Support NeoGAF

[Devolution]

I'll put myself out there and say I disagree with everyone saying that science cannot in principle answer moral question. The way I see it, once you actually define what you mean by "immoral", then the sentence "X is immoral" is either well defined in an axiomatic system, or it references the material world, or it is nonsense. If it's the second, it can be tested scientifically, if it's the first it can be proved logically (with some exceptions in sufficiently complex axiomatic systems), and if it's the third then you didn't actually say anything at all. I'd be interested in any counter examples people can propose, but I submit that what you are thinking is a counter example will in fact turn out to be a complicated and deceptive version of the 3rd category and you didn't examine it very well. And before you respond with "well everyone has to come up with a definition of moral! That makes it subjective and therefore you are wrong" Please examine this argument in the same light "Well, you have to come up with a definition of blue! That makes whether your shirt is blue subjective and therefore you are wrong."

How can a topic like abortion be solved by science rather than philosophy. Science tells us all the stages from blastocyst to fully developed fetus but how does it answer the question of when it's okay or whether it's okay at all to perform.

 

[Oersted]

Do you want murder, rape, child abuse, etc. to be illegal? If you do, then you want to force your morality or ethics on other people. Everybody wants to force their ethics on other people. If we didn't, the society couldn't exist.



The last thing we want is for people to construct their own code for themselves. Because people like Charles Manson will construct a code that involves killing innocent people, or fundamentalist Muslims will construct a code that involves making singing illegal or kiling gay people.




'The Moral Landscape' is not supposed to be a philosophical education. At all.

We now have over 5000 years of murdering, killing, surpressing and keeping mankind in dark. Excuse pretty often: religion.

The fight for human rights was fought against religions, never with them.

 

[tino]

Well Buddhism has always been a very philosophical religion.

 

[twobear]

I'll put myself out there and say I disagree with everyone saying that science cannot in principle answer moral question. The way I see it, once you actually define what you mean by "immoral", then the sentence "X is immoral" is either well defined in an axiomatic system, or it references the material world, or it is nonsense. If it's the second, it can be tested scientifically, if it's the first it can be proved logically (with some exceptions in sufficiently complex axiomatic systems), and if it's the third then you didn't actually say anything at all. I'd be interested in any counter examples people can propose, but I submit that what you are thinking is a counter example will in fact turn out to be a complicated and deceptive version of the 3rd category and you didn't examine it very well. And before you respond with "well everyone has to come up with a definition of moral! That makes it subjective and therefore you are wrong" Please examine this argument in the same light "Well, you have to come up with a definition of blue! That makes whether your shirt is blue subjective and therefore you are wrong."

AJ Ayer, is that you?

 

[Beatrix]

I like this. Excited and grateful to see him come to my school (Syracuse University) for a peace concert!

 

[umop_3pisdn]

Like I said - not a religion, has religious followers.
A sect is nothing but a group of people splintering off and doing things their own way.

There's no such thing as "Buddhism", like "Hinduism" it's just a word created from the western study of varied eastern religious traditions. Have you ever really inquired into what the definition of a religion might be? I think that if you had you wouldn't be so sure that Buddhism (as some mythical whole) doesn't qualify, it's not exactly an easy thing to define.

I will actually try to provide one (thought it isn't mine), I'm referring to my earlier post in this thread:

"Religions are confluences of organic-cultural flows that intensify joy and confront suffering by drawing on human and suprahuman forces to make home and cross boundaries." (Thomas A. Tweed, Crossing and Dwelling)

According to this Buddhism is a religion.

 

[markot]

We now have over 5000 years of murdering, killing, surpressing and keeping mankind in dark. Excuse pretty often: religion.

The fight for human rights was fought against religions, never with them.

But dude, some people used bible quotes to comdemn bad stuff, so like the bible is always right. Ignoring that other people on the other side were using the same bible, and often similar quotes, to support bad stuff.

Religion is an !

Science is a ?

Religion is a refuge for the morally weak. God, im sounding all nietzschean.

