Science based morality?

[john5746]

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark/sam-harris-1

 

In the video, Sam Harris makes the argument that science can be utilized to determine right from wrong, to determine modes of thought that will be a maximum for human flourishing.

 

Do you think that science will someday be able to determine the best moral codes for human societies?

[iNow]

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark/sam-harris-1

 

In the video, Sam Harris makes the argument that science can be utilized to determine right from wrong, to determine modes of thought that will be a maximum for human flourishing.

Thanks for sharing that. I actually saw it shortly after it came out last October, but it was well worth the watch again.

 

 

I like how Harris consistently argues for better understandings, more research and effort, and against standing behind the status quo and false attacks which so often come from the dogmatic believers. I also really appreciate how he shows that claims about morality are actually claims about our minds and the structure of our society.

 

I agree with him that there is an "unavoidable collision" coming on this topic, whereby science and popular opinion clash and pathological moralities (like genital mutilation and bigotry toward homosexuality, for instance) will be shown for what they are and discarded like rotten garbage... as needlessly subversive of human well-being... a clash much like we experienced (and are experiencing still) with evolution... where we really reevaluate what makes a net contribution to human well-being and what serves as a net detriment to our global society.

 

 

Do you think that science will someday be able to determine the best moral codes for human societies?

 

Here's what I'm struggling with after reading your question. It (not necessarily intentionally) implies that there is some absolute morality which can be defined, codified, and used like a math equation. I'm not so sure that's the case, as morality (while having many common aspects) tends to be culture and context specific.

 

For example, Harris comments how morality is a lot like food. There is no one "right food." However, we're still able to objectively distinguish between food and poison. Just because we can't all agree on the one "right food" does not mean we cannot collectively and objectively agree that some are foods and some are poisons. That really resonates with me, and he does a far better job at articulating my intended point than I have.

 

It's late though, and I'm tired, so I'll need more time to think on this. Thanks for the link and interesting set of questions.

[john5746]

Here's what I'm struggling with after reading your question. It (not necessarily intentionally) implies that there is some absolute morality which can be defined, codified, and used like a math equation. I'm not so sure that's the case, as morality (while having many common aspects) tends to be culture and context specific.

 

For example, Harris comments how morality is a lot like food. There is no one "right food." However, we're still able to objectively distinguish between food and poison. Just because we can't all agree on the one "right food" does not mean we cannot collectively and objectively agree that some are foods and some are poisons. That really resonates with me, and he does a far better job at articulating my intended point than I have.

 

Interesting that you mention math equation, because I was going to mention that in the OP. His talk is pretty general, but it sounds like it would be more similar to economics than physics, with no one complete answer, but multiple best answers for given situations.

 

In his analogy, I think the tricky part would be picking the best foods, rather than just weeding out the poisons. The problem I see there is similar to medicine - prescribing medication based on population statistics for individuals. Maybe we will eventually model brain types and link it to genetics and can then prescribe best fit for that type within the social constraints?

[iNow]

You've thought about this more than I have.

[Daecon]

The science of morality is like chaos theory.

[iNow]

The science of morality is like chaos theory.

 

In what way? Please note that I barely have even a topical understanding of chaos theory.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think there will still be a lot of room for religious influence on morality. Many religions have stood the test of time (longer than most countries), and do have several good ideas about morality. But that was from another time. With the current rate of technological progress, we have in recent years and will in the near future, discovered some new things that religions have really not had any experience with (genetic engineering, modern medicine, safe abortion, birth control, insanely powerful weapons, ...).

 

As iNow said, however, morality is quite subjective. And I think you'd need a moral system to judge other moral systems (which I guess is why it's subjective). Certainly science ought to be well equipped to, given a way to judge moral systems, find the moral system that is best given said judgment. Also, science gives us certain tools allow us to study the physiological basis of empathy, emotions, thinking, etc, which also play a big role in morality.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

After a bit more thought, philosophy is the best at, given arbitrary premises, finding a conclusion. At least I think that's what philosophers do.

 

Anyways, just to throw a monkey wrench in the works, NewScientist did a story about how we will defend something we think is our choice even if we in fact made the opposite choice.

choice-blindness-you-dont-know-what-you-want.html

When asked to defend a choice, most of us will justify it in great detail - even if our original choice has been covertly exchanged for something else.

 

Importantly, the effects of choice blindness go beyond snap judgements. Depending on what our volunteers say in response to the mismatched outcomes of choices (whether they give short or long explanations, give numerical rating or labelling, and so on) we found this interaction could change their future preferences to the extent that they come to prefer the previously rejected alternative. This gives us a rare glimpse into the complicated dynamics of self-feedback ("I chose this, I publicly said so, therefore I must like it"), which we suspect lies behind the formation of many everyday preferences.

 

Strikingly, people detected no more than a third of all these trick trials. Even when we switched such remarkably different flavours as spicy cinnamon and apple for bitter grapefruit jam, the participants spotted less than half of all switches.

 

Did they think they would have noticed the switches? Consistently, between 80 and 90 per cent of people said that they believed they would have noticed something was wrong.

 

Since many of our moral judgments were basically spoon fed to us as children, this is particularly relevant.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

[Pangloss]

The idea of using science as a guide to moral choice is very compelling. But when special interest groups take up that banner and run with it I tend to get a little wary. Often they'll take a study and run with it as fact, demonizing any who disagree. Later some other study will come out and we'll learn that things were not as they seemed.

