The Science of Morality

[johnofgwent]

As a practicing scientist, I quickly found I had have no interest in "morality". I thought i had when I started out on my chosen career path, but after some people who objected to me and my peers attempting to understand all sorts of diseases and thus hopefully find cures for them or preventative measures to stop people catching them in the first place chose to express their outrage by planting incendiary devices under my car's fuel tank, and by sending nail bombs in the post to the head of my scientific society, i lost interest in morality.



Maybe that is why I found it so easy to apply my knowledge gleaned in hope of saving life to developing better ways to exterminate it in the career i moved into after the research money for the one i chose dried up.



Morality has no place whatsoever in science; it clouds judgement and impedes progress.



Interestingly, I have at multiple points in the years since i left that career found examples of those who chose to plant such devices who were were more than happy to take advantage of the progress made in spite of their violence when to adhere to their morals and not have the discovery would have meant their death.



I would admire them had they chosen to die rather than take advantage of the inventions arising from the inventors they chose to attempt to kill.



As it is, I have nothing but contempt for them

[Javert]

 As current events show, "science" is not always correct and not all scientific facts are undisputed.

Sometimes I don't understand how you can say things like that.  If you're referring to the Coronavirus or whatever, current events clearly show that science is exactly correct.  The Coronavirus has continued to infect people according to it's biology and human biology, and the rate of spread is becoming more and more predictable as more and more science data comes in.  



There are a few folks like President Trump and Bolsanaro and a few other world leaders who have said that they don't believe that, and it will all just be a storm in a tea cup, but, they have been proved completely wrong up to now.



Maybe you're referring to the point that some people are claiming that more people will die from the economic downturn than will ever die from Coronavirus.  I guess you can dispute that.



What can't be disputed is that if the government had locked down the country 11 days earlier, a lot less people would have died in the short term up to June.  That's science and I would say that's exactly the type of thing that is a science fact rather than a matter of opinion.

[Nalaar]

This is slightly off topic but I will clarify these two points as I regard them as important nonetheless

But surely science alone is so limiting. It leaves little room for inspiration or revelation. Can you honestly say that you have never experienced a feeling, an instinct or thought that you really have no idea its origin? I find it really difficult to understand people who claim to be secularist and only secularist. It surely denies the human state. We are so much more.

Any experience you have is a result of your brain.

Your comment that some opinions are not valid I find the saddest of all.

But it is true.

My opinion on many topics is not valid, becuase I am ignorant of them. My opinion on football and quantum string theory should be dismissed as ignorant and unhelpful by a football coach, or a theoretical string theorist. (You can also take this to a much more extreme level - Do the Taliban have a valid opinion on Woman's Rights? Do Neo-Nazis have a valid opinion on Race Policy? etc)



It should also be recognised (getting a bit more back on topic) in the same way that you can have a Mathematical genius, or football star etc, it should be understood that we can have Moral geniuses.

[T00ts]

Some opinions are not valid.



Science is secular, I am a secularist.

But surely science alone is so limiting. It leaves little room for inspiration or revelation. Can you honestly say that you have never experienced a feeling, an instinct or thought that you really have no idea its origin? I find it really difficult to understand people who claim to be secularist and only secularist. It surely denies the human state. We are so much more. Your comment that some opinions are not valid I find the saddest of all. Science is a means to an end. Not an end in itself. The mysteries surrounding us are there for man to discover. Science has evolved as the tool for that discovery.

[DeppityDawg]

I think it is important that we understand that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions.







I think the vast majority of philosophers, and your everyday 'person on the street' think that science has nothing to say on morality. Generally the people who do believe there are right/wrong answers are religious zealots etc, though they come by their morality in a profoundly anti-scientific way.



My position is that Scientific thinking can be applied to moral questions, and should be, and that if there was greater acceptance of this we could make strides in many domains of human wellbeing.