 

[pigeon]

I'll put myself out there and say I disagree with everyone saying that science cannot in principle answer moral question. The way I see it, once you actually define what you mean by "immoral", then the sentence "X is immoral" is either well defined in an axiomatic system, or it references the material world, or it is nonsense.

Congratulations, you just jumped past the entire question.

 

[Air]

This reminds me of the Godel quote "religions are for the most part, bad, but religion is not.", which is something I do believe. I organized religions need heavy retooling to make them better for people. His quote doesn't come off as hung ho for science either (as in science can answer moral questions), but I might be misinterpreting it.

We now have over 5000 years of murdering, killing, surpressing and keeping mankind in dark. Excuse pretty often: religion.

The fight for human rights was fought against religions, never with them.

Please take a history class.

 

[lopaz]

cool. i was just debating this topic with my mother, who does not think morality (edit: i mean ethics) can exist without religion.

in my view, true ethics are behaving ethically because it is the right thing to do, and not just to avoid being punished. religion holds this back because it is so focused on submission to authority and avoiding punishment.

Hmm the 'right' thing to do is a difficult concept. In the OP quote Sam Harris is arguing for morality based on human and animal well-being. Who is to say this is 'right' or 'morally good'? It can't come from science, which deals only in judgement-free facts. It must come from philosophy at the very least

A Buddhist gave a talk in my first year of uni, where he said try as it might, science will never be able to quantify or measure the subjective experience, given that it is non-physical, a 'spirit' if you like. I remember arguing with him vehemently at the time, but I've come round to this point of view

 

[Wolfe]

Oh man, after that Romney thread this was a good one to stumble into. Put a big smile on my face

 

[Devolution]

Congratulations, you just jumped past the entire question.

How I view it is: science provides facts it doesn't tell people how to act on said facts. That would be philosophy (or religion). As science gives us greater knowledge of the world around us, that shapes and informs our philosophical conclusions.

 

[Vaporak]

How can a topic like abortion be solved by science rather than philosophy. Science tells us all the stages from blastocyst to fully developed fetus but how does it answer the question of when it's okay or whether it's okay at all to perform.

Exactly in the way I proposed in the post you quoted. If someone wants to claim that abortion is immoral, you test whether it's true or not by getting an exact definition of immoral from then that makes reference to the physical world and then go experiment. Take this example: a hypothetical person might say morality is making the individual happy, and since for every women giving birth makes her more happy than getting an abortion, that makes it immoral to get abortions as the women is making herself less happy. Then we can say okay, now that you've given us what you actually mean instead of using fuzzy language, we go test it. In my 2 seconds of google searching, it seems women who have children are not in fact more happy than those who don't! We have now scientifically decided that abortion is not in fact immoral*.

*using the definition of immoral given in the statement just like we used the definition of all words in the statement.

 

[lopaz]

What are you even talking about. Everyone has a moral and ethical code that is unique.

I do wonder if these codes are anything inherent to our being rather than culturally learned. I recall as children happily tormenting animals, it was only my mother's rebukes that made me feel bad about it eventually.

I'm rather of the viewpoint that moral systems are social constructs to aid and abet our survival. A society internalises something as the 'right' thing to do, but when one questions these codes deeper it almost always comes down, at the root, to control of resources that help us survive and reproduce

 

[Vaporak]

Congratulations, you just jumped past the entire question.

I'll be blunt, if you are making a claim that a proposition is true but can't define the words in your proposition, then you shouldn't be claiming it's true.

 

[lopaz]

Exactly in the way I proposed in the post you quoted. If someone wants to claim that abortion is immoral, you test whether it's true or not by getting an exact definition of immoral from then that makes reference to the physical world and then go experiment. Take this example: a hypothetical person might say morality is making the individual happy, and since for every women giving birth makes her more happy than getting an abortion, that makes it immoral to get abortions as the women is making herself less happy. Then we can say okay, now that you've given us what you actually mean instead of using fuzzy language, we go test it. In my 2 seconds of google searching, it seems women who have children are not in fact more happy than those who don't! We have now scientifically decided that abortion is not in fact immoral*.

