Can science answer moral questions?

[Dak]

So, he dismissed the question as profoundly stupid, yet you still want him to give an answer? I think this is a situation where we must realize that a response of "that's not even wrong" is appropriate, but YMMV.

 

Umm... yes? Otherwize, we've probably hit the point where there is no objective answer and we have to just accept it as an ethical axiom. Which I do; but which also, counter to his claims, stops it being a universal objective ethical system.

 

We can say that a psychopath like Ted Bundy takes satisfaction in the wrong things, because living a life purposed toward raping and killing women does not allow for deeper and more generalizable forms of human flourishing.

 

See, this is what I mean: 1/ Ted Bundy's ethical axioms differed from mine; 2/ hence Ted Bundy's ethical axioms were wrong; 3/ therefore, he'd have been better off with mine; 4/ did I mention my system's universal?

 

Compare Bundy’s deficits to those of a delusional physicist who finds meaningful patterns and mathematical significance in the wrong places (John Nash might have been a good example, while suffering the positive symptoms of his schizophrenia). His “Eureka!” detectors are poorly coupled to reality; he sees meaningful patterns where most people would not—and these patterns will be a very poor guide to the proper goals of physics (i.e. understanding the physical world).

 

OK... but here you can point to reality and say 'it is different to your perception of it, hence you are wrong'. That is objective.

 

Is there any doubt that Ted Bundy’s “Yes! I love this!” detectors were poorly coupled to the possibilities of finding deep fulfillment in this life, or that his overriding obsession with raping and killing young women was a poor guide to the proper goals of morality (i.e. living a fulfilling life with others)?

 

And back to subjective, including another statement that collectivism is better than individualism along with 'depth of fulfilment' (whatever that means) being better than short-term obsessive 'fulfilment'. Ted Bundy would have disagreed you know. none of this is objective.

 

Would humanity suffer more or less, on balance, if the U.S. unilaterally gave up all its nuclear weapons?

 

Why, objectively, should the US aim to minimize human suffering, on balance, rather than try to increase US power/minimize US suffering?

 

Like Severian said: "as soon as someone disagrees with your framework, you are screwed, and back to moral subjectivity".

 

tl; dr? : Which bit of 'we should be nice to everyone' do you think is objective? And you're aware that several people are objectively better off by not being nice to other people?

[Mr Skeptic]

He does do a decent job of building a moral code once he has his premise (or axiom, assumption, given, value judgement, opinion, whatever you want to call it) that "it is good to maximize the well-being of humanity" though. Then again, that idea is thousands of years old.

[iNow]

tl; dr? : Which bit of 'we should be nice to everyone' do you think is objective?

 

I don't find this to be a fair or accurate representation of what he's actually saying.

 

 

And you're aware that several people are objectively better off by not being nice to other people?

Yes, I am aware of that. Again, though... I think it quite misses the point being made. The premise is that morality is about increasing general well-being and maximizing the chances for humans to flourish. Given that, his claim is that we can, in fact, use science and its methods to factually answer questions which help us reach that goal... That while these questions are most certainly difficult to answer, an answer exists and that we should adjust our thinking to acknowledge that existence and seek it out.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Then again, that idea is thousands of years old.

 

But the idea that the methods of science can help us to ascertain actual answers to these difficult questions is not.

[Dak]

The premise is that morality is about increasing general well-being and maximizing the chances for humans to flourish. Given that, his claim is that we can, in fact, use science and its methods to factually answer questions which help us reach that goal...

 

Well, OK, but that premise stops it being universal and objective, was my point. Also, both 'well-being' and 'flourish' require definition to be useful, and i'm pretty sure that both definitions will be subjective too.

 

I'm only objecting to his claim of universality and 'entirely objective'.

[Mr Skeptic]

Yup, the only problem I have is his claim that his premise is a tautology and therefore his argument a theorem. I agree with his premise and his moral code; he's just overdoing his claim as being objective and undeniably true.

[JohnB]

I have to agree with Dak and Mr. Sceptic.

 

He came across as a case of;

1. "My ethics are superior to most other peoples."

