'Can Science answer Moral questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nusc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Science
Click For Summary
Sam Harris' TED talk argues that science can inform moral questions, emphasizing the importance of minimizing suffering and maximizing development as central to morality. Critics like Sean Carroll challenge this view, questioning the assumption that empirical measures can objectively determine what constitutes a "higher standard of living." The discussion highlights the subjective nature of moral values, suggesting that differing opinions on what constitutes well-being complicate the establishment of universal ethical standards. Additionally, the conversation touches on the evolution of morality, asserting that it adapts based on societal interests, whether they prioritize individual rights or collective good. Ultimately, the debate underscores the complexity of aligning moral frameworks with scientific understanding.
  • #61
Freeman Dyson said:
I am one of those who doesn't understand the relationship between behavior and spiritual experience. I don't even know what that means. Why should a science on morality be based on such weird, hippy assumptions? Why are we even talking about "spiritual experience" when talking about facts? Why do we have to keep naming the unknown by the more unknown? Why do I keep feeling like I am doing nothing but arguing against new age spirituality?

There have been various scientific approaches to studying consciousness and subjectivity. Objectivists/positivists often have a hard time with them because the only person who can observe the subjectivity/consciousness of a given individual is that individual. This makes repeatability impossible. Still, as observer of your own consciousness/subjectivity, you know something is there to observe. Likewise, subjectivity is not completely unique to each individual separately. Subjectivity/consciousness is institutionalized in various ways through the sharing of culture. The evolution of social sciences has had to deal with the problem of how to approach subjectivity/consciousness in order to study it. I won't attempt to chronicle everything I know about the various approaches, but it's certainly not a vague "hippy" field limited to "new age spirituality."
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Nusc said:
If the group is uneducated and have a say in democracy, then yes. but what were your reasons?

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
- Winston Churchill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink#Groupthink_and_de-individuation
Groupthink, resulting from the symptoms listed above, results in defective decision making. That is, consensus-driven decisions are the result of the following practices of groupthinking
Incomplete survey of alternatives
Incomplete survey of objectives
Failure to examine risks of preferred choice
Failure to reevaluate previously rejected alternatives
Poor information search
Selection bias in collecting information
Failure to work out contingency plans.
 
  • #63
Nusc said:
No that's bull$hit. Religious demagogues are beholders of absolute truths, scientists are not and subject to criticism.

There is nothing scientific about ideological elitism.
 
  • #64
Brain said:
So morality is more about making general connections between things and choosing your personal actions in a way that "cast a vote" for the kind of world you want to live in. This is not to say that morality can't or shouldn't ever be a basis for intervention in various forms. It's just that even most forms of intervention don't have direct power over the actions of the person(s) whose actions you are trying to intervene in. You have to accept a certain amount of fuzzy logic and make choices the best you can with what you can reason at a particular moment.
It seems to me that the primary issue is people who have a problem with the idea that their preferences and values are not based on objective fact. They seem to need some reason to feel that their opinion carries weight and is more "right" than others. In this way "realism" or "utilitarianism" does not seem so different from "absolutism"; their adherents all want some reason to believe that their ethical choices are in fact superior.
 
Last edited:
  • #65
JoeDawg said:
There is nothing scientific about ideological elitism.

Did you watch his video?
 
  • #66
Nusc said:
Did you watch his video?

Which one? Not that it matters.

As I said, Harris is just rehashing utilitarianism. He, and others, have been doing this for a while now. I've seen the arguments, and all they amount to is this: pain is bad, pleasure is good, therefore my morality is scientific, and if you disagree with me, you are ignorant and stupid.

You should watch the Harvard Justice series... Harris' understanding of philosophy is pablum by comparsion.
 
  • #67
TheStatutoryApe said:
their adherents all want some reason to believe that their ethical choices are in fact superior.

Nail on head.
 
  • #68
JoeDawg said:
Which one? Not that it matters.
The TED talk in the second link where he draws the comparison between himself and Edward Witten on who's authority we should seek when consulting matters on string theory.

You said there is not scientific about ideological elitism but this technocracy (elitism) is used in science.
 
  • #69
Nusc said:
The TED talk in the second link where he draws the comparison between himself and Edward Witten on who's authority we should seek when consulting matters on string theory.
He says that, because Witten is a recognized expert, with many accomplishments, we should give his opinion on string theory more weight than someone who is not a physicist.
And he then equates physics with morality and ethics.

Seems reasonable... but the problem is that he has already loaded the deck. The basis of his idea of morality is 'human flourishing', and the '[physical and intellectual] wellbeing of conscious creatures'. This is what he has chosen to value. And he preaches it well. But it is not what everyone values.