The more I read of this thread, the more it appears to be becoming a elitist liberal ****fest. As current events show, "science" is not always correct and not all scientific facts are undisputed. And it isn't like science hasn't been used for less dubious purposes is it? No doubt there is a scientific calculation that can quantify exactly what human wellbeing actually is. No thanks. Like most of modern liberal thinking, its the Primary School teacher mentality of it being better to decide for us what is and is not in our own "wellbeing" interests, because clearly most of us are too fecking thick to know  :roll:

[Nalaar]

I think it is more important to understand that people have very valid opinions.

Some opinions are not valid.

I notice your sig quotes a "Hare Krishna" religious zealot, is he one of your heroes?

Personally, I'm not much of a philosopher, being more into Judeo/Christian biblical theology. As we are in the spiritual section, I'd say that scripture accounts for much of our morality.

Science does not work out what is moral, people try to.

Science is secular.

Science is secular, I am a secularist. I had never heard of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada before reading the quote in my signature, and know nothing about him. What I do know is that the quoted statement is true, and that trueness is not altered by whoever the author is.

I don't think so.

Science is based on experimentation and attempts to form axioms, whereas morality generally has few axioms. Even killing another human being can be held to be moral, in some circumstances. What does science have to do with that?

As mentioned in my chess analogy, circumstances (ie context) matters because it gives us values to apply. Values are a form of fact, which allows for the application of science.

[Nalaar]

Maybe another example could be - people could take different moral or philosophical viewpoint on crime and punishment.



One might take the view that the purpose of prison is to punish people, whilst another might say that it is to ensure that they won't commit any more crimes, or even possibly goes out of their way to do more good than the crimes they previously committed, through rehabilitation.



Scientific data might indicate that properly researched rehabilitation approaches in prisons have a big effect on reducing the re-offending rate, whilst simply increasing sentences to longer durations, whilst people might believe that will "encourager les autres", may have the opposite effect on a mass level.



Morally, someone might then argue, well actually I don't care whether that person is going to commit more crimes later, I just want them to be harshly punished for the crime they did against me, and if it means they commit another crime against someone else later, tough.



If I understand correctly, the theory you are talking about, which I confess I also struggled with in your OP, would say that none of the above is wrong and everyone is correct?

Prisons are a whole topic into themselves which I may make a future thread to discuss, but I'll hold on a full discussion of them for now and limit myself to the parts of your post that his topic deals with.



What I will say is that scientific data (which I am ignorant of in the case of prisons, but which may well already exist) could be used to build a case for the moral good of either 'punishment' or 'rehabilitation' as the purpose of a prison. And that if there was a cleat bright line that one was superior to the other, then it would be immoral to prioritise the inferior option.

[Nalaar]

Isn't that quite a sweeping statement? Can you explain a little more? I see no reason that scientific exploration should not be applied to everything. Only that way will they finally arrive at what some of us consider the actual truth of all things.

It is quite a sweeping statement, and one that I think is true. Human well-being is a prime factor of morality, and is all to readily ignored out of considerations like 'respect for culture' and 'respect of tradition' etc.

[T00ts]

I think it is more important to understand that people have very valid opinions.





I notice your sig quotes a "Hare Krishna" religious zealot, is he one of your heroes?

Personally, I'm not much of a philosopher, being more into Judeo/Christian biblical theology. As we are in the spiritual section, I'd say that scripture accounts for much of our morality.

Science does not work out what is moral, people try to.

Science is secular.





I don't think so.

Science is based on experimentation and attempts to form axioms, whereas morality generally has few axioms. Even killing another human being can be held to be moral, in some circumstances. What does science have to do with that?

 :hattip  :clp

[papasmurf]

If I understand correctly, the theory you are talking about, which I confess I also struggled with in your OP, would say that none of the above is wrong and everyone is correct?

The "Of Mice and Men" dilemma is always a good start.

[Barry]

I think it is important that we understand that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions.

I think it is more important to understand that people have very valid opinions.

I think the vast majority of philosophers, and your everyday 'person on the street' think that science has nothing to say on morality. Generally the people who do believe there are right/wrong answers are religious zealots etc, though they come by their morality in a profoundly anti-scientific way.

I notice your sig quotes a "Hare Krishna" religious zealot, is he one of your heroes?

