Can Morality Be Considered a Scientific Discipline?

[russ_watters]

No country makes laws using morality. It's always about what the majority wants.

You're wrong on several levels.

1. Not all countries are democracies, obviously, so "what the majority wants" is not always relevant.
2. Most people in the world live in countries where the laws are explicitly based on a religious-based morality. And that includes the United States. The Declaration of Independence discusses that philosophy (a philosophy on which the morality of the US was based) and you can read about it in many court cases. In outlawing Polygamy, for example, in Reynolds v. United States, the USSC traced the history of the definition of marriage back to King James, who, of course, is a pretty famous biblical scholar/philosopher: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States

If the majority of people don't want to have murderers around, they punish murderers.

Why don't the people of Somalia try that with the warlords who kill people at will and with no consequences? And, of course, you can also find examples where the majority of people don't just want murderers around, they want to be murderers (directly or indirectly). See: Nazi Germany and Rwanda.

For example, I believe that killing a human is no more "wrong" than killing a chicken. But that doesn't mean I want to live in a place where I have to constantly be afraid of being murdered...

You should feel lucky you have that choice. That's a relatively new thing for people - and even today, not all people have it.

These questions are leading us off topic, though: these are some basic history and political science misunderstandings, not issues of morality specifically. There is a vast amount of political theory and history out there that supports this that you really should look into. I don't know how old you are, but these are subjects generally covered in school.

 

[Moridin]

...is two separate statements, put together and assumed by you to be mutually exclusive. They are not.

I would like to argue that they are, in fact, mutually exclusive. If morality is empirical, that means that the facts of the material world is enough to come to true moral conclusions. If morality is supernatural, that would mean that the material world is not enough to come to true moral conclusions.

Really? Can you give an example? I don't consider myself to be all that religious, but I would consider from what I learned about Christianity from 10 years of Sunday School that God is extremely predictable. Heck, if God was very unpredictable, science wouldn't work! (my bold)

To claim that gods are predictable would entail knowing the mind of the gods in question. According to most theistic belief systems, this is not possible. There are many passages in various religious texts that support the notion that an extremely powerful god has the power to do fundamentally unpredictable actions. For instance, in Joshua 10:12-13, we read that the Abramahic god made the sun and moon stand still on the sky. In the wedding in Canaan, Jesus turns water into win. In the latter part of the Gospels, Jesus arises from the dead. Humans are created by dust or a clot of blood according to the Qur'an. There are plenty of actions in contemporary religious scripture that confirms that gods have the power to do fundamentally unpredictable things, including, but not limited to, changing the laws of physics according to their whims without the need to warn us.

I think that the statement i bold above is very interesting. I would like to argue that not only is supernaturalism incompatible with morality, but with all of science because supernatural entities are by their very nature unpredictable. So in order to hold morality, and to an extension science, as valid, we cannot also hold that unpredictable supernatural entities also exist, because one could not be sure that they would not interfere.

If a measurement apparatus gives, say, the reading 10.9, then how would we know that it wasnt really 11.9 if we allow unpredictable supernatural entities into the equation?

1. Just because a god can constantly intervene and randomly change things, that doesn't mean they will.
2. The evidence suggests that if, in fact, God exists, he is not unpredictable. If he were (like I said before), science would not work. Every successful scientific experiment is confirmation of the theory that God - if he exists - is predictable.

The first point is a non sequitur -- as long as you cannot be sure that supernatural entities do not intervene and randomly change things, you cannot be justified in holding that the regularity of the facts of reality as valid. If you do not know, or do not have any information on whether or not your computer will break down during the next hour, are you justified in thinking that you can order food on your computer in 20 minutes? I would argue no.

Moreover, i would like to argue that every successful scientific experiment is a confirmation that reality is not fundamentally unpredictable and therefore disqualifies all moral theories that have any supernatural component. Naturally, a deist perspective would in some sense still be compatible with empirical morality, because deists presuppose that their supernatural component does not or cannot intervene at all, thereby saving themselves from the fundamental unpredictability of other supernatural belief systems that includes supernatural entities with the ability to change reality.