Its funny he mentions living until you are 200 years old, because this actually makes it clear where his morality comes from. Utilitarianism is what I like to call old-man-morality. Its about living long and comfortably.

A long, healthy, and intellectually productive life is what he wants. And he rightly claims that there are certain optimal ways to get this. But not everyone wants this sort of life. Not everyone has the same premise.

For instance,
'Live fast, die young', which is more a hedonist young person's morality.
'Semper Fidelis', a warrior's morality of self-sacrifice for king and country
'All for one and one for all', a morality based on the loyalty of friendship and brotherhood.

All moral systems have an implicit goal. You can certainly use science to help you figure out a good way to attain such a goal, but the goal itself varies based age, social circumstance... and many other variables.

He also talks about the obviously evil people... Evil muslims, and serial killers... who of course disagree with him... but they are 'obviously' wrong, because what they value is... well ... wrong. Circular reasoning.

Why does a serial killer, kill? I'll venture to guess its part of some selfish type of sadistic hedonism. The serial killer is looking for pleasure, but is not concerned about the pain of others. This is 'wrong' from the point of view of those who wish to maximize the 'welfare' of the group or society, but before its wrong, you first have to value society.

Why does the taliban oppress women? Why are there honor killings? This is more complicated, but I don't think I'm going too far afield here, if I say, it has to do with purity.
Purity of body, purity of soul, and purity of the family or tribe. When you live in a non-industrialized society, the purity of your food and water is of everyday concern. When you don't have vaccination programs and advanced medicine to treat sexually transmitted diseases, purity of body is of everyday importance. And when you have limited food, water and shelter, and no birth control, or paternity tests, knowing that the child your wife is carrying is yours... is important, because every child is huge drain on your resources. If she is a virgin when you marry her and you have strict rules of about adultery, this also helps keep the tribe pure... and therefore insure its continued survival.

I'm not justifying the taliban, or serial killers. I'm not saying we should refrain from making judgements or be paralyzed by fear of offending the social mores of other societies. But the fact is, there are reasons why people value different things than we do. There are reasons you value different things than I do. There are reasons Sam Harris values what he does. And they have more to do with who he is, than any objective measure.

You said there is not scientific about ideological elitism but this technocracy (elitism) is used in science.

Yeah, and that can be a serious problem for science. Arguments from authority happen often in science... when they really should not. Witten may be an expert on string theory, and an overall smart guy, but that doesn't mean some unknown grad student can't make a ground breaking discovery. And often there is quite a bit of resistance in the scientific establishment to new ideas... Science tends to deal with new ideas better than religions, but that isn't saying much.

Two other comparisons that Harris makes are: food vs. poison, and chess.

Poison is objectively bad, and what is nutricious is objectively good.
Except, people consume poisons all the time. Alcohol, salty foods, cigarettes, botox... etc..
We ingest poisons all the time, and people reject all sorts of nutricious foods... often based on taste.
What is good, is based on what your goal is.

Similarly with chess, if my goal is to win, and my opponent is good, there may be an optimal way to beat this opponent. If my goal is to end the game quickly, so I can go get laid... I may let her beat me.

There are two kinds of value, what is valuable to attain a goal, and the goal itself. The latter is completely subjective... and the former is based entirely on the latter.
 
Last edited:
  • #70
Yeah I totally agree with Joe.
Morality has nothing to do with science, even if there are scientific reasons for why humans can be moral.
The thing is that humans can be a lot worse. We could be living in a jungle anarchy type thing where everyone kills other for small reasons, or where there are no rules.

One could argue that evolution has made us moral people to prolong our success as a species, but that is completely arbitrary.
Morality is only skin deep for some people. Many can turn to the "dark side" rather quickly if betrayed or someone harms them or their family.
And on top of that, there are enough people who as Joe says, value other things, because they lead completely different lives with different values and that may lead them to do immoral things (according to the west for instance)

I think it's important to realize that evolution isn't set in stone, and that as a civilization, we can guide it in many different directions. (im talking social and internal evolution as well, not just physical)
If we were pushed by something to be completely immoral and killings, beheadings etc were all daily fare, then that /is possible/ nature and evolution wouldn't stop us.
And I find this very compelling evidence that morality really is just one possible direction, and that it is not a scientific hard cold fact, but rather a subjective way of valuing things that COULD be backed up by science to prove its worth, BUT it isn't scientifically unavoidable.