*using the definition of immoral given in the statement just like we used the definition of all words in the statement.

Can't recall where it was (sorreh!) but I think I saw a study saying that moral decision making is not based on logical 'rules' at all but just emotional, in-the-moment decision making.

When we see someone get murdered in front of us, it sparks a wave of emotions. This is because we, as animals, naturally construct social groups where those who kill are socially rejected/excluded/punished. We demand this person be punished, and attempt to assist the victim's family however we can, but it's not really based on a moral precept. It's based on our inherent social behaviours that help us survive in groups

 

[Devolution]

Exactly in the way I proposed in the post you quoted. If someone wants to claim that abortion is immoral, you test whether it's true or not by getting an exact definition of immoral from then that makes reference to the physical world and then go experiment. Take this example: a hypothetical person might say morality is making the individual happy, and since for every women giving birth makes her more happy than getting an abortion, that makes it immoral to get abortions as the women is making herself less happy. Then we can say okay, now that you've given us what you actually mean instead of using fuzzy language, we go test it. In my 2 seconds of google searching, it seems women who have children are not in fact more happy than those who don't! We have now scientifically decided that abortion is not in fact immoral*.

*using the definition of immoral given in the statement just like we used the definition of all words in the statement.

How do people initially decide that the happiness of women is the moral high ground?

I do wonder if these codes are anything inherent to our being rather than culturally learned. I recall as children happily tormenting animals, it was only my mother's rebukes that made me feel bad about it eventually.

I'm rather of the viewpoint that moral systems are social constructs to aid and abet our survival. A society internalises something as the 'right' thing to do, but when one questions these codes deeper it almost always comes down, at the root, to control of resources that help us survive and reproduce

Oh definitely there are strong moral codes that society enforces but there are times when you make decisions for yourself and might even break or bend some moral codes. Like for instance, lying, when is that appropriate? The individual decides this on a pretty frequent basis.

 

[pigeon]

I'll be blunt, if you are making a claim that a proposition is true but can't define the words in your proposition, then you shouldn't be claiming it's true.

The question of what is and is not immoral is the entire question of morality and ethics. The reason people disagree on it is not because people disagree on obvious things like the results of specific actions or how to test those results -- that literally doesn't take more than a high school education to understand. They disagree because they don't agree on the fundamental definitions. So your brilliant solution to solve these disagreements by testing the results of specific actions is basically about as new and exciting as the concept of morality itself.

 

[lopaz]

How do people initially decide that the happiness of women is the moral high ground?

Oh definitely there are strong moral codes that society enforces but there are times when you make decisions for yourself and might even break or bend some moral codes. Like for instance, lying, when is that appropriate? The individual decides this on a pretty frequent basis.

Could this sort of decision-making not be a shortcut somehow?

OK this is highly speculative of me, but hear me out. Say you live in a social group where members must co-operate to ensure better chances of survival (which let's face it, all of us do). A group where acting in the group interest becomes synonymous with your self-interest, due to strong enforcement of the group's norms.

Each individual member only has so much 'brain power', so to speak, to dedicate to decision making during a day.

Trying to figure out every last situation where a lie would benefit yourself at the expense of the group is mentally taxing. It requires subterfuge, strategising, and emotional self-control.
By contrast, simply internalising a moralistic attitude of 'lying is wrong', or 'I am not a liar' is a far more efficient use of your own mental resources, as 90% of the time, telling the truth will earn your social standing within the group, and the accompanying rewards. This internalised attitude then feeds into your minute-by-minute decision making process

 

[q_q]

Exactly in the way I proposed in the post you quoted. If someone wants to claim that abortion is immoral, you test whether it's true or not by getting an exact definition of immoral from then that makes reference to the physical world and then go experiment. Take this example: a hypothetical person might say morality is making the individual happy, and since for every women giving birth makes her more happy than getting an abortion, that makes it immoral to get abortions as the women is making herself less happy. Then we can say okay, now that you've given us what you actually mean instead of using fuzzy language, we go test it. In my 2 seconds of google searching, it seems women who have children are not in fact more happy than those who don't! We have now scientifically decided that abortion is not in fact immoral*.