 

[Moridin]

I would hardly say that the laws of the United States explicitly based on a religious-based morality. Not only due to the separation of state and church, but because a lot of laws are in direct contradiction with religious-based morality of, for instance, the Old Testament. You can work on the sabbath, you won't be stoned to death if you break any of the six hundred or so explicit commands in the text. Murder is allowed in self defense. The wars of this millennium has shows that you do not always love your neighbor as yourself. Naturally, most of the moral gems we have left today predated the religions active today.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

That's the way scientific method works. You build a theory or hypothesis based on the assumption that it is true, then you test it to see if it really is.

It is also the way logic works. You start with an assumption, then apply logic to find out where that assumption leads. If the assumption leads to a nonsensical conclusion or a conclusion that is at odds with reality, then the assumption is flawed.

In moral realism how do you propose we determine what conclusions are preferable? We may be capable of running "experiments" that determine the out come of using a certain set of ethical values but how do you come to a conclusion as to whether the outcome is preferable or not without applying subjective value to it?

I would like to argue that they are, in fact, mutually exclusive. If morality is empirical, that means that the facts of the material world is enough to come to true moral conclusions. If morality is supernatural, that would mean that the material world is not enough to come to true moral conclusions.

Perhaps Russ is making a mistake in his wording here.
Supernatural by definition means "above/outside nature". I think what Russ means is that not all religions and theists believe that their god is outside of nature and that your defining their beliefs as such is leading you to improper conclusions.
Of course we can argue scripture and such but that takes us dangerously close to violation of forum rules and so we should probably avoid this topic.

 

[DavidIg]

Is morality a kind of science, where we progress and learn as we go? That there are objective moral truths that can be discovered??

Yes, I do think that morality is scientific in that it rests upon both logic and application, IOW, the real world is our proving ground so to speak, however, the fact remains that ethics are a contractual agreement between 2 or more people, and revolve around our basic individual rights of life, liberty and the right to property etc, of course, if one plays either role in a master/slave relationship, then by definition, the contract has been dissolved and one or more people are being controlled by others.

So there are two major parts to ethics...p1 are the terms, and p2 is the agreement to these terms, because one can't be forced to abide by anything in the absence of an authority, unless one's own conscience is the authority.

 

[DavidIg]

Why is it that 1+1=2?

Beacuse that's what reality dictates.

 

[Hurkyl]

Beacuse that's what reality dictates.

Reality plays no part. 1+1=2 because that's what '2' means.

 

[Proton Soup]

Yes, I do think that morality is scientific in that it rests upon both logic and application, IOW, the real world is our proving ground so to speak, however, the fact remains that ethics are a contractual agreement between 2 or more people, and revolve around our basic individual rights of life, liberty and the right to property etc,

so does morality not apply to people that do not wish to engage in contracts? and for those that disagree, is morality defined by what a simple majority deems moral?

of course, if one plays either role in a master/slave relationship, then by definition, the contract has been dissolved and one or more people are being controlled by others.

it's not really control if you agreed to it, simply a contract obligation. and other relationships that don't have the same terminology are similar. just think of all the rights you give up as an employee, the kinds of surveillance you subject yourself to, the privacy you give away.

besides, master/slave relationships might not be at all what they appear to an outsider? how would you know whether the submissive is actually topping from the bottom?

So there are two major parts to ethics...p1 are the terms, and p2 is the agreement to these terms, because one can't be forced to abide by anything in the absence of an authority, unless one's own conscience is the authority.

all that matters is whether the other monkeys in your troop think your behavior is fair, and how they respond to it.

 

[DavidIg]

Reality plays no part. 1+1=2 because that's what '2' means.

Please define "one" for me.

 

[DavidIg]

so does morality not apply to people that do not wish to engage in contracts? and for those that disagree, is morality defined by what a simple majority deems moral?

Neither logic, philosophy or DavidIg can force people to act in an ethical manner sans external authority, however, one places oneself at risk for being unethical, as such, the safest bet is to be ethical in the first place, granted one needs an "objective" system of ethics to abide by.

all that matters is whether the other monkeys in your troop think your behavior is fair, and how they respond to it.

Yes, if all you care about is submission to irrational authority.
...you'd make a great politician.

 

[Hurkyl]

Please define "one" for me.

The most common definition is probably in the context of Peano arithmetic: "the natural number after zero". And technically, two is usually defined as "the natural number after one", but that works out to the same thing as 1+1.