2. "People with lesser morals should be ignored."

3. "Questions from those of lesser morals are "profoundly stupid" and require neither acknowledgement or answer."

 

"Therefore I am right."

 

The reasoning is quite circular.

1. I am right because I have superior moral outlook.

2. My moral outlook is superior because it gives greater "wellbeing".

3. It gives greater "wellbeing" because they are objectively right.

4. It is objectively right because it can't be adequately objectively objected to.

5. It can't be objectively objected to because objections can only come from suitably qualified persons.

6. Those who disagree with me are "profoundly stupid" and are therefore not suitably qualified to object.

7. Because my moral outlook can't be objected to it must be right.

8. Because it is right, it must be a superior moral outlook.

9. Because I agree with it and it must be right, I must be right.

 

Go to Step 1.

 

While I happen to believe that in general Western values do tend towards giving greater "wellbeing" for the populace I don't believe that we should force our values on other cultures. Cultural Imperialism isn't just a buzz word. It is better for a people to want to adopt our values than for us to try and ram them down their throats.

 

I also thought the use of logical fallacies undermined his intent in the original talk.

[iNow]

I enjoyed this.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxdgCxK4VUA

dxdgCxK4VUA

 

 

 

It was a short part of a longer one hour discussion.

[forufes]

Or, with the paedo example: scientifically speaking, should you give paedos chemicals that remove their sex-drive, or give kids chemicals that make them pass out and not remember it (thus not objectively suffering)?

 

Hell, sounds better to tranq kids: 'fixing' the paedos means that kids don't suffer and paedos don't have fun; tranqing kids just means that kids don't suffer, so objectively that approach is better apart from the fact that their parents would mind (just don't let them find out?).

.....

sorry, couldn't resist it:embarass:..

 

the object fact of the matter is, science frees us from morals, dak sated it well in #24 and later, but scientifically speaking, why would i enjoy my one life ride any less for the sake of somebody else's one life ride?

when the individual reaches that conclusion, he screws humanity, and if he's lucky, he'll enjoy it(i know i would:D)

 

wanting to be nice, being nice to others, appreciation and admiration are things we like as well, that's why people sacrifice themselves for others, even animals, because those feelings are worth for you the pain you'll take. that's how good (naive) people think, which is very constructive for society.

 

but not all people think that way, one may say not even most of them, and it takes a handful of them for humans to be no more.

 

if you tell a person "helping others is good"

and he asks "why?"

and you say "does it feel good when someone helps you?"

and they say "yes"

and you smile....

and they say "so??".....

 

....and science can't say a thing.lol.

[Mr Skeptic]

the object fact of the matter is, science frees us from morals, dak sated it well in #24 and later, but scientifically speaking, why would i enjoy my one life ride any less for the sake of somebody else's one life ride?

when the individual reaches that conclusion, he screws humanity, and if he's lucky, he'll enjoy it(i know i would:D)

 

Duh. Among us humans we're always better off focusing on ourselves, so many of us do so if we can get away with it. The fact of the matter is, we evolved with and despite this problem into a social species. Now, how do you think the rest of the group responds to selfishness? We instinctively seek justice, revenge, fairness. Sometimes even when we could have gotten away with selfishness.

 

On the other hand, the social insects are such that the queen's offspring are more related to everyone in the hive than the worker's offspring would be. Hence, greed in counterproductive and they give selflessly to the hive.

[forufes]

I enjoyed this.

you enjoyed him running away from the bulls eye question and instead beating religion down? how typical, no wonder they like him;).

Duh. Among us humans we're always better off focusing on ourselves, so many of us do so if we can get away with it.

and they do, look at the "captains of industry":-(

 

The fact of the matter is, we evolved with and despite this problem into a social species.

i didn't think of that before, and i can't quite see it's significance.

 

we are selfish, yet we became social....meaning:confused:

 

Now, how do you think the rest of the group responds to selfishness? We instinctively seek justice, revenge, fairness. Sometimes even when we could have gotten away with selfishness.