*using the definition of immoral given in the statement just like we used the definition of all words in the statement.

Exactly. Except that the definition of immoral that a person will put forth is based on their philosophy or outlook on life, not on anything based on science. So yes, science can inform the decisions we make, and it definitely should. But it cannot make those decisions for us.

 

[thetrin]

I have no idea what kind of religion buddhism is, but I like it.

Buddhism is derived from Hinduism, and both are pretty interesting religions. As a hindu myself, I do find my limited exposure to Christianity to be a very interesting experience, and very alien in a lot of ways.

Well Buddhism has always been a very philosophical religion.

Yup. As is Hinduism.

 

[Trent Strong]

What are you even talking about. Everyone has a moral and ethical code that is unique. There are things we all agree on as a society that are bad but morals/ethics are merely informed by science not dictated by it, as well as personal opinions and experiences.

Does science tell you whether cheating on your SO is bad or good? Does science tell you whether you should buy the humane mouse trap? What is humane anyway? These are all philosophical dilemmas.

How can a topic like abortion be solved by science rather than philosophy. Science tells us all the stages from blastocyst to fully developed fetus but how does it answer the question of when it's okay or whether it's okay at all to perform.

'The Moral Landscape' admits that we will have to agree on a couple of fundamental premises that aren't really scientific questions. We need to agree that a world where everyone was maximally miserable would be worse than a world in which everyone was happy. And that the point of morality is to promote human well being. If people can agree that morality is about human (and animal) well being, then questions like "should I cheat on my SO" or "is it okay to perform abortions" can be answered scientifically (at least hypothetically).

We now have over 5000 years of murdering, killing, surpressing and keeping mankind in dark. Excuse pretty often: religion.

The fight for human rights was fought against religions, never with them.

I'm anti-religious. You don't need to convince me that religion is a terrible thing, I already think it is. Your point was that people shouldn't be trying to force their morality on others. But it's not just religious people who try to force their morality on others. Everyone who believes that laws should exist at all tries to force their morality on others.

 

[7Th]

I agree, but if a concept like institutionalised religion, something greater than the individual, cannot ensure the prevalence of morality, then what can?

Pragmatism and necessity.

 

[Vaporak]

How do people initially decide that the happiness of women is the moral high ground?

I wish you had payed attention to the end of my post. >.> It doesn't matter how the hypothetical women did any more than it did in my blue example. It doesn't matter that we came up with the word "blue" to mean a certain grouping of wavelengths of light, it could have been any word we chose. The only important thing, concerning whether the proposition "X is immoral" is true or not is that there exists an exact definition that is being used, just like "X is blue" is scientifically true or false just because there is an exact definition for blue that refers to the physical world.

 

[lopaz]

'The Moral Landscape' admits that we will have to agree on a couple of fundamental premises that aren't really scientific questions. We need to agree that a world where everyone was maximally miserable would be worse than a world in which everyone was happy. And that the point of morality is to promote human well being. If people can agree that morality is about human (and animal) well being, then questions like "should I cheat on my SO" or "is it okay to perform abortions" can be answered scientifically (at least hypothetically).

Suppose one was far more intelligent than all of one's close friends and associates. Intelligent enough to do things that harm others whilst benefiting oneself, and to successfully get away with it.

Not everyone is going to agree that you then shouldn't partake in such actions out of some misplaced sense of moral obligation or 'making others happy'. In fact, the very idea is ludicrous, from an evolutionary perspective.

 

[pigeon]

'The Moral Landscape' admits that we will have to agree on a couple of fundamental premises that aren't really scientific questions. We need to agree that a world where everyone was maximally miserable would be worse than a world in which everyone was happy. And that the point of morality is to promote human well being. If people can agree that morality is about human (and animal) well being, then questions like "should I cheat on my SO" or "is it okay to perform abortions" can be answered scientifically (at least hypothetically).

What is well-being? How is it measured?

