Support NeoGAF

[Zaptruder]

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.

While forms of happiness and misery can and do indeed differ...

If we can't even agree on something as basic as - happiness is better, misery is worse, lets have more better and less worse...

Then we are totally and irredeemably fucked.

I mean... are you seriously trying to romanticize the notion of misery? Rape, murder, enslavement among other things?

It seems so fundamentally obvious that any 'philosophy' that purports to discuss the merits of suffering for its own sake (i.e. there's not some great pay off for your self flagellation, or there's no merit to your asceticism) should be dismissed out of hand.


If we can at least agree on the notion that we want more better and less bad... more happiness less suffering - whatever form that they may take...

Then we can start to use our understanding of the world, our human natures and mix it with logic and evidence to start devising effective solutions towards increasing the degree of human happiness and reduce the degree of human suffering in the world.

 

[Cyan]

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

Well, yes. One has to have some sort of premise to get anywhere in questions of morality.

Maximizing utility seems a safe enough place to start, as it appears to be common to most (all?) forms of human morality. It's not objective in the sense of being written in words of fire on a tablet in the Sun or whatever. But it's objective in the sense of coming from observation of the real world.

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)

See above.

 

[soul creator]

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.

I guess his response to that would be you can technically get "philosophical" about every single thing we do and every single word we use. So yes, we could say the term healthy is "unscientific", and have a long philosophical debate over that. Or we could move on and work towards using science to cure cancer, and anyone who says having lung cancer is totally awesome and wonderful would be looked at as a weirdo, just like flat-earthers, lol.

"But really, what does "flat" mean? If you were to define things a different way, or look at it from an orthographic perspective, the Earth really is flat! Looks like we have ourselves a dilemma!"

Again, this process isn't "easy" by any means, and it's always gonna be a bit messy, but that could apply to every single thing we do. Maybe the difficulty is that people tend to assume science is a very strict binary thing done by people in lab coats or something ("the experiment says this is either true or false!"), when as you said, it can be pretty messy and only an approximation. But scientists (and doctors) still get work done just fine even with all that, and we still progress.

(and we don't have to waste time wondering about alternate universes where rape is totally awesome and wonderful)

 

[pigeon]

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.

And the point we're making is that inasmuch as you limit yourself to moral questions that don't rely on disagreement as to the very nature of morality, all you're talking about is a very primitive ideal of utilitarianism -- not an original idea at all, nor really an idea we haven't already adopted to the extent that it's useful and ignored to the extent that it isn't. Our society is already filled with attempts to quantify life, quality of life, and suffering, and use these measurements more or less effectively to make ethical decisions and to achieve the "greatest good for the greatest number" (Bentham, 1776). What little Sam Harris has to say that's meaningful has already been said hundreds of times in philosophy, except they weren't pretending that it wasn't philosophy. That's why he's not a good philosophical education.

 

[Zaptruder]

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.



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

Any serious consideration of happiness and suffering needs to account for long term sustainable effectiveness of a solution.

For those reasons, we consider issues of equity, truth, principle, etc.

If those things always made us suffer more under all circumstances... then there would be no value whatsoever to their use or existence.

 

[q_q]

I think many of us are arguing about different things here and it's getting confusing. But pigeon just summed up my point pretty well here so I'll settle on that.

 

[Vaporak]

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.

When you say "should" there is an implicit decision that some goal is preferable to others. So until you explicitly make that clear I can't give a definitive answer. But suppose the setup is something similar to an iterated prisoners dilemma, where group cooperation is preferred but people can get rewards for betraying, but if neither of you work together you both suffer. In the iterated prisoners delema the best know solution is to initially cooperate with anyone, then mirror their actions. I doubt that your hypothetical situation is exactly the iterated prisoners dilemma but the fact that this someone else has apologized implies continued contact at the very least. So while the model is probably only an initial approximation of your situation, with as little as I know I would suggest following a strategy based on the one from the iterated prisoners dilemma. As to the scientists of the world investigating, if that turns out to be a bad model then throw it out like good scientists and find a better one. There's nothing in the situation that seems in principle immune to the scientific method, just one that is hard to analyse and not much work has been done at this time.