 

On the other hand, the social insects are such that the queen's offspring are more related to everyone in the hive than the worker's offspring would be. Hence, greed in counterproductive and they give selflessly to the hive.

 

i really don't see what you're trying to say.

[Dak]

A worker-bee's niece would be more genetically related to her than her own offspring, due to a clever genetic trick that they use.

 

So even the seemingly utmost in altruism and self-sacrifice -- forgoing the chance to pass on your genes in favour of creating more sisters (which would seem to be evolutionarily selected against) -- is in fact selfish, and represents the worker bee's best chance to pass her genes on.

[Mr Skeptic]

The fact of the matter is, we evolved with and despite this problem into a social species.

i didn't think of that before, and i can't quite see it's significance.

 

we are selfish, yet we became social....meaning:confused:

 

Scenario: selfish person A starts killing other people and taking their valuables. Therefore selfish person A is better off and prospers and there is no hope for society and no one will bother to do anything about it. Or will they? Would a rational but totally and completely selfish person behave as Person A in the real world? Why or why not?

[pioneer]

One might look at this in terms of teamwork. A team is an entity that is greater than the sum of its parts. Say you had a sports team, where one player hogs the ball to boost their scoring average. Will this be in the best interest of the team? Will the team still be better than the sum of its parts?

 

The answer depends on whether he is the go-to-guy, whose ball hogging helps the team to dominate. Or whether is just a second string hack trying to pad their our stats at the expense of the team. The first can make the team better, while the second can cause the team to suffer, making the team less than the sum of its parts. When the math goes into the minus, the team needs to act to do what is needed to get back into the plus. We might put him on the bench or jail so the team can be better than the sum of its parts.

[jimmydasaint]

I entered this discussion late but would point out sheer human difference - social, behavioural and genetic. It is difficult to imagine that Science would be objectively used to provide each human with what he/she needs to be happy.

 

IMHO, I regard happiness, contentment, safety and achievement of potential as central to morality or the establishment of a moral system, which, I think, is what we are talking about as the eventual outcome.

 

I want to throw up a question which Science has to answer otherwise I regard it as less than perfect in solving moral questions.

 

What are five criteria of a human social system which are considered not only moral but necessary for the sanctity and happiness of life?

[Severian]

It is difficult to imagine that Science would be objectively used to provide each human with what he/she needs to be happy.

 

IMHO, I regard happiness, contentment, safety and achievement of potential as central to morality or the establishment of a moral system, which, I think, is what we are talking about as the eventual outcome.

 

I think your point demonstrates the view that science cannot answer moral questions. I would hold that morality has nothing whatsoever to do with happiness. And unless you can prove (to 95% confidence) that it does, science can answer no moral questions.

[Moontanman]

I think science can answer moral questions but like the morals of differing societies morals based in science might indeed not satisfy the moral expectations of everyone.

[ydoaPs]

I would hold that morality has nothing whatsoever to do with happiness. And unless you can prove (to 95% confidence) that it does, science can answer no moral questions.

 

Does not follow. I hold that science can, and in fact should, be used to help with moral questions. See my post above.

[Severian]

Does not follow. I hold that science can, and in fact should, be used to help with moral questions. See my post above.

 

No. Your use of science outlined in your post is not using it to answer moral questions (the question in the thread title). Your use of science is only to determine whether or not particular physical criteria have been fulfilled (or how to best go about fulfilling these criteria). The interpretation of these criteria as 'moral' is entirely subjective and outside of science.

 

For example, you might want to use science to try and determine whether or not fish feel pain when caught by anglers. That is a fair enough scientific question. But the statement that anglers should not catch fish because they feel pain, is a moral statement and has nothing to do with science.

 

To say that science can answer moral questions, is akin to saying that my keyboard replied to your post.

[forufes]

He did a slightly longer version with more nuance and detail... which also had a Q&A... at Google a coupla weeks ago. Another worthy watch.

 

 

UrA-8rTxXf0

 

so he replaced the moral code that is downed from god by a newly discovered one called "well being", and that is the core of all which is behind any moral dilemma, how is he going to maximize the "well being" of people? he doesn't know?