"What is 'zero'?", I assume you'll ask. In the context of Peano arithmetic, that one is much easier: it's the number we decided to call 'zero'.

 

[DavidIg]

The most common definition is probably in the context of Peano arithmetic: "the natural number after zero"

But what is the basis of this natural number?

 

[Proton Soup]

Yes, if all you care about is submission to irrational authority.
...you'd make a great politician.

maybe. i have a dead relative who was a rather infamous practitioner of the art.

still, if the monkeys' moral system helps ensure their survival, maybe it is an objective morality.

 

[DavidIg]

still, if the monkeys' moral system helps ensure their survival, maybe it is an objective morality.

Objective wrt to ethics implies both a reference point/s to reality and also the notion of not discriminating against anyone, otherwise it would have to be subjective ethics.

Our survival depends upon our reason and ethical codes.

You seem to hold the view that what the lowest common denominator think should determine our ethical/social systems...of course, to some degree that's what's actually happening, LOL.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Neither logic, philosophy or DavidIg can force people to act in an ethical manner sans external authority, however, one places oneself at risk for being unethical, as such, the safest bet is to be ethical in the first place, granted one needs an "objective" system of ethics to abide by.

How do you find an "objective" system of ethics?

I agree that ethics can be studied in an objective manner and formulae for ethical actions in a given situation can be objectively arrived at. The values and desired outcome though, I believe, are subjective.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Objective wrt to ethics implies both a reference point/s to reality and also the notion of not discriminating against anyone, otherwise it would have to be subjective ethics.

What makes the portion of your quote I have bolded "objective"?

 

[DavidIg]

What makes the portion of your quote I have bolded "objective"?

I believe one of the implications of being objective is to eliminate bias...ie, journo's try and be objective.

 

[DavidIg]

How do you find an "objective" system of ethics?

I agree that ethics can be studied in an objective manner and formulae for ethical actions in a given situation can be objectively arrived at. The values and desired outcome though, I believe, are subjective.

You base your ethics on the reality of the human condition, ie, we are geared to survive, however, without the use of reason and an objective ethical system, we're at each others mercy.

The basics of an objective system of ethics are individual rights such as the right to life, liberty and property...if you disagree, then give me your details and I'll come over, rob you and do a "Dexter" on you as well...unless you also care for your life, liberty and property.

Also, one person cannot possibly develop the entire system of objective ethics, as many of the major fields of science are required, so it's a team effort, and theoretically what we have now minus the corruption and scientific ignorance.

The most important aspect is to recognize that individual rights apply, and that you value them, especially as they would ensure your protection even if you were isolated and vulnerable.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I believe one of the implications of being objective is to eliminate bias...ie, journo's try and be objective.

Ok. Discrimintation I believe is key in objectivity. One must discriminate between variables to reach the most desirable outcome. I assume then that bias is what you originally meant, and I agree that discrimination without bias is key in objectivity. I only wished to clear that up so I understand you right.
I will have to disagree with you though if you believe that bias is avoidable in analyzing an ethical quandry. All persons place differing values upon things. Aside from ones own bias, in considering an ethical problem, one must also determine the bias of the other actors and account for them in the analysis.

The basics of an objective system of ethics are individual rights such as the right to life, liberty and property...if you disagree, then give me your details and I'll come over, rob you and do a "Dexter" on you as well...unless you also care for your life, liberty and property.

It is difficult to respond to these criminal/'serial killer' type arguements against moral relativism. Primarily because it is invoking what might better be referred to as 'moral whimsy'. Moral relativism bases ethical analysis on historical context, culture, and circumstance; not "what I feel like doing right now". So if we can keep the "Dexter" argument out of this that would be preferable, thank you.

As far as Life, Liberty, and Property go I have seen no evidence in any ethical system that these are fundamental rights as any or all of them may be stripped from you under the proper circumstances. Those circumstances of course differ from one system to the next depending on the values of the culture.

I'd like to say more but I need to get going.

 

[DavidIg]

My Dexter analogy is way too powerful to be ignored or shelved...it quickly proves that you and all sane people value your life, liberty and property otherwise you'd take me up on my offer...but you won't, nor will anyone ever do it unless they have a genuine deathwish.