 

[Devolution]

'The Moral Landscape' admits that we will have to agree on a couple of fundamental premises that aren't really scientific questions. We need to agree that a world where everyone was maximally miserable would be worse than a world in which everyone was happy. And that the point of morality is to promote human well being. If people can agree that morality is about human (and animal) well being, then questions like "should I cheat on my SO" or "is it okay to perform abortions" can be answered scientifically (at least hypothetically).

Religion or philosophy already provides the initial premises that science would help to inform. Science doesn't change the debate over those initial disagreements.

 

[q_q]

'The Moral Landscape' admits that we will have to agree on a couple of fundamental premises that aren't really scientific questions. We need to agree that a world where everyone was maximally miserable would be worse than a world in which everyone was happy. And that the point of morality is to promote human well being. If people can agree that morality is about human (and animal) well being, then questions like "should I cheat on my SO" or "is it okay to perform abortions" can be answered scientifically (at least hypothetically).

But see then you're just skipping the philosophy part to prove your point. Why must we all agree that happiness is better than misery? Why must we all agree that morality is based solely on what makes one happy? Even if we assume what you want us to assume, what do we do if the happiness of two different people are at conflict with each other?

These are all questions that only philosophy can answer. There is no scientific way of objectively answering those questions.

 

[pigeon]

But see then you're just skipping the philosophy part to prove your point. Why must we all agree that happiness is better than misery? Why must we all agree that morality is based solely on what makes one happy? Even if we assume what you want us to assume, what do we do if the happiness of two different people are at conflict with each other?

These are all questions that only philosophy can answer. There is no scientific way of objectively answering those questions.

This is the point. I agree with Trent that The Moral Landscape is not meant to be a philosophical education. That's why it's such a bad one.

 

[soul creator]

Sam Harris uses the "health" metaphor a lot because medical science makes plenty of "subjective" value judgments every day about whether something is "healthy", and no one says we can't use science to say something is healthier than another.

One might as well ask: "Well, what is health, really? Sure, I personally agree that all else being equal, having lung cancer less healthy than being cancer-free, but that's just my subjective definition! We must use philosophy to determine what the word health means!"

Or something like that. And since the brain states of sentient animals (which is what is affected by "morality") are part of the natural world, that makes it capable of being scientifically investigated. Doesn't mean the answers are super easy to find, or that there's one single answer for every moral dilemma, but just that morality is part of the natural world like anything else.

 

[q_q]

This is the point. I agree with Trent that The Moral Landscape is not meant to be a philosophical education. That's why it's such a bad one.

I see now, I misread what he meant. I guess this also answers my question from the first page of this thread about Harris's theory.

 

[Vaporak]

But see then you're just skipping the philosophy part to prove your point. Why must we all agree that happiness is better than misery? Why must we all agree that morality is based solely on what makes one happy? Even if we assume what you want us to assume, what do we do if the happiness of two different people are at conflict with each other?

These are all questions that only philosophy can answer. There is no scientific way of objectively answering those questions.

You do the same thing that you do when having a discussion about the color of a shirt and someone jumps in and says, "No it's not blue, because when I say blue it means what you know of as red!" You look at them weirdly and then get your definitions straight so you understand what each of you are actually saying and get on with the job of seeing which one of you is saying something right. It could be you, him, neither, or both! But you'll only know when you realize what's going on and stop using the same word to mean different things. You're just having a silly syntax issue, not a serious semantics issue.

 

[q_q]

Sam Harris uses the "health" metaphor a lot because medical science makes plenty of "subjective" value judgments every day about whether something is "healthy", and no one says we can't use science to say something is healthier than another.

One might as well ask: "Well, what is health, really? Sure, I personally agree that all else being equal, having lung cancer less healthy than being cancer-free, but that's just my subjective definition! We must use philosophy to determine what the word health means!"

Or something like that. And since human brain states (which is what is affected by "morality") are part of the natural world, that makes it capable of being scientifically investigated. Doesn't mean the answers are super easy to find, or that there's one single answer for every moral dilemma, but just that morality is part of the natural world like anything else.