 

[Zaptruder]

And the point we're making is that inasmuch as you limit yourself to moral questions that don't rely on disagreement as to the very nature of morality, all you're talking about is a very primitive ideal of utilitarianism -- not an original idea at all, nor really an idea we haven't already adopted to the extent that it's useful and ignored to the extent that it isn't. Our society is already filled with attempts to quantify life, quality of life, and suffering, and use these measurements more or less effectively to make ethical decisions and to achieve the "greatest good for the greatest number" (Bentham, 1776). What little Sam Harris has to say that's meaningful has already been said hundreds of times in philosophy, except they weren't pretending that it wasn't philosophy. That's why he's not a good philosophical education.

Ultimately his message is still useful... even if his primary merit seems to be simply better marketing of his small twist on an old philosophy in our modern world.

 

[Opiate]

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.

Neither the Old Testament nor the New makes any suggestion that slavery is immoral, although slavery is mentioned frequently. There are at least a few endorsements of slavery, however, as in Titus:

Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior

I'm not sure where you got your position from.

 

[lopaz]

I guess his response to that would be you can technically get "philosophical" about every single thing we do and every single word we use. So yes, we could say the term healthy is "unscientific", and have a long philosophical debate over that. Or we could move on and work towards using science to cure cancer, and anyone who says having lung cancer is totally awesome and wonderful would be looked at as a weirdo, just like flat-earthers, lol.

"But really, what does "flat" mean? If you were to define things a different way, or look at it from an orthographic perspective, the Earth really is flat! Looks like we have ourselves a dilemma!"

Again, this process isn't "easy" by any means, and it's always gonna be a bit messy, but that could apply to every single thing we do. Maybe the difficulty is that people tend to assume science is a very strict binary thing done by people in lab coats or something ("the experiment says this is either true or false!"), when as you said, it can be pretty messy and only an approximation. But scientists (and doctors) still get work done just fine even with all that, and we still progress.

(and we don't have to waste time wondering about alternate universes where rape is totally awesome and wonderful)

yeah you're right it's probably splitting hairs lol. I suppose a better line of thought is that morality is subjective, but not so subjective that you can divorce it from the facts and decree right and wrong with no basis, without being a lunatic.

As Douglas Adams said, not all opinions are equal blah blah etc

 

[Mgoblue201]

I think that science can do something more than merely inform our decisions but isn't quite sufficient enough to fully encompass all of morality within its framework. If morality is determined by a combination of genetics and neurology, then it can be investigated scientifically, which will help us come to a much clearer, though not necessarily complete, definition of human well-being. Furthermore, our empirical beliefs about the world, and the social and religious institutions we inhabit, influence our moral convictions. The focus on the "ought" part of morality tends to assume that morality is axiomatic, therefore missing just how much morality is the result of a larger belief system.

 

[Extra Sauce]

So a reincarnated prophet just stopped believing in reincarnation?

 

[Vaporak]

I think many of us are arguing about different things here and it's getting confusing. But pigeon just summed up my point pretty well here so I'll settle on that.

Not really, I feel like "team science" is basically all on the same page and "team philosophy" are on basically the same page. What we've been trying to do is get you to see that everything you've said as an argument against a science of morality can be leveled against PHYSICS, or for a more apt metaphor medicine, in an attempt to show you why your argument is invalid. No matter what a bunch of dead white men say, ethics isn't a special fairy immune from investigation.

 

[Freezie KO]

There is no scientific debate about reincarnation or karma. It's time to drop the "spirituality" all together.

 

[Zaptruder]

So a reincarnated prophet just stopped believing in reincarnation?

A human that has whose primary merit/biggest achievement was to be seen as a reincarnated prophet has come out against reincarnation.

Not contradictory. A little ironic.

 

[CharlieDigital]

So a reincarnated prophet just stopped believing in reincarnation?

I honestly don't believe that he believes that he's a reincarnated prophet.

