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.

Yes. And the end goal was an increase in well-being for the oppressed.

In fact MLK jr was killed for this.

Yes. And again, his fight was about increasing well-being for the oppressed. To lower the overall suffering.

The bully causes suffering. Standing up against the bully might hurt you in the short term. But you do it end the suffering caused by the bullying.

Another example is rescuing others at personal risk.

"rescue" you say?
Rescue from what? Suffering, by any chance?

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.

And thereby attempt to increase overall well-being / decrease the suffering of those others.

One example is the story of Oskar Schindler during the Holocaust.

Indeed. He was attempting to prevent suffering of hundreds of people.

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

First, that's a variation of the golden rule. And you don't need religion for that. Every civilization known to man has come up with it independently of eachother.
People like to claim this to be some exclusive or original thing of judeo-christian tradition, but it really isn't.

As Christopher Hitchins once said: there is no good thing you can do in the name of, or by order of, religion that you can't also do regardless of religion.

Religion by no means has a monopoly, or exclusivity, on moral behavior or moral motivation. At all.

IN FACT, I would even say that if you do good "because it's god commandment"... then at that point your action is actually "tainted" and corrupt and it loses any actual moral value. Even though the result remains the same.

There is a big difference between doing good merely because are being obedient to a commandment, or doing good because you actually want to - simply for the sake of doing good.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In very simplistic and Sam Harris inspired expression:
- that which increases well-being / decreases suffering = good
- that which increases suffering / decreases well-being = bad


Which doesn't mean the answers are always "easy" to find. Moral / ethical dilemma's are also very real. Sometimes both options suck or one sucks just a bit more then the other. Sometimes it might be even impossible to tell which option is "best".

However, we CAN pretty objectively discern well-being from suffering.
Just like we can discern "healthy" from "sick".

Well-being and suffering are not given to be universal as the same for all humans for all cases.
What is objectively?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Neither are appropriate choices.

If you want to live a moral life, then you have only one option: evaluate your actions and decisions through moral reasoning.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Neither are appropriate choices.

If you want to live a moral life, then you have only one option: evaluate your actions and decisions through moral reasoning.

Well, what is your understanding of what morality is in regards to meta-ethics?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, no, we can't learn using science how to do good and bad.

I VERY MUCH disagree.

I'ld rather say that we can't learn from science WHY to do good and bad.
But we most definitely can learn HOW to do good and bad.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I VERY MUCH disagree.

I'ld rather say that we can't learn from science WHY to do good and bad.
But we most definitely can learn HOW to do good and bad.

No, not really. E.g. you can use science to learn how to kill humans. But you can't learn using science if that is good or bad. Only how to do it as just doing it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well-being and suffering are not given to be universal as the same for all humans for all cases.

I'ld say that they are universal enough, just like "healthy" and "sick" aren't 100% universal, but universal enough for medical science to distinguish them in general terms

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'ld say that they are universal enough, just like "healthy" and "sick" aren't 100% universal, but universal enough for medical science to distinguish them in general terms

That is not all versions of good and bad, as medical as physical is not the same as mental.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, what is your understanding of what morality is in regards to meta-ethics?

I have no idea what you mean by that.

I think I already defined enough in general terms.
Morality concerns a value judgement of actions / decisions in terms of how they increase or decrease net well-being and suffering.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, not really. E.g. you can use science to learn how to kill humans. But you can't learn using science if that is good or bad. Only how to do it as just doing it.

Ow?

So in your opinion, science has nothing to say about how killing humans affects well-being / suffering?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have no idea what you mean by that.

I think I already defined enough in general terms.
Morality concerns a value judgement of actions / decisions in terms of how they increase or decrease net well-being and suffering.

What is net well-being and suffering?

So if we kill you and use your organs to safe more than one life, we could increase well-being.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ow?

So in your opinion, science has nothing to say about how killing humans affects well-being / suffering?

Correct, it can't be observed as either good or bad.