 

how can he replace religion with "well being", when the goal of the former is the latter? when the former is a path TO the latter, devised by the perfect source, and hence out-betters all other possible paths by definition, which are subjective ones suitable in some aspects and not others, hence not being agreed upon by everybody.

 

science measuring "well being" of "some" known building blocks of ethical dilemmas changes NOTHING, i really can't find a difference caused by all that neurological stuff, if you can assign values to some building building blocks and then be unable to give the best arrangement of those building blocks you have(not to mention all those you don't know about and thus can't measure), what good did you do? what DID you do?

 

you defined a human flourishing function to be the scale on which the subjective goals of morality can be objectively put and measured. so, go on, plug moral systems in it, show us how high they'll go... don't just stand there, operate it!

 

 

also, he says (in a way) that we shouldn't be tolerant of intolerance, we shouldn't be tolerant of violent intolerance. and i wonder how violent he's willing to be in his intolerance of violent intolerance.

 

 

also two very important points separating scientific measurements from reaching objective morality;

1- if something is going towards the well being of humans when applied now. how about a hundred years from now when the whole world might be suffering because of our moral choice for it not to suffer? like saving a kid the suffering of studying and instead offering him the "flourishing" of a game console instead?

 

do humans have the foresight to take morality to their own hands? to claim they can reach an objective one?(when even subjective ones backlash sometimes)

 

 

2-if something is morally wrong based on the knowledge we currently have, may it not be moral after obtaining more knowledge? like finding out that in a certain village gouging out the eyes of third children pushes most couples not to have third children and so reducing competition on the already scarce resources of the village and preventing inner strafes and cannibalism within the village have couples bred as they liked? putting the village on the top of flourishing hill in his proposed landscape?

hah, add to that if the villagers were asked directly not to over breed they wouldn't comply and they would challenge the wisdom of the leader or prefer to breed as they like and fight others to feed their kin rather than restrict themselves... while when presented religiously, all went well??

 

do humans have(at any certain point) the knowledge required to deduce what is affecting their well being and what APPEARS to be affecting their well being?

 

if god doesn't exist, using him as the only viable source for a moral code still is the only acceptable answer for perfect objective morality.

 

 

also, he can understand a jihadist finding it morally good to blow himself up and going to heaven, and acknowledges that as one view of human flourishing... but can't see the same thing about removing the eyeballs of every third child? i find it weird of him.. i'm seriously doubting the extent to which he knows what he's talking about.

 

and my vocabulary isn't that wide, and i don't need a brain scanner to tell me the difference between humiliation and embarrassment.

 

bottom line, i find that guy talking considerably a lot to end up saying very little, the best thing i came out of that one hour something video was the chess analogy for right and wrong decisions.

[Dak]

I would hold that morality has nothing whatsoever to do with happiness. And unless you can prove (to 95% confidence) that it does, science can answer no moral questions.

 

Actually, if I could scientifically prove a correlation between morality and science, it still wouldn't follow that science could or should answer moral questions.

[iNow]

so he replaced the moral code that is downed from god by a newly discovered one called "well being"

 

How does one replace something which never existed in the first place?

 

Much of your rant is more about you being pissed that he's taking god out of the equation and less about him suggesting there truly are some objectively right and objectively wrong actions, and that right/wrong be compared against the metric of overall human well-being.

 

My view of the idea here is that it is, in fact, a good idea to seek answers to these questions using our method of science where possible, and that we should stop arbitrarily accepting that morality is handed to us directly from our preferred dogma anthology.

[forufes]

How does one replace something which never existed in the first place?

so the theistic moral code never existed in the first place?

stop trying to bend what i said.

Much of your rant is more about you being pissed that he's taking god out of the equation and less about him suggesting there truly are some objectively right and objectively wrong actions, and that right/wrong be compared against the metric of overall human well-being.

my rant is because he started with his conclusion (god isn't needed) and offerred close to nothing as a proof or alternative.

 

we can measure the pleasure one feels under certain conditions.

we can try and list those conditions whcih contribute to the human's well being.