It is an interesting argument but he loses me when he attempts to apply objective methods to something that is entirely subjective. Morality is a human construct, something that exists separate from the natural world (which is of course my own philosophical opinion, hah). But then I guess he has already decided on a philosophical outlook, which he then attempts to back up with scientific analysis. The way he words his argument seems very misleading to me then, because when he says "science can answer moral questions" he means "science can answer moral questions, if you agree on my philosophical outlook."

 

[Opiate]

Modern "morality" or "ethics" and certainly modern law is almost entirely based on reason and logic, but for some reason we just never noticed the transition occuring.

Equality of women. Abolition of slavery. Ethical treatment of animals. None of these behaviors is endorsed by the major western religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) and yet they have become commonplace. How did this happen?

Over the course of decades or centuries, reasoned argument and available scientific evidence convinced people of these positions. It just happens so gradually that we don't even notice, and we certainly are never explicitly aware of the origins of these morals. But this is indeed their origin -- logic and evidence.

 

[pigeon]

Sam Harris uses the "health" metaphor a lot because medical science makes plenty of "subjective" value judgments every day about whether something is "healthy", and no one says we can't use science to say something is healthier than another.

One might as well ask: "Well, what is health, really? Sure, I personally agree that all else being equal, having lung cancer less healthy than being cancer-free, but that's just my subjective definition! We must use philosophy to determine what the word health means!"

Or something like that.

I do like this metaphor.

Because our understanding of health is fundamentally flawed and driven by fads and disproven theories, such that fat was bad and then it was good and then only some fats were bad and then actually those fats were good and the other fats were bad and then actually forget fats carbohydrates are the problem.

Because although we can tell when somebody's dying, too often we have no idea why they're dying, what we did wrong, or whether we did anything wrong, much less what to do about it.

Because there are still debates and unanswered questions about the most basic tenets of health, such as the French paradox, that people would prefer not to talk about.

And, of course, because given two people, unless one of them has cancer, if you asked "which of these people is healthier?" there would really be no way to answer that question, much less to do so in terms of measurable units of health that could be extrapolated to a national population.

 

[lopaz]

Sam Harris uses the "health" metaphor a lot because medical science makes plenty of "subjective" value judgments every day about whether something is "healthy", and no one says we can't use science to say something is healthier than another.

One might as well ask: "Well, what is health, really? Sure, I personally agree that all else being equal, having lung cancer less healthy than being cancer-free, but that's just my subjective definition! We must use philosophy to determine what the word health means!"

Or something like that. And since the brain states of sentient animals (which is what is affected by "morality") are part of the natural world, that makes it capable of being scientifically investigated. Doesn't mean the answers are super easy to find, or that there's one single answer for every moral dilemma, but just that morality is part of the natural world like anything else.

See, isn't the term 'healthy' unscientific? It's what gets peddled in the popular press to explain the science to a large bulk of people in a way they're likely to respond to, but when one looks at scientific papers themselves, it's all "protoplasmic iodinic compound B-2643334 was found to kill 30% of cancer cells amongst the under 30s in a double blind reverse-backflip study conducted under laboratory conditions".

When we say things like 'healthy' it really sounds more like philosophy to me.

 

[q_q]

You do the same thing that you do when having a discussion about the color of a shirt and someone jumps in and says, "No it's not blue, because when I say blue it means what you know of as red!" You look at them weirdly and then get your definitions straight so you understand what each of you are actually saying and get on with the job of seeing which one of you is saying something right. It could be you, him, neither, or both! But you'll only know when you realize what's going on and stop using the same word to mean different things. You're just having a silly syntax issue, not a serious semantics issue.

If that is so, then answer this question with only scientific analysis, or at least explain how you theoretically could: If a person does something that upsets me and then apologizes to me, should I accept his apology or not?

That is a moral question, so how would I answer it scientifically? I don't pose this question solely to argue, I'm legitimately curious as to how you would answer this with that theory.

 

[Devolution]

Modern "morality" or "ethics" and certainly modern law is almost entirely based on reason and logic, but for some reason we just never noticed the transition occuring.

Equality of women. Abolition of slavery. Ethical treatment of animals. None of these behaviors is endorsed by the major western religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) and yet they have become commonplace. How did this happen?