 

The history of male infant circumcision might be an interesting topic to analyze in this context as a useful example, since it's less emotionally charged than other subjects. Society has gone back and forth on this one so many times since the 1960s that I've lost count. Last I'd heard it was "out", but I read an article recently about how it's back "in" again due to a study confirming decreased risk of HIV. Problem was, I advised a friend not to circumsize his boys a few years back because the science debunked any benefits as myths.

 

And the things is, every article I emailed him is probably still available. It's not as if they're attached to RSS feeds connecting that old information to this new study (wouldn't that be useful?). There is some risk in having a society take a moral position and then change its mind later. Not only do we all look like hypocrits, causing some to stop listening, but we also caused something to happen that may have consequnces down the road.

[Severian]

It's complete bollocks.

[iNow]

It's complete bollocks.

 

What is?

[Mr Skeptic]

"Basing" your morality on science. Science can tell you that you will die if you jump off a cliff. Can science tell you whether that would be "good" or "bad"? Science can certainly inform your moral system, eg if getting hurt/killed is bad, jumping off a cliff is bad.

[Kyrisch]

I think there will still be a lot of room for religious influence on morality. Many religions have stood the test of time (longer than most countries), and do have several good ideas about morality.

 

Could it be that moral ideas are a lot like memes, and those social conforms (aka morals) that lead to more cohesive or more effective society stay around due to natural selection? If this is the case, than science can definitely define which morals are "the best" in showing which morals stayed around the longest and why.

[Baby Astronaut]

I agree with Severian. Differentiating right from wrong is not science in any way. That's opening a can of worms too.

[Kyrisch]

I agree with Severian. Differentiating right from wrong is not science in any way. That's opening a can of worms too.

 

Except that neither you nor Severian have made any sort of attempt to explain exactly why the ideas expounded in the video are 'bollocks', which doesn't reflect very well on your opinion.

[john5746]

"Basing" your morality on science. Science can tell you that you will die if you jump off a cliff. Can science tell you whether that would be "good" or "bad"? Science can certainly inform your moral system, eg if getting hurt/killed is bad, jumping off a cliff is bad.

 

I agree. The goals or desires of humanity cannot be decided by science, but I think given goals and constraints, science should be able to provide best paths to reach them. Certainly better than trial and error? Or maybe we simulate the trial and error and implement accordingly.

[bascule]

I haven't watched his video, but I don't really see how science enters into questions about morality.

 

Morality is philosophical in nature.

[iNow]

I haven't watched his video, but ...

 

Always a troubling way to begin a post...

[bascule]

Always a troubling way to begin a post...

 

I guess... I can't imagine any arguments he could make which would convince me otherwise. However I'm not in a place where I can watch the video right now, so I can only guess.

 

What is his argument connecting science to morality?

[john5746]

What is his argument connecting science to morality?

 

His main argument is that as neuroscience reveals more details about the brain, we will be able to measure human well-being and the effect moral codes have on it. He also argues that science should be concerned with the application of knowledge gained towards human flourishing. Just as we know that certain diets are better for people than others, the same would be true for moral codes. There may be no absolute best even for one individual, but still there are good and bad diets.

[bascule]

His main argument is that as neuroscience reveals more details about the brain, we will be able to measure human well-being and the effect moral codes have on it.

 

Umm, kay, weird...

 

He also argues that science should be concerned with the application of knowledge gained towards human flourishing.

 

Well duh, I think most scientists want to use science to make the world a better place...

 

Just as we know that certain diets are better for people than others, the same would be true for moral codes.

 

In terms of how morality benefits society, there cannot possibly be any better moral code than utilitarianism, which by definition seeks to maximize positive outcomes for the greatest number of people.

 

I'll take a peek at the video, but really... I feel he's conflating two completely unrelated topics.

[Kyrisch]

In terms of how morality benefits society, there cannot possibly be any better moral code than utilitarianism, which by definition seeks to maximize positive outcomes for the greatest number of people.

 

...Which he suggests should be determined scientifically. It's a truly utilitarian concept.

[Mr Skeptic]

Neuroscience: allowing you to do unto others as they would like you to do unto them.

[iNow]

Neuroscience: allowing you to do unto others as they would like you to do unto them.

 

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

 

 

http://www.sfn.org/

Neuroscience includes the study of:

• Brain development
  
  
• Sensation and perception
  
  
• Learning and memory
  
  
• Movement
  
  
• Sleep
  
  
• Stress
  
  
• Aging
  
  
• Neurological and psychiatric disorders
  
  
• Molecules, cells and genes responsible for nervous system functioning
  
  

 

 

Actually... You know what? Never mind.

 

I don't feel like taking this potentially interesting thread even further off topic simply by following your lead. I'll lead my own path.

 

 

I get the sense that the challenges to the idea of a science-based/informed morality coming from folks who have not even bothered to view the short video in the OP. Are there specific challenges anyone can make after reviewing the short talk?

[Pangloss]

There you go again trying to render other people's opinions to be incorrect.

[bascule]

Okay, I watched the video:

 

To achieve the level of comprehension of the brain he's describing we'd have to create strong AI. There's no two ways around it... he's talking about using neuroscience to understand extremely high level behaviors which can't even be comprehended without a comprehensive model of how consciousness itself operates. It's the kind of cognitive science that couldn't take place until you had a complete model of the brain inside a computer to play with.

 

At that point, huge parts of philosophy can actually start becoming sciences, particularly any that deals with human nature (and by extension the nature of conscious processes). Memetics could become a real science.

 

But, I mean, he's quoting Hume, that's cool... it's better that what I was expecting based on how people were describing it.

 

But seriously, he's talking about a science-to-be much in the same way that Stephen Wolfram talks about cellular automata as being a "New Kind of Science" or many who embraced memetics as a science. They're not really sciences at this point.