Give me an example of a legitimate long-term withdrawal of the individual rights, starting with the right to life, and in this instance, the withdrawal need only last a few seconds to be devastating to the individual.

 

[JeniferJ]

Moral realism vs. relativism

Reality is established by truth.
Truth is what establishes right from wrong.
There are two sides of the equation: objective reality and one's subjective perception of reality.

The basic axiom that establishes right from wrong for interaction between individuals, is objectively established:no one has the right to violate another's individual rights and sovereignty. One has the right to act as long as they don't violate another's individual rights and sovereignty.

The basic axiom that establishes right from wrong for one's actions, is subjectively established, by one's subjective perception of reality. Whether something is positive or negative, is in the eye of the beholder, because one person's lust is an other person's disgust.

The only way one can get someone else to do what they want is to provide a positive benefit, so we can get their consent.

We live in two paradigms of "right from wrong" and "might makes right". We are born in the collectivist paradigm of a parent/child relationship where we do not have authority because we can not be held responsible for our actions. This paradigm is right, because nature has given the parent an inherent instinct to take care of their young. Once we become the age of mental maturity, we accept adulthood, where we accept responsible for the authority over our own actions. Once we have achieved adulthood, the parent/child relationship becomes a master/slave relationship, which becomes wrong.

The problem is, we currently live in a collectivist paradigm of "GOD said" where there are adults that want to live in perpetual childhood looking for their parents (external control) and their are those that are sociopathic tyrant criminals that perpetrate the master/slave relationship, creating the fraud of "might makes right", so they can benefit from the collective control.

The Declaration of Independence was the first time individuals tried to establish a society based on adulthood, creating an individualistic paradigm of control, but it has reverted back to a society controlled by an organized crime syndicate of sociopathic tyrant criminals trying to play the role of parent.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

My Dexter analogy is way too powerful to be ignored or shelved...it quickly proves that you and all sane people value your life, liberty and property otherwise you'd take me up on my offer...but you won't, nor will anyone ever do it unless they have a genuine deathwish.

Again. Moral relativism has nothing to do with whim. The general serial killer does not subscribe to an ethical system that says it is ok to kill for kicks. The same with those who violate social contracts in regards to property and liberty. The point of an ethical system is to prevent people from giving into base urges such as murder and theft. The people who do these things generally realize they are "wrong" or in breach of social contract and either do not care or through some cost benefit analysis have decided it is worth the risk of facing the consequences.

It is of course still possible that there are persons who live by an ethical system that says it is ok to murder and steal. Unfortunately for any 'scrupulous' adherants such ethical systems as 'honour among thieves' are generally just a thin veneer over an otherwise lack of ethical structure and are usually only used to trick and take advantage of those who believe in them. Assuming though that such an ethical system exists then I'll point out the other fallacious argument against moral relativism, that moral relativism dictates other ethical systems be accepted.

There is no impetus behind moral realtivism other than to make us perceive the moral dilemma through another's eyes. This does not mean that I can not see the flaws, contradictions, and logical fallacies in another's ethical system. Even going to Russ's "logical extreme of moral relativism" where in I must validate, in a practical sense, all other ethical systems this does not invalidate my own! Obviously, even by this flawed interpretation of moral relativism, my ethics are just as valid as everyone elses and I have just as much right to live by them (and impede those who do not) as everyone else. But again this is not the point. The point is that you or I are not paragons of moral righteousness and we ought not consider others barbarians and heathens simply because they have strange notions of what is "right" and "wrong". And that perhaps occasionally (or when the situation demands) we ought to reevaluate our ethical systems to be sure they still make sense in the current context.

Give me an example of a legitimate long-term withdrawal of the individual rights, starting with the right to life, and in this instance, the withdrawal need only last a few seconds to be devastating to the individual.

In most every ethical system there are instances where the "rights" you mention (life, liberty, and property) may be stripped of the individual for the common good. If they may be stripped then they are mutable and, hence, not fundamental. As for 'life' the most commonly accepted reason for stripping this right is in self defense. You may argue that since the one person is defending their own life then this is acceptable but that does not change the fact that the attacker's right to life is being stripped which means it is mutable.
For a less sticky situation consider being able to save the life of one hundred persons at the expense of the life of one. Objectively speaking if you value life then saving one hundred lives at the expense of one is logical and forfeiting one hundred lives for the sake of one is mere romantic idealism. In the end either way the right to life is still stripped. Either the rights of the one or the rights of the hundred have become mutable.

