The Science of Morality

[Nalaar]

Slapping children in a life threating situation is preferable to the child and/or parents dying.

Certainly you can manipulate the context of a situation such that usually 'bad' behaviours are the 'good' options.



By analogy - In a game of chess, a principle of 'Don't sacrifice your Queen' is a very good principle to have. However, sometimes it is a good move to sacrifice your Queen, sometimes it is the best move you can make. This does not invalidate the original premise, which is value based.



Changing the moral outcome, based on the evidence (ie context) is a strength of the argument for the Science of Morality that I present.

[papasmurf]

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.

Slapping children in a life threating situation is preferable to the child and/or parents dying.

[Nalaar]

Yeah, right oh Mr Spock. I looked up episteme...epistica...epis...whatever the feck it was, but I gave up after my brain locked up. Some of us aren't as well educated as you.



Maybe you have some kind of example or real world application of this concept/moral reasoning (your words)?

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.

[DeppityDawg]

I'm not sure which way you're falling with this - However I think Hume's Law (the denial of moral knowledge) is very much epistemological idealism, that does not reflect our moral values, or withstand real world scrutiny.

Yeah, right oh Mr Spock. I looked up episteme...epistica...epis...whatever the feck it was, but I gave up after my brain locked up. Some of us aren't as well educated as you.



Maybe you have some kind of example or real world application of this concept/moral reasoning (your words)?

[papasmurf]

I'm not sure which way you're falling with this - However I think Hume's Law (the denial of moral knowledge) is very much epistemological idealism, that does not reflect our moral values, or withstand real world scrutiny.

Nalaar you will have to simplify you language for us mere mortals.

When I studied Social "Science" some years ago when I came across the term epistemological pluralism I thought it was the result of an injury from catching the end of one's Willy in the zip fly on one's trousers.

[Barry]

epistemological  Where's me dictionary?  :-?

[Nalaar]

Remarked before in a similar thread many moons ago. Wine bar morality and idealism rarely survives blunt reality.

I'm not sure which way you're falling with this - However I think Hume's Law (the denial of moral knowledge) is very much epistemological idealism, that does not reflect our moral values, or withstand real world scrutiny.

[DeppityDawg]

Can you please explain that in plain English please. Personally I find the thread title to be incomprehensible.

Indeed. I think its an attempt to move the forum onto a higher plain, rather than the usual gutter trash of old school posters like vous et moi?



Remarked before in a similar thread many moons ago. Wine bar morality and idealism rarely survives blunt reality.

[Javert]

I guess we could ask the guy who went up in that rocket in order to prove that the earth was flat.



To me the idea that there are no facts only opinions could make an interesting high brow philosophy discussion but for everyday practical purposes it seems pretty ludicrous.



From a political or media perspective, one of my pet hates is the tendency of some organisations and politicians to put different commentators up debating with each other, when one is an expert in the subject, and the other knows nothing about it, and present the debate as if both of their views have equal weight and therefore you should believe whoever:

- had the poshest voice.

- used the longest words

- seemed like someone I would like to have a point with

- etc etc.



... followed closely by YouTube videos "watch and weep as Nigel Farage wipes the flow with xyz caller" - which you then click and find out that it was the opposite from my perspective.



So I would not just say I don't agree with it, I'd say we are now in a period of history where politicians or many countries who should know better have spent many years trying to get into power by convincing their voters that an opinion that you like, is better than a fact that you don't like.  We are seeing the results of that with various events, and the ultimate result of it is when something like a Pandemic comes along where viruses follow the laws of reality and not the opinions of exceptionalism or mumbo jumbo.

[papasmurf]

Sure I'll try.



The basic idea is that people will claim that Science has no say in Morality. They will say 'there is nothing that anyone can be objectively wrong about, everything is just a matter of opinion.'



I disagree with that for the reasons stated in the OP, I think that there factual claims can be made about human well-being, and so it follows that objective claims can be made.

Science of itself has no morality, how it is used has.

[Nalaar]

Can you please explain that in plain English please. Personally I find the thread title to be incomprehensible.

Sure I'll try.



The basic idea is that people will claim that Science has no say in Morality. They will say 'there is nothing that anyone can be objectively wrong about, everything is just a matter of opinion.'



I disagree with that for the reasons stated in the OP, I think that there factual claims can be made about human well-being, and so it follows that objective claims can be made.

[papasmurf]

Can you please explain that in plain English please. Personally I find the thread title to be incomprehensible.

[Nalaar]

An area that I have a deep interest in is moral reasoning, the widespread philosophical view is derived from Hume's Law, that is to say 'you can't get an ought from an is' but I think there is scope to consider what input Science can input into this philosophical discussion.



So the basic premise is this -

Values are a type of fact.

Conscious experiences can (and are) described factually.

Human morality and wellbeing are concerns about conscious experience.



In my opinion this thinking allows us to accept that there are 'better' ways to be, that we are not restricted by vague philosophy, or shackled into having to accept any other cultures values as equal to our own, when they may be objectively better or worse.