Further evidence for this is how morality only is applied to humans. Not even animals that are living things with some kind of consciousness we don't expect them to be moral.

If you look at the world around you, violence and other immoral acts are a part of the animal kingdom to a great degree, and I don't believe morality is some scientific FACT but rather a subjective thing that humans have created because they value those things.
 
  • #71
JoeDawg said:
Which one? Not that it matters.

As I said, Harris is just rehashing utilitarianism. He, and others, have been doing this for a while now. I've seen the arguments, and all they amount to is this: pain is bad, pleasure is good, therefore my morality is scientific, and if you disagree with me, you are ignorant and stupid.

You should watch the Harvard Justice series... Harris' understanding of philosophy is pablum by comparsion.

He got lit up on his own website comment section. Fact is, nobody would be talking about any of this if he didn't already write two best selling books. As someone posted on his site, submit this nonsense for double blind peer review and see how far you get, Sam.

Harris is simply an authoritarian. Nothing else. He want his politics and ideas not to be challenged.
 
Last edited:
  • #72
TheStatutoryApe said:
It seems to me that the primary issue is people who have a problem with the idea that their preferences and values are not based on objective fact. They seem to need some reason to feel that their opinion carries weight and is more "right" than others. In this way "realism" or "utilitarianism" does not seem so different from "absolutism"; their adherents all want some reason to believe that their ethical choices are in fact superior.

People only claim relativism when they have come to the realization that their position is indefensible yet they continue to want to maintain it.

If you think that absolutism is "bad" and relativism is superior, how are you being relativistic?

The reality of power is that moral choices are defensible or indefensible based on reason and that people have the power to hold each other accountable to reasonability and other standards.

The problem for me comes when people decide to hold others accountable to standards without holding those standards accountable to reason. I.e. "that's just the way it is." If you can reasonably defend your morality and choices, others should be able to reasonably validate or invalidate your reasons. If they can't, they should not exercise power in your life.
 
  • #73
brainstorm said:
If you think that absolutism is "bad" and relativism is superior, how are you being relativistic?
You're playing word games.

Relativism is not about having a superior morality. Its about acknowledging that *I* have a morality, and that other people have different ones. The only people claiming superiority are those who advocate for absolute or objective morals.

Relativism is not absolutely or objectively anything. And no that is not an absolute statement, its an opinion... an opinion, I put value on... it is my opinion.

Relativism is about, and recognizes, context as the key element to value.

Claiming an absolute morality can be very useful... if you want to be a dictator or prophet.
 
  • #74
Freeman Dyson said:
He got lit up on his own website comment section.

Harris got famous for taking a *common* sense view of religion... but having common sense... even a lot of it, doesn't make one an expert in every field that interests them.

This is a *common* mistake.
Listening to physicists talk philosophy for instance can be quite frustrating... but it can also be interesting. Harris has his good moments too.
 
  • #75
JoeDawg said:
You're playing word games.
It's not word games. You're so stuck in your faith in relativism that you've lost sight of your own absolute (non-relativist) beliefs.

Relativism is not absolutely or objectively anything. And no that is not an absolute statement, its an opinion... an opinion, I put value on... it is my opinion.
When you say "opinion," I assume you are distinguishing opinions from facts. If you believe in facts, do you also believe that those are relative to "context?" Do you believe that truth is impossible to prove?

Relativism is about, and recognizes, context as the key element to value.
If you accept the relativism of context, why can't you accept universalistic morality as valid in its own context? If part of my morality says that I should teach you the universal truth, how can you say that I'm wrong to do that if you validate my perspective in my own context? If you are truly relativistic, what even gives you the right to impose your boundaries between people and contexts on other people? You may say that everyone has the right to their own autonomous culture/territory, but isn't that just your own opinion in the context in which you understand it? Couldn't my opinion be that everyone I come in contact with is part of my cultural context and therefore it is my duty to police their morality? Aren't cultures of moral paternalism just as valid as cultures of moral relativism from a relativistic perspective?

Claiming an absolute morality can be very useful... if you want to be a dictator or prophet.
As a relativist, are you able to express moral evaluation of the use of absolute morality to achieve dictator or prophet status? If you are entitled to your opinion, what gives you the right to push it on me?
 
  • #76
JoeDawg said:
Listening to physicists talk philosophy for instance can be quite frustrating... but it can also be interesting. Harris has his good moments too.

Can you give a reference for this?

And from Harris?
 
  • #77
brainstorm said:
If you are entitled to your opinion, what gives you the right to push it on me?

lol...
 