......

then what?

eh inow? where's good and evil? our modern scientific gear can measure that pedos enjoy raping children, and that children do not, so should we make children enjoy rape or kill the pesos sex drive?

 

and i (along with those who asked the quetions in the end) showed lots and lots of loop holes in his attempt, even if what he offered isn't solid enough to even contain loop holes, so if you really want to support his case, reply to the raised points in my "rant":eyebrow:

 

 

My view of the idea here is that it is, in fact, a good idea to seek answers to these questions using our method of science where possible, and that we should stop arbitrarily accepting that morality is handed to us directly from our preferred dogma anthology.

yeees.. your idea is to try to abandon and oppose religion wherever it is, i'm sure that's pretty established.. but i'm not letting you do it in an exrtemely unscientific way here on a science forum.

 

here, answer this question(you or any other atheist or otherwise):

if i can benefit myself by harming others and can get way with it, why should i not?

 

religion successfully answers

"cuz god'll screw you up"

and science?

ehhhh???

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

if i can benefit myself by harming others and can get way with it, why should i not?

so let's take a look at possible answers;

 

-the religious one was given.

 

-cuz i simply don't want to. i do what i want and don't do what i don't want, you gotta a beef with that?

nope, but you shouldn't have a beef with those who have a different taste regarding what "they want to do".

 

if getting away with it doesn't include people not being aware of it

-because most benefits i get from harming people are weighted out by me being rejected by people, and people's acceptance is one of the most valued benefits i have in my life.

this is very strong, one may even argue that it's the ONLY driving force of any actions we carry out that don't keep us alive(IOW everything we do other than eating and shitting, is done to be recognized by others)

what of those who aren't recognized by others to from the first place? those social dropouts? those already rejected by their society?

 

if getting away with it includes people not being aware of it

-because harming others decreases my sense of self worth.

i measure others' worth with a scale of how beneficial they can be to others, if i harm others, i'm making myself worthless by my own standards.

BUT, i can be self centered, this is a one time life ride.

BUT, if it's a one time life ride, i want to achieve the highest self worth in it(illusion that leads to/explains sacrificial behavior)

 

-evolution ended up shaping us into a social species, which survives as a society, and such selfish behavior would damage and maybe destroy our society and hence our whole race, what would happen to our accumulated knowledge and technology, our heritage and civilization, our children and the memories they will hold of us?

trashed, why will you give a damn anyway? it'll all be gone once you die, so why bother with a doom that as far as you'll be concerned isn't-won't-didn't happen?

 

-because due to the technological and scientific advancements humans have achieved, it is impossible to get away with it. our science-driven ethical system came up with ways/methods/discoveries/inventions to make people self surrender when they do something wrong or able to detect guilt or can mind read or has cameras everywhere or has fool proof forensic capabilities or has altered our genes to be unable to do evil etc etc...

sigh, while i can point out MAJOR flaws specific for each one of the previous, not to mention general ones like privacy violation and all being part of the future...; me just says:

if a man was smart enough to create it, another man is smart enough to find a way(s) around it.

[iNow]

God is not needed for morality. This is an objective fact. I'll just leave it at that, as I'm not sure I'm willing to hold your hand long enough to get you to a level of understanding which is required to have this conversation intelligently.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

As I usually do in discussions on this topic, I recommend the book The Science of Good and Evil to anyone who wonders how people can be moral without religion. It even answers forufes' question from an evolutionary perspective.

[forufes]

God is not needed for morality. This is an objective fact. I'll just leave it at that, as I'm not sure I'm willing to hold your hand long enough to get you to a level of understanding which is required to have this conversation intelligently.

trolling.

 

As I usually do in discussions on this topic, I recommend the book The Science of Good and Evil to anyone who wonders how people can be moral without religion. It even answers forufes' question from an evolutionary perspective.

 

couldn't find a free online copy, not even on scribd, but not so bad reviews here and here.

i'll get one if i find it, it's either an enlightenment to a flaw in a past conception, or a validation and strengthening of it.