 

[pigeon]

Not really, I feel like "team science" is basically all on the same page and "team philosophy" are on basically the same page. What we've been trying to do is get you to see that everything you've said as an argument against a science of morality can be leveled against PHYSICS, or for a more apt metaphor medicine, in an attempt to show you why your argument is invalid. No matter what a bunch of dead white men say, ethics isn't a special fairy immune from investigation.

These are some pretty good examples, given that we still don't have a field theory that reconciles general relativity with quantum mechanics, and yet we pretend that physics is a well-understood field with clearly defined answers. (I posted about medicine earlier.)

 

[q_q]

Not really, I feel like "team science" is basically all on the same page and "team philosophy" are on basically the same page. What we've been trying to do is get you to see that everything you've said as an argument against a science of morality can be leveled against PHYSICS, or for a more apt metaphor medicine, in an attempt to show you why your argument is invalid. No matter what a bunch of dead white men say, ethics isn't a special fairy immune from investigation.

Not quite. The argument is basically the science side denying the idea that philosophy HAS to exist in human decision making. The other side is arguing that human decision making, while it certainly can and should be informed by science, is still a part of the realm of philosophy, no matter how much you want to pretend it isn't. Your answer to my apology question was basically "Well first, we can just ignore any philosophical disagreement that may take place and then here is how science will answer it..." Not realizing that philosophical decision making is actually a part of your answer, you just don't realize it. Pigeon and devolution tried to explain this to you as well but it seems to be in vain, so I think it's best to leave the discussion alone since it's just going in circles now.

Also the last sentence in your post makes me think once again, that you're not arguing with me over what you think you are. I'm not arguing in opposition of science, I'm simply arguing over the semantics that Harris chose to use in his quotes in the OP.

 

[Air]

Well, yes. One has to have some sort of premise to get anywhere in questions of morality.

Maximizing utility seems a safe enough place to start, as it appears to be common to most (all?) forms of human morality. It's not objective in the sense of being written in words of fire on a tablet in the Sun or whatever. But it's objective in the sense of coming from observation of the real world.



See above.

I guess his response to that would be you can technically get "philosophical" about every single thing we do and every single word we use. So yes, we could say the term healthy is "unscientific", and have a long philosophical debate over that. Or we could move on and work towards using science to cure cancer, and anyone who says having lung cancer is totally awesome and wonderful would be looked at as a weirdo, just like flat-earthers, lol.

"But really, what does "flat" mean? If you were to define things a different way, or look at it from an orthographic perspective, the Earth really is flat! Looks like we have ourselves a dilemma!"

Again, this process isn't "easy" by any means, and it's always gonna be a bit messy, but that could apply to every single thing we do. Maybe the difficulty is that people tend to assume science is a very strict binary thing done by people in lab coats or something ("the experiment says this is either true or false!"), when as you said, it can be pretty messy and only an approximation. But scientists (and doctors) still get work done just fine even with all that, and we still progress.

(and we don't have to waste time wondering about alternate universes where rape is totally awesome and wonderful)

A couple of last words before I bow out.

Science is a tool used to discuss and learn about our natural world. So with the medicine example, it is used as a tool to master biology, so that when you want a cell to do 'X' it will always do 'X'. It also has the added plus of usually prolonging human life, but the body will behave in that predictable manner as it is a matter of biology. The value of a body living longer is up to the individual/society.

Now my stance is that if you want to apply a theory of Morality, you have say that following this and this regardless of one's subjective moral stance, will lead this. Like how taking this shot will always cure you from polio.

That said, I'm on the side that says science can say that 'If you shoot a person they will die', but whether or not that's bad or good is a wholly subjective experience dependent upon the observer.

I think that's all I want to say, I'm kind of befuddled at the moment though. Very interesting thread though.

edit: As a theist I would want an 'objective' morality, and if there be one maybe Science can find out!

 

[Buckethead]

Have many of you read "The Moral Landscape"?

Quickly skimming through the thread, there's a lot of comments that are addressed in the book, so I would recommend reading it or refreshing yourself if you are going to discuss his works.

Not sure where the gauntlet comes down and I don't think it's ironclad but I find myself agreeing with Harris and finding his work insightful.