  • #78
brainstorm said:
It's not word games. You're so stuck in your faith in relativism that you've lost sight of your own absolute (non-relativist) beliefs.
Funny, but empty.
When you say "opinion," I assume you are distinguishing opinions from facts.
No, I'm not. Every fact I know... I know. They are part of me. I have a history. I'm not an objective observer. Objectivity is a goal, its not a reality. Science strives to be as objective as possible, but its really just an ideal, we are limited by our perspectives.

Not every opinion I have has the same value, some have a more firm foundation in my experience, and I call those facts, others have a less firm foundation and I call those estimates or guesses...
Do you believe that truth is impossible to prove?
What is 'true' is a function of knowledge. Knowledge is descriptive and thus, always created. Knowledge is about existense, it is not existense. You kant know the 'thinginitself'
If you accept the relativism of context, why can't you accept universalistic morality as valid in its own context?

Its perfectly valid, if you want to be a dictator or a pope. Its not valid if you are interested in emprical investigation. That is context. Relativism doesn't mean we can't make judgements, its about assigning value based on context, as opposed to claiming a 'knowledge that is independent of perspective'. That is nonsense, if one takes into account a modern understanding of the world. If one is a religious nut, thou shalt not kill, is a perfectly fine absolute statement.

If it helps, think of relativism as describing knowledge as a recursive algorithm... and yes that is just an analogy. My impression so far is you have no interest in understanding relativism, only disputing it.
If part of my morality says that I should teach you the universal truth, how can you say that I'm wrong to do that if you validate my perspective in my own context?
Well if it is valid in your context, which you haven't shown yet, then it is valid in your context. That doesn't make it less relative. It just means, we don't share that context. For something to be universal it has to be valid in all times and places.

I have yet to see that... feel free to provide it... showing its true might be more problematic.
If you are truly relativistic, what even gives you the right to impose your boundaries between people and contexts on other people?
I give me the right. I value my judgement, in fact, my judgement is all I have. I get input from others... but in the end any value I assign... its up to me. Even if you believe in a holy book or a god, you have to first, take the step to assign value to it. So its all about me.
You may say that everyone has the right to their own autonomous culture/territory
I did? I'm pretty sure I didn't. Maybe someone else here did.
As a relativist, are you able to express moral evaluation of the use of absolute morality to achieve dictator or prophet status?
Well, currently I have no interest in being either, once you start giving orders, its just work work work...
If you are entitled to your opinion, what gives you the right to push it on me?
I do.
 
Last edited:
  • #79
Nusc said:
Can you give a reference for this?
To my frustration with physicists?
And from Harris?
I found some of what he wrote in his 'Christian nation' book, interesting.
You want quotes?? Been a while since I read it.
 
  • #80
JoeDawg said:
To my frustration with physicists?

I found some of what he wrote in his 'Christian nation' book, interesting.
You want quotes?? Been a while since I read it.

Yes.

Please I don't have the book.
 
  • #82
With your frustration with physicists as well.

What quote in the book?

Interesting he only dedicated this book to his wife.
 
  • #83
Nusc said:
With your frustration with physicists as well.
That was a joke, I was referring to this forum.
 
  • #84
JoeDawg said:
o, I'm not. Every fact I know... I know. They are part of me. I have a history. I'm not an objective observer. Objectivity is a goal, its not a reality. Science strives to be as objective as possible, but its really just an ideal, we are limited by our perspectives.

Not every opinion I have has the same value, some have a more firm foundation in my experience, and I call those facts, others have a less firm foundation and I call those estimates or guesses...
But by distinguishing more from less "firm foundations," you are presuming that there is some truth or factuality that is not relative. Either that or you don't have enough faith in your own relativism to permit yourself to regard your own truth as absolute on the basis that every relativist context is a true as it regards itself.

What is 'true' is a function of knowledge. Knowledge is descriptive and thus, always created. Knowledge is about existense, it is not existense. You kant know the 'thinginitself'
If you can accept that truth is created, why can't you see that truth is created transcontextually as well? In other words, truth-knowledge is asserted beyond the relativism of context. When I say that, I presume it to be true without qualification. I am open to critical claims that refute mine, but my assumption (within my own relative context of knowledge of course) is that if you prove me wrong, I will recognize your truth as true for me and everyone else until I am convinced otherwise.