Over the course of decades or centuries, reasoned argument and available scientific evidence convinced people of these positions. It just happens so gradually that we don't even notice, and we certainly are never explicitly aware of the origins of these morals. But this is indeed their origin -- logic and evidence.

Science actually puts us in a quagmire about the ethical treatment of animals does it not? We have to decide whether our ability to cure diseases, measure the effects of treatments and diets outweighs breeding animals merely for experimentation. One can even make that argument for how we process food to eat.

 

[Vaporak]

I do like this metaphor.

Because our understanding of health is fundamentally flawed and driven by fads and disproven theories, such that fat was bad and then it was good and then only some fats were bad and then actually those fats were good and the other fats were bad and then actually forget fats carbohydrates are the problem.

Because although we can tell when somebody's dying, too often we have no idea why they're dying, what we did wrong, or whether we did anything wrong, much less what to do about it.

Because there are still debates and unanswered questions about the most basic tenets of health, such as the French paradox, that people would prefer not to talk about.

And, of course, because given two people, unless one of them has cancer, if you asked "which of these people is healthier?" there would really be no way to answer that question, much less to do so in terms of measurable units of health that could be extrapolated to a national population.

Serious question, would you prefer modern medicine or medical treatment from 2000 years ago. If you agree that modern medical treatment is preferable, then you agree that science has answered questions that have all the same issues you are giving with science talking about morality. Therefore your arguments as to why science cannot answer moral questions are invalid.

 

[pigeon]

Equality of women. Abolition of slavery. Ethical treatment of animals. None of these behaviors is endorsed by the major western religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) and yet they have become commonplace. How did this happen?

I don't really agree with this. At the very least, the abolition of slavery is actually a pretty key idea in Christianity and Judaism, and indeed Christians were well-represented in the abolitionist movement.

 

[Az987]

I'm pretty sure they made a mistake and I'm the real Dalai Lama.

 

[Trent Strong]

It is an interesting argument but he loses me when he attempts to apply objective methods to something that is entirely subjective. Morality is a human construct, something that exists separate from the natural world (which is of course my own philosophical opinion, hah). But then I guess he has already decided on a philosophical outlook, which he then attempts to back up with scientific analysis. The way he words his argument seems very misleading to me then, because when he says "science can answer moral questions" he means "science can answer moral questions, if you agree on my philosophical outlook."

How many people in the world actually believe that a world where everyone is miserable is better than a world were everyone is happy though? Less than one percent? Even people who believe that the world was created by god to be some sort of incredibly difficult trial still believe that the final goal is Heaven...where everyone is happy and not miserable. Even for these crazy religious fanatics, the final goal of morality is human well being, just in heaven and not necessarily on Earth. So, if you break it down, almost everyone does agree that the point of morality is well being, and science can tell us (or maybe in the future it can, once we learn more about neuroscience, etc.) whether or not certain moral stances will lead to more or less human well being.

 

[Air]

Sam Harris uses the "health" metaphor a lot because medical science makes plenty of "subjective" value judgments every day about whether something is "healthy", and no one says we can't use science to say something is healthier than another.

One might as well ask: "Well, what is health, really? Sure, I personally agree that all else being equal, having lung cancer less healthy than being cancer-free, but that's just my subjective definition! We must use philosophy to determine what the word health means!"

Or something like that.

Healthy for whom? Mental or physical health? Good for the species, bad for you? What matters more? What is your frame of reference for judging? This sounds like 'Movie X is 10% funnier than movie Y' to me, and since people have different standards for health or humor, how exactly does one go about quantifying it?

 

[Devolution]

How many people in the world actually believe that a world where everyone is miserable is better than a world were everyone is happy though?Less than one percent? Even people who believe that the world was created by god to be some sort of incredibly difficult trial still believe that the final goal is Heaven...where everyone is happy and not miserable. Even for these crazy religious fanatics, the final goal of morality is human well being, just in heaven and not necessarily on Earth. So, if you break it down, almost everyone does agree that the point of morality is well being, and science can tell us (or maybe in the future it can, once we learn more about neuroscience, etc.) whether or not certain moral stances will lead to more or less human well being.