I honestly don't believe that he believes that he's a reincarnated prophet.

He's humbly spun it into "not knowing" but he's basically said he doesn't think he's a reincarnated prophet for a good 20 years. To my knowledge anyway.

 

[Basileus777]

Neither the Old Testament nor the New makes any suggestion that slavery is immoral, although slavery is mentioned frequently. There are at least a few endorsements of slavery, however, as in Titus:



I'm not sure where you got your position from.

Religions aren't just a product of their religious scriptures. There isn't very much in the Christian Bible outright opposing the consumption of alcohol, yet one would be ignorant to deny the role Christianity played in prohibition. Abolitionism in the US also had significant ties to Christianity, regardless of whatever the Old Testament said.

 

[A.E Suggs]

Morals and ethics don't really have to do with science (excluding whether certain kinds of experimentation is ethical, and such matters). Science has made abortions safer and easier to perform, for example, but it does not tell us whether abortions are bad or good. People still have to construct a code for themselves. Science can help mold said code but it does not provide the answers.

This poster nails it. Why do people dislike you again?

Either way I don't give a shit, whatever happens happens and until they find a way to do what he says religion as we know it isn't going anyway. You can tell people all they want but this has been a debate for many years and still nothing has happened.

 

[twobear]

As I see it, the best that empirical enquiry can give us is what kinds of things promote different ends. But since it can't tell us which ends are preferable, it can't actually replace ethics as traditionally conceived.

But I do think it's important that empirical investigation can tell us what kinds of things promote what kinds of ends, because at least part of the problem with ethics traditionally conceived is that it's sometimes impossible to tell from the armchair whether or not particular norms promote particular ends.

Essentially, I'm all for a certain kind of experimental ethics, but I think the idea that you can derive ethical imperatives from facts about what makes people happy or sad is basically facile.

 

[markot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kstH-8jwa80&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[Opiate]

Religions aren't just a product of their religious scriptures. There isn't very much in the Christian Bible outright opposing the consumption of alcohol, yet one would be ignorant to deny the role Christianity played in prohibition. Abolitionism in the US also had significant ties to Christianity, regardless of whatever the Old Testament said.

You're clearly putting the cart before the horse here. Answer this question: if the morals do not come from scripture, where do they come from?

 

[CornBurrito]

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.

Is this a joke post? The Old Testament (Judaism especially) has instructions for keeping slaves.

 

[mclaren777]

...argues that science can answer moral questions...

Wow, that's a whole new level of scientism right there.

Is this a joke post? The Old Testament (Judaism especially) has instructions for keeping slaves.

Slavery in the OT is nothing like slavery in the modern sense..

Suggested Reading

 

[sleeping_dragon]

Im not surrprise by this. Even though im an atheist, i view buddhism as the most peacful religion in the world. It teach people to respects each others even though you dont share the same beliefs.

 

[CornBurrito]

Wow, that's a whole new level of scientism right there.

What exactly is "scientism?"

At face value, that is belief in science. So is using your car and expecting it to work scientism?

Slavery in the OT is nothing like slavery in the modern sense..

Suggested Reading

I'm well aware. It was far more like indentured servitude.

 

[Basileus777]

You're clearly putting the cart before the horse here. Answer this question: if the morals do not come from scripture, where do they come from?

What relevance does this question have to the question of whether the major religions (in this case Christianity) were a factor in the abolition of slavery?

 

[Opiate]

What relevance does this question have to the question of whether the major religions (in this case Christianity) were a factor in the abolition of slavery?

You clearly don't understand my point if you have to ask this.

Answer my question please.

 

[mclaren777]

What exactly is "scientism?"

From Wikipedia: "...belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints."

 

[pigeon]

I'm not sure where you got your position from.

Is this a joke post? The Old Testament (Judaism especially) has instructions for keeping slaves.

While I'm still not completely convinced personally, I will withdraw my earlier statement, since I'm having trouble framing an evidence-based argument to defend it. Sorry.

 

[Cyan]

What exactly is "scientism?"

Racism against science.