 

[Hurkyl]

But what is the basis of this natural number?

What the heck is a basis?

Anyways, it's real simple: if some class of ideas or objects (or whatever) satisfies all of Peano's axioms under some interpretation of the word "zero" and "successor", then we call that class (a model of) the natural numbers.

If Peano's axioms are not satisfied, then we do not call that class (a model of) the natural numbers.

 

[DavidIg]

The general serial killer does not subscribe to an ethical system that says it is ok to kill for kicks.

As for 'life' the most commonly accepted reason for stripping this right is in self defense. .

I'm asking you a direct question...can I come over and rob and murder you?...if not, why not?
I'm not asking whether or not serial killing is right or wrong.

Criminals rights are always secondary to an innocent persons rights aka the right to life, liberty and property, as such, should anyone attempt to assault you, you're free to defend yourself, and if during that defence your attacker is killed, then tough luck for him and his violation of the basic individual rights.

Rights should be built around innocent and decent people...criminals take their chances and are at the mercy of individual justice or societies justice system.

Tell me StatutoryApe, how do you determine right from wrong?

 

[DavidIg]

What the heck is a basis?

.

The concept of "one" is based upon a reference to any physical object...but your interpretation begins as a high level concept ignoring its underpinnings.

You suggest numbers are this or that without explaining the basis of all numbers.

 

[DavidIg]

, but it has reverted back to a society controlled by an organized crime syndicate of sociopathic tyrant criminals trying to play the role of parent.

Good points JJ...cause both the US and Australian gov's have stolen our tax dollars to wage war against a helpless and harmless nation{from our POV}, ie, Iraq, and these sicko's also want to take on Iran.

 

[tanker]

Moral realism vs. relativism

Reality is established by truth.
Truth is what establishes right from wrong.
There are two sides of the equation: objective reality and one's subjective perception of reality.

The basic axiom that establishes right from wrong for interaction between individuals, is objectively established:no one has the right to violate another's individual rights and sovereignty. One has the right to act as long as they don't violate another's individual rights and sovereignty.

The basic axiom that establishes right from wrong for one's actions, is subjectively established, by one's subjective perception of reality. Whether something is positive or negative, is in the eye of the beholder, because one person's lust is an other person's disgust.

The only way one can get someone else to do what they want is to provide a positive benefit, so we can get their consent.

We live in two paradigms of "right from wrong" and "might makes right". We are born in the collectivist paradigm of a parent/child relationship where we do not have authority because we can not be held responsible for our actions. This paradigm is right, because nature has given the parent an inherent instinct to take care of their young. Once we become the age of mental maturity, we accept adulthood, where we accept responsible for the authority over our own actions. Once we have achieved adulthood, the parent/child relationship becomes a master/slave relationship, which becomes wrong.

The problem is, we currently live in a collectivist paradigm of "GOD said" where there are adults that want to live in perpetual childhood looking for their parents (external control) and their are those that are sociopathic tyrant criminals that perpetrate the master/slave relationship, creating the fraud of "might makes right", so they can benefit from the collective control.

The Declaration of Independence was the first time individuals tried to establish a society based on adulthood, creating an individualistic paradigm of control, but it has reverted back to a society controlled by an organized crime syndicate of sociopathic tyrant criminals trying to play the role of parent.

Okay I quoted the whole thing because you really, really need to use small, simple words. At least more of them. I have NEVER EVER seen a higher concentration of the word "paradigm," for example. Which suggests to me either 1. you didn't write this, or 2. you're trying to seem like an authority on the subject by using big words. My advice: show your authority by making your writing clear and easy to understand.

And for the part I've put in bold:

Seriously, 'sociopathic tyrant criminals?" playing role of parent and child? Seriously? And an organized crime syndicate controlling us at that.

And don't give the tired line about since Republicans are closely associated with fundamentalist Christians that all Americans follow God unquestionably.

 

[DavidIg]

Seriously, 'sociopathic tyrant criminals?" .

What do you describe the approx murder of 1 000 000 Iraq's?

 

[Math Is Hard]

You guys can hash this out in the politics forum.