It doesn't matter, it's still a philosophical conclusion and shared opinion which is the point.

 

[MrCunningham]

If I had a Facebook account I would add him to my friends. He seems to be one of the few people on earth who makes any sense.

 

[Cyan]

If that is so, then answer this question with only scientific analysis, or at least explain how you theoretically could: If a person does something that upsets me and then apologizes to me, should I accept his apology or not?

That is a moral question, so how would I answer it scientifically? I don't pose this question solely to argue, I'm legitimately curious as to how you would answer this with that theory.

In principle: investigate how much your utility (happiness or whatever you want to call it) increases when you reject his apology. Investigate how much your utility increases when you accept his apology. Investigate the general utility levels of groups that have a norm of rejecting apologies vs a norm of accepting apologies. Compare each side.

In practice, of course, these things are absurdly difficult to measure.

 

[pigeon]

Serious question, would you prefer modern medicine or medical treatment from 2000 years ago. If you agree that modern medical treatment is preferable, then you agree that science has answered questions that have all the same issues you are giving with science talking about morality. Therefore your arguments as to why science cannot answer moral questions are invalid.

That's simply not the case. I can appreciate scientific advances for making evidence-based advancements without believing that they have fundamentally solved all indeterminate problems. Similarly, I'm happy to agree that science can easily show that unprovoked murder is wrong without having to agree that science can therefore solve all moral issues.

 

[q_q]

How many people in the world actually believe that a world where everyone is miserable is better than a world were everyone is happy though? Less than one percent? Even people who believe that the world was created by god to be some sort of incredibly difficult trial still believe that the final goal is Heaven...where everyone is happy and not miserable. Even for these crazy religious fanatics, the final goal of morality is human well being, just in heaven and not necessarily on Earth. So, if you break it down, almost everyone does agree that the point of morality is well being, and science can tell us (or maybe in the future it can, once we learn more about neuroscience, etc.) whether or not certain moral stances will lead to more or less human well being.

Right but people agree on that due to their shared beliefs and ideals. For some people, happiness might not be the most important thing. For some people, misery may be a better outcome if something more important to them is at stake, (ie. truth, principle, etc.). That's where the philosophy part comes in. Even if we ignore that point though and agree that maximizing happiness is the moral thing to do, what do we do when the happiness of two or more people is at odds? How do we determine whose happiness is more important? Any value we assign to that happiness for scientific purposes would be based on our beliefs or ideals, which is in the realm of philosophy.

In principle: investigate how much your utility (happiness or whatever you want to call it) increases when you reject his apology. Investigate how much your utility increases when you accept his apology. Investigate the general utility levels of groups that have a norm of rejecting apologies vs a norm of accepting apologies. Compare each side.

In practice, of course, these things are absurdly difficult to measure.

Right but then this is assuming that the point of my decision should be to maximize utility. Which is a philosophical opinion.

 

[Air]

In principle: investigate how much your utility (happiness or whatever you want to call it) increases when you reject his apology. Investigate how much your utility increases when you accept his apology. Investigate the general utility levels of groups that have a norm of rejecting apologies vs a norm of accepting apologies. Compare each side.

In practice, of course, these things are absurdly difficult to measure.

I don't know if this would work as a theory for happiness though. Aren't still using subjective valuations to reach a subjective conclusion, as opposed to an objective one? Could you clarify a bit, all this morality talk has me feeling dizzy? (honest question)

 

[Trent Strong]

Healthy for whom? Mental or physical health? Good for the species, bad for you? What matters more? What is your frame of reference for judging? This sounds like 'Movie X is 10% funnier than movie Y' to me, and since people have different standards for health or humor, how exactly does one go about quantifying it?

That's the point though. People disagree about what healthy is, or about whether or not being healthy is even a good thing. But medicine is still a science. So people can disagree about a few obscure questions about the foundations of morality, and yet there can still be a science of morality. Just like there is science of medicine.