From Wikipedia: "...belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most authoritative worldview or most valuable part of human learning to the exclusion of other viewpoints."

Great, then call me a scientist!

 

[soul creator]

Christianity was a key factor in both promoting slavery, and abolishing it. Both sides could point to bible quotes to back up their position.

One of the reasons why I find "biblical morality" so unconvincing. You could justify anything with that book, lol

 

[Vaporak]

Not quite. The argument is basically the science side denying the idea that philosophy HAS to exist in human decision making. The other side is arguing that human decision making, while it certainly can and should be informed by science, is still a part of the realm of philosophy, no matter how much you want to pretend it isn't. Your answer to my apology question was basically "Well first, we can just ignore any philosophical disagreement that may take place and then here is how science will answer it..." Not realizing that philosophical decision making is actually a part of your answer, you just don't realize it. Pigeon and devolution tried to explain this to you as well but it seems to be in vain, so I think it's best to leave the discussion alone since it's just going in circles now.

Also the last sentence in your post makes me think once again, that you're not arguing with me over what you think you are. I'm not arguing in opposition of science, I'm simply arguing over the semantics that Harris chose to use in his quotes in the OP.

You still don't seem to be really getting it. >.> There's nothing especially "philosophical" about your question except that you assume you need philosophy. It's not that I'm "Not realizing that philosophical decision making is actually a part of your answer", what I'm doing is trying to tell you that the philosophical decision making part doesn't actually have to be there at all, you only think it does. This is exactly like you saying we need philosophy to tell us what blue is before optics can exist, or that we needed philosophy to say what "cancer" means in medicine. Until you understand why what you are doing is no different from those two examples you really aren't understanding what I'm trying to say. Sorry, Philosophy doesn't and shouldn't hold domain over defining the terms you are using.

 

[Opiate]

Christianity was a key factor in both promoting slavery, and abolishing it. Both sides could point to bible quotes to back up their position.

One of the reasons why I find "biblical morality" so unconvincing. You could justify anything with that book, lol

What part of the Bible admonishes slavery?

 

[pigeon]

You still don't seem to be really getting it. >.> There's nothing especially "philosophical" about your question except that you assume you need philosophy. It's not that I'm "Not realizing that philosophical decision making is actually a part of your answer", what I'm doing is trying to tell you that the philosophical decision making part doesn't actually have to be there at all, you only think it does. This is exactly like you saying we need philosophy to tell us what blue is before optics can exist, or that we needed philosophy to say what "cancer" means in medicine. Until you understand why what you are doing is no different from those two examples you really aren't understanding what I'm trying to say. Sorry, Philosophy doesn't and shouldn't hold domain over defining the terms you are using.

I'm really trying to be as polite as I can, but it's kind of amazing how condescending you are given your complete lack of understanding of how ethics actually works. Nobody's saying we need philosophy to tell us what "cancer" means. We need philosophy to tell us what "healthy" means.

Here's a medical question. Cancer treatment is a medical question, right? Let's say somebody has cancer and will die in six months. If you give them chemotherapy, they will die in twelve months, but they'll feel awful, lose their hair, throw up all the time, etc., etc. What is the medically correct action to take in this situation and why?

 

[Cyan]

A couple of last words before I bow out.

Science is a tool used to discuss and learn about our natural world. So with the medicine example, it is used as a tool to master biology, so that when you want a cell to do 'X' it will always do 'X'. It also has the added plus of usually prolonging human life, but the body will behave in that predictable manner as it is a matter of biology. The value of a body living longer is up to the individual/society.

Now my stance is that if you want to apply a theory of Morality, you have say that following this and this regardless of one's subjective moral stance, will lead this. Like how taking this shot will always cure you from polio.

That said, I'm on the side that says science can say that 'If you shoot a person they will die', but whether or not that's bad or good is a wholly subjective experience dependent upon the observer.

I think that's all I want to say, I'm kind of befuddled at the moment though. Very interesting thread though.

edit: As a theist I would want an 'objective' morality, and if there be one maybe Science can find out!

