'Can Science answer Moral questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Nusc
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Science
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around whether science can adequately address moral questions, particularly in the context of Sam Harris' views and the criticisms he faces, notably from Sean Carroll. Participants explore the implications of using empirical data to inform moral judgments and the complexities of defining a "higher standard of living" in ethical terms.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants agree with Harris that minimizing suffering is a key component of morality, while others challenge the implications of this view.
  • One participant argues that the objectives of individual autonomy and collective good are not mutually exclusive, but questions how to measure success in achieving these goals.
  • There is a suggestion that morality evolves based on human interests, whether they lean towards collective good or individual rights, but this does not provide a definitive answer to moral questions.
  • Another participant critiques Harris for assuming a universal agreement on what constitutes a "higher standard of living," noting that opinions on this matter vary widely.
  • Concerns are raised about the subjective nature of defining ethical standards and the potential for differing interpretations of what constitutes a better life.
  • Some participants express skepticism about Harris' arguments, suggesting that his use of examples does not necessarily lead to objective moral truths.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express disagreement on the implications of Harris' arguments and the role of science in moral reasoning. Multiple competing views are presented, particularly regarding the definitions of morality and the criteria for a higher standard of living.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of moral questions and the challenges in deriving objective truths from subjective experiences and preferences. The discussion reflects a range of philosophical perspectives without reaching a consensus.

  • #121
TheStatutoryApe said:
There's no such thing as hell
But you can make it if you try
There might come a day
when emotion can be quantified
But as of now there's no proof necessary
There's no proof necessary
it's only in your mind"
Bad Religion - Prove It (slightly abridged for repetitiousness)

Again I realize the likely perception of quoting song lyrics as part of an argument but I think that they rather aptly illustrate my point and opinion.

Since you are sharing your personal beliefs, allow me to offer my own:

Hell is a state of the living, imo. If reincarnation occurs, it may be a state of the living that extends through multiple lifetimes. Hell may also be a state of conscience, which includes the guilt, despair, and sense of hopelessness and cynicism that comes with losing faith in humanity because you've lost faith in yourself to choose ethics and hope for others to do the same. I must avoid discussing scripture in any depth due to forum rules, but I can tell you that I've read in the bible that King Herod found himself in such a state of hell of conscience after ordering the head of John the Baptist severed to appease the request of a dancing girl who amused him. Betrayal of conscience in Christian philosophy is also known as "blasphemy of holy spirit" (my interpretation). Again, I'm not trying to preach - just citing mythological sources of reference for the same idea.

Proof or quantification of emotion or conscience is not necessary for these things to affect you in practice. Conscience and emotions hold you accountable for your self-perception whether your mind can rationalize something or not. I keep trying to tell you that you don't need objective proof to reason about ethics and take your emotions and conscience into account. You can question your own morality and ethics, and I think that doing so actually makes you more lucid in reflecting on what is good and bad and why it might be or not be valid to think so. I just think it's very important to point out that your conscience and emotions will not stop or go away because of what your mind rationalizes.

If you truly believe that you have acted on your best ethical judgment in a given situation, your conscience should forgive you if you turned out to have been mistaken at a later point. The point is, though, that reasoning has to take place in good faith for your conscience to forgive itself when things go wrong and people get hurt. If you act with a shadow of doubt in your heart that you could be making a better choice, and suffering takes place as a result, don't you think you'd feel terrible as a result?

This is why I understood why air traffic authorities were so cautious with allowing flights to resume with the volcanic ash. So many people thought that it wasn't a big deal, but someone wasn't completely convinced and they weren't willing to bet on it with other people's lives. That makes sense, doesn't it?
 

Similar threads

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