Its perfectly valid, if you want to a dictator or a pope. Its not valid if you are interested in emprical investigation. That is context. Relativism doesn't mean we can't make judgements, its about assigning value based on context, as opposed to claiming a 'knowledge that is independent of perspective'. That is nonsense, if one takes into account a modern understanding of the world. If one is a religious nut, thou shalt not kill, is a perfectly fine absolute statement.
How can you even distinguish between someone you call a "religious nut" and a rigorous empiricist if you truly believe the knowledge of both is relative to their contexts? You are clearly a closet modernist who believes your own perspective has progressed beyond those of "backward" people like the "religious nut."

If you were really empirically disciplined, you could step away from your own perspective long enough to observe it as one just like any other. Then, if you wanted to compare it with others without privileging it on any basis, you would experiment with worldviews radically different from your own and compare how the world looks through multiple lenses. At that point, you could reflect on the cultural values that allow you to evaluate one perspective as being more valid that the other and experiment with changing it so that other perspectives are more valid. At that point, you will have either discovered truth-power or you'll be completely lost for lack of even the most basic compass of reason and logic, but luckily your total faith in relativism will assure you that your lost-ness is no worse or better than any other position.

If it helps, think of relativism as describing knowledge as a recursive algorithm... and yes that is just an analogy. My impression so far is you have no interest in understanding relativism, only disputing it.
I have no idea what this means. You have yet to convince me that there's anything superior enough about relativism that I should let go of my compass long enough to explore it. In truth, I have my own relativism, but I have no way of comparing its validity with yours because they are radically different contexts that are incapable of evaluating one another, even in terms of relative similarity or difference.

Well if it is valid in your context, which you haven't shown yet, then it is valid in your context. That doesn't make it less relative. It just means, we don't share that context. For something to be universal it has to be valid in all times and places.
Nope. Universalism is relative. That means that for something to be universal, it has to be successfully claimed as universal. If the claim is refuted, it is not universal. Are you claiming that validity in all times and places is sufficient to demonstrate universality? I dispute your claim by claiming that it is impossible to research validity in all times and places prior to making a claim of universality, therefore universality is only assertable as a tentative proposition.

I give me the right. I value my judgement, in fact, my judgement is all I have. I get input from others... but in the end any value I assign... its up to me. Even if you believe in a holy book or a god, you have to first, take the step to assign value to it. So its all about me.
Well, at least we agree on one thing. No authority can be recognized in the absence of applying one's own authority to the task of validating it.
 
  • #85
brainstorm said:
But by distinguishing more from less "firm foundations," you are presuming that there is some truth or factuality that is not relative.
No, I'm not. Truth is: an accurate description of the current context. In this case, I can talk accurately about my experience, experience is subjective. I'm not claiming its objective.

I do find it amusing how you keep telling me what my position is.
If you can accept that truth is created, why can't you see that truth is created transcontextually as well?
Agreement doesn't make something objective. We can agree on all kinds of things. And you can define 'truth' in all different kinds of ways.
How can you even distinguish between someone you call a "religious nut" and a rigorous empiricist if you truly believe the knowledge of both is relative to their contexts?
I'm sure the 'religious nut' doesn't think of himself as a religious nut. There is nothing objective about that description. It is my assesment based on my experience.
You are clearly a closet modernist
Postmodernism isn't that different from modernism. Its just a matter of perspective.
If you were really empirically disciplined...
Empiricism is the epistemological view that knowledge is derived from experience.
Relativism is all about experience.
You have yet to convince me that there's anything superior enough about relativism
LOL. That's because there is nothing objectively superior about relativism, that would be entirely self-contradictory. Its is merely useful in certain contexts.
Are you claiming that validity in all times and places is sufficient to demonstrate universality?
Something being universal, and demostrating it is universal, are different things.
I dispute your claim by claiming that it is impossible to research validity in all times and places prior to making a claim of universality, therefore universality is only assertable as a tentative proposition.
Huh?
I think you just deconstructed yourself.
 
  • #86
JoeDawg said:
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
- Winston Churchill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink#Groupthink_and_de-individuation
Groupthink, resulting from the symptoms listed above, results in defective decision making. That is, consensus-driven decisions are the result of the following practices of groupthinking
Incomplete survey of alternatives
Incomplete survey of objectives
Failure to examine risks of preferred choice
Failure to reevaluate previously rejected alternatives
Poor information search
Selection bias in collecting information
Failure to work out contingency plans.


That's representative democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy


We need direct democracy.
 
  • #87
Nusc said:
We need direct democracy.
We do?
 
  • #90
The cheapest department is Philosophy; they don't need a trash bin.
 

Similar threads

Sean Carroll's advice on How to get tunure
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
I Many Worlds - Superdeterministic?
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
5K
Reviewing Thesis Topic on Evolutionary Theory
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K