Cogent points. I would say that what science might be able to do is figure out what underlies morality in our brains, i.e. what the causal factors are for our intuitions about morality. Once you have the underlying factors, you might (hopefully) be able to construct a coherent framework out of it.

Using Devo's abortion example, maybe rather than arguing about categories ("but is a fetus really alive?" and other such nonsense), we could actually dig down and figure out what exactly it is about human life that makes us want to preserve it, and then see whether human fetuses share those features, and if so, at what stage they begin to share them.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

Very, very good message. I hate organized religion, there's no reason it needs to exist anymore. You can "believe" in whatever you want to believe without an institution "ruling" over you.

 

[Devolution]

I'm really trying to be as polite as I can, but it's kind of amazing how condescending you are given your complete lack of understanding of how ethics actually works. Nobody's saying we need philosophy to tell us what "cancer" means. We need philosophy to tell us what "healthy" means.

Here's a medical question. Cancer treatment is a medical question, right? Let's say somebody has cancer and will die in six months. If you give them chemotherapy, they will die in twelve months, but they'll feel awful, lose their hair, throw up all the time, etc., etc. What is the medically correct action to take in this situation and why?

We think that prolonging one's life is better than death (in certain situations), which is definitely a philosophical concept rather than a scientific one. So I really don't understand where he gets off drawing the lines between team science and team philosophy.

 

[Basileus777]

You clearly don't understand my point if you have to ask this.

Answer my question please.

I don't understand your particular objective in asking this vague leading question, no. Where do morals come from? Depends on the person I suppose. In the case of those abolitionists, probably a product of a mix of selective interpretations of the Bible, the community they grew up/lived in, and their own personal convictions. Religions are odd things though, they aren't just about those ancient scripts, like anything else they evolve and are a product of the times and community they are a part of. Does that really change how fervent believers used Christianity as a way to justify and promote abolitionism?

 

[Opiate]

I don't understand your particular objective in asking this vague leading question, no. Where do morals come from?

I didn't ask for what my objective is, I asked for you to answer it. I'm not quite sure why you resisted answering the question so strenuously.

Depends on the person I suppose. In the case of those abolitionists, probably a product of a mix of selective interpretations of the Bible, the community they grew up/lived in, and their own personal convictions. Religions are odd things though, they aren't just about those ancient scripts, like anything else they evolve and are a product of the times and community they are a part of.

What makes them "evolve as a product of their times," as you put it? By what process do you feel "times" evolve, generally speaking?

My answer would be: reasoned debate, logic, and evidence.

 

[Cyan]

mclaren777
Member

Basileus777
Member

You guys related?

 

[pigeon]

You guys related?

I assumed they were from the Main Line 777s. It's a pretty well-known family -- they have that plane named after them and everything.

 

[Air]

Cogent points. I would say that what science might be able to do is figure out what underlies morality in our brains, i.e. what the causal factors are for our intuitions about morality. Once you have the underlying factors, you might (hopefully) be able to construct a coherent framework out of it.

Using Devo's abortion example, maybe rather than arguing about categories ("but is a fetus really alive?" and other such nonsense), we could actually dig down and figure out what exactly it is about human life that makes us want to preserve it, and then see whether human fetuses share those features, and if so, at what stage they begin to share them.

Thanks, and I think this is a more reasonable assessment. Also as far as the life question (this is off-topic but I think it's worth a mention), here's a TED talk about questioning when we start learning:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/annie_murphy_paul_what_we_learn_before_we_re_born.html

The field itself is in the very early stages, but who knows what it could lead to.

Very, very good message. I hate organized religion, there's no reason it needs to exist anymore. You can "believe" in whatever you want to believe without an institution "ruling" over you.

I agree, but to the extent that it does not need to exist as is. I don't have a need for organized religion, but it has power and can be used to really help throttle humanity skyward (which has not been as often as necessary unfortunately). I'll say it and keep saying it. Organized religion is like a broken arm. You don't saw off a broken arm, you reset (fix) it. I know you weren't saying anything like that, but it reminded me of a little rant I've been meaning to get off my chest.

Ok now I'm out.