Personally, I'm not much of a philosopher, being more into Judeo/Christian biblical theology. As we are in the spiritual section, I'd say that scripture accounts for much of our morality.

Science does not work out what is moral, people try to.

Science is secular.

My position is that Scientific thinking can be applied to moral questions, and should be, and that if there was greater acceptance of this we could make strides in many domains of human wellbeing.

I don't think so.

Science is based on experimentation and attempts to form axioms, whereas morality generally has few axioms. Even killing another human being can be held to be moral, in some circumstances. What does science have to do with that?

[Javert]

Maybe another example could be - people could take different moral or philosophical viewpoint on crime and punishment.



One might take the view that the purpose of prison is to punish people, whilst another might say that it is to ensure that they won't commit any more crimes, or even possibly goes out of their way to do more good than the crimes they previously committed, through rehabilitation.



Scientific data might indicate that properly researched rehabilitation approaches in prisons have a big effect on reducing the re-offending rate, whilst simply increasing sentences to longer durations, whilst people might believe that will "encourager les autres", may have the opposite effect on a mass level.



Morally, someone might then argue, well actually I don't care whether that person is going to commit more crimes later, I just want them to be harshly punished for the crime they did against me, and if it means they commit another crime against someone else later, tough.



If I understand correctly, the theory you are talking about, which I confess I also struggled with in your OP, would say that none of the above is wrong and everyone is correct?

[T00ts]

I think it is important that we understand that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions.







I think the vast majority of philosophers, and your everyday 'person on the street' think that science has nothing to say on morality. Generally the people who do believe there are right/wrong answers are religious zealots etc, though they come by their morality in a profoundly anti-scientific way.



My position is that Scientific thinking can be applied to moral questions, and should be, and that if there was greater acceptance of this we could make strides in many domains of human wellbeing.

Isn't that quite a sweeping statement? Can you explain a little more? I see no reason that scientific exploration should not be applied to everything. Only that way will they finally arrive at what some of us consider the actual truth of all things.

[Nalaar]

Tbh, I struggle with the way you present things, because I'm not entirely sure of the motive (eg, why you even want to discuss this at all?)

I think it is important that we understand that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions.

But, if I'm reading this right (and I'm usually not where you are concerned it seems), you are saying you don't agree there is no "right" or "wrong" answer here, because you believe an argument is superior to another based on a moral or scientific position, which this theory you've rolled out seems to suggest is not necessarily so. Talk about building your own house of cards to knock down?



In any case, this is hardly ground breaking stuff is it? There have been moral zealots since forever, and the elitists who represent the "scientific/evidence" based position believe not just their argument, but that they themselves are superior to others.

I think the vast majority of philosophers, and your everyday 'person on the street' think that science has nothing to say on morality. Generally the people who do believe there are right/wrong answers are religious zealots etc, though they come by their morality in a profoundly anti-scientific way.



My position is that Scientific thinking can be applied to moral questions, and should be, and that if there was greater acceptance of this we could make strides in many domains of human wellbeing.

[DeppityDawg]

Sure, let's take an example that's easy to perceive, and somewhat divisive - Corporal punishment.



Some people believe that it is right to hit children, as punishment for their mistakes. Others do not.



The Hume theorist will argue that there is nothing for either group of people to be right or wrong about. Just as one person likes vanilla, and the other chocolate, so the one supports hitting children, and the other doesn't.



I would argue this is not the case, there really is something to be right/wrong about.

Tbh, I struggle with the way you present things, because I'm not entirely sure of the motive (eg, why you even want to discuss this at all?)



But, if I'm reading this right (and I'm usually not where you are concerned it seems), you are saying you don't agree there is no "right" or "wrong" answer here, because you believe an argument is superior to another based on a moral or scientific position, which this theory you've rolled out seems to suggest is not necessarily so. Talk about building your own house of cards to knock down?



In any case, this is hardly ground breaking stuff is it? There have been moral zealots since forever, and the elitists who represent the "scientific/evidence" based position believe not just their argument, but that they themselves are superior to others.