 

[Vaporak]

I'm really trying to be as polite as I can, but it's kind of amazing how condescending you are given your complete lack of understanding of how ethics actually works. Nobody's saying we need philosophy to tell us what "cancer" means. We need philosophy to tell us what "healthy" means.

Here's a medical question. Cancer treatment is a medical question, right? Let's say somebody has cancer and will die in six months. If you give them chemotherapy, they will die in twelve months, but they'll feel awful, lose their hair, throw up all the time, etc., etc. What is the medically correct action to take in this situation and why?

And your continued use of assertions instead of arguments, and the assumption that I don't know about ethics sounds very condescending to me, but I don't think it's important to the discussion. What I do think is important is why do you say we need philosophy to tell us what a word means. It's blindly obvious that words and meaning can exist outside of philosophy as you are admitting right there. What then makes one proposition, "healthy", special and another "has cancer" not special? There isn't any difference, it's just a question of having a definition and you don't need philosophy to come up with definitions.

We think that prolonging one's life is better than death (in certain situations), which is definitely a philosophical concept rather than a scientific one. So I really don't understand where he gets off drawing the lines between team science and team philosophy.

There's no getting off, I was pointing out that there are relatively well defined groups with positions in this discussion, to argue against his position that we are all talking about different things and it's getting confusing.

 

[soul creator]

What part of the Bible admonishes slavery?

something something Jesus teaches us to love everyone equally and slavery isn't love, do unto others, old testament isn't valid anymore cuz of Jesus, etc.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Very, very good message. I hate organized religion, there's no reason it needs to exist anymore. You can "believe" in whatever you want to believe without an institution "ruling" over you.

I think the objective way to view organized religion is as a transitional stage in the development of culture and social organization. It's something for which the expiration date may have passed. In terms of its basic existence, it served a purpose.

However, the problem with organized religion seems to be that it is particularly vulnerable to the syndrome of a clique of insiders taking charge of the organization with no structures in place to force periodic regime change and evolution. The prophet or priest's authority is not based on something empirical that can be questioned.

Thus, from certain perspectives, organized religion can easily be exploited and used to pervert the concept of spirituality - of the subjective human experience and connection with life / the world / the universe. And because organized religions are often based on making a variety of very specific global claims, such as having their authority based on XX miracle that supposedly occurred, they confuse and taint spirituality once they take it over. The spiritual experience becomes conflated with claims of supernaturalism.

In this thread we still have people sneering at 'spirituality' and saying we should get rid of dat shit, which to a better understanding of the concept sounds ridiculous because it's basically saying get rid of being human. The damage that western style organized religion (among similar flavors) has done to the reputation of a lot of concepts is pretty severe.

As for the Dalai Lama, the notion that the man himself has politely and quietly bowed out of believing in things like reincarnation is, I suspect, more an evolution of certain concepts. In a certain philosophical sense, the notion of what his position represents - finding a person who displays some resonance with a previous leader - remains sound. And if pressed, I wouldn't be surprised to hear he has merely become agnostic on the concept of literal reincarnation rather than describing himself as a card carrying logical positivist.

But with the talk over the need of religions and spiritual paths needing to evolve to incorporate secular factors, the sense I get is more this - that the crucial thing isn't what one personally believes or hypothosizes about reality. Rather what matters and is being proven vital is applying secular ethics to one's shared space in the world. So long as one approaches others with secular ethics, one's personal beliefs shouldn't really matter to others and shouldn't be perceived as a threat.

And by secular ethics, I think you're talking about establishing a society in which people are treated with rational equality and not exploited with, or oppressed by, subjective belief systems. Which include old biblical stories.

 

[Basileus777]

I didn't ask for what my objective is, I asked for you to answer it. I'm not quite sure why you resisted answering the question so strenuously.



What makes them "evolve as a product of their times," as you put it? By what process do you feel "times" evolve, generally speaking?

My answer would be: reasoned debate, logic, and evidence.

Those are certainly large factors, but there are also changes in society, the environment, and the economy which have a large hand in shaping how people think about the world. I don't think you can look at the history of ideas and attribute things solely to debate and logic.