'Can Science answer Moral questions

[russ_watters]

TSE, I think I see the problem here: I'm creating a bridge between two completely separate uses of the word "better".

First, "better" from an evolutionary standpoint is a completely objective description of what has caused an organism to evolve in a certain direction. Sperm evolve tails, multiplying the number of offspring? That's "better" from a strictly objective biolgical point of view.

Second is "better" from an ethical point of view. This is more difficult, but I agree that to individuals, ethics is largely subjective. But if we bridge the two concepts, we can come up with an objective basis for ethics. Take a consensus of what people subjectively consider "better" and via logic find the ethical system that makes us evolve in that direction.

But wait, what if the consensus is a consensus ethical behavior that drives us to extinction...? Can it really be biologically "better"...?

 

[Nusc]

But wait, what if the consensus is a consensus ethical behavior that drives us to extinction...? Can it really be biologically "better"...?

If rational - perpetuation
If irrational - extinction

What does TSE mean?

 

[russ_watters]

TSE is TheStatutoryApe's initials.

 

[arildno]

A persistent trouble with utopians is that they think they know the place where we all ought to reside (and what does it then matter, the types of obstacles we might meet on our journey there?).

A conservative is not too sure about that we can know that place, and would rather consider which of the available directions seems best to walk along, wherever that might lead us.
On the premise of being in an imperfect state, why should we be so arrogant to think we already know where we ought to be?
We might figure out the correct compass direction at any particular time, but not our eventual destination.

On the other hand, a conservative might easily become complacent with the status quo, saying it's probably the best we can hope for anyway, since the present is the reality that has happened to come into existence..

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

TSE, I think I see the problem here: I'm creating a bridge between two completely separate uses of the word "better".

First, "better" from an evolutionary standpoint is a completely objective description of what has caused an organism to evolve in a certain direction. Sperm evolve tails, multiplying the number of offspring? That's "better" from a strictly objective biolgical point of view.

Second is "better" from an ethical point of view. This is more difficult, but I agree that to individuals, ethics is largely subjective. But if we bridge the two concepts, we can come up with an objective basis for ethics. Take a consensus of what people subjectively consider "better" and via logic find the ethical system that makes us evolve in that direction.

But wait, what if the consensus is a consensus ethical behavior that drives us to extinction...? Can it really be biologically "better"...?

I was thinking the same thing, regarding your use of the word "better". It seems to me that you are using subjective verbiage to describe an objective process and there by creating an illusion of a bridge between the subjective and objective.
In the end it appears that we have a rather similar opinion only that we are stuck on what constitutes subjective versus objective. I feel that it makes a difference. People who feel that they have a truly objective ethical frame work are perhaps at danger of feeling that theirs is superior, delegitimizing dissent, and possibly coming to an eventual static impasse. At the moment I need to think more and come back with a new direction from which to tackle this.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

TSE is TheStatutoryApe's initials.

Maybe Russ is tired. That should probably be TSA. ;-)

 

[mheslep]

A persistent trouble with utopians is that they think they know the place where we all ought to reside (and what does it then matter, the types of obstacles we might meet on our journey there?).

A conservative is not too sure about that we can know that place, and would rather consider which of the available directions seems best to walk along, wherever that might lead us.
On the premise of being in an imperfect state, why should we be so arrogant to think we already know where we ought to be?
We might figure out the correct compass direction at any particular time, but not our eventual destination.

On the other hand, a conservative might easily become complacent with the status quo, saying it's probably the best we can hope for anyway, since the present is the reality that has happened to come into existence..

That's one of the better 1/4 page descriptions of utopian thought, conservative thought (ala Burke), and the challenges with conservative thought I've seen. I suggest the answer to status quo conservatives is that they go wrong when they mistake the status quo for more fundamental tenets and institutions of the society - the source of true conservatism.

 

[mheslep]

... It takes no effort to just blindly follow the 10 Commandments and accept that they are the Right way of doing things. It is more difficult to actually think about and derive ethics than to just accept what is fed to you.

I think you must mean only 'accept'[ing] the Commandments as way of doing things is effortless, as opposed to actually following them, which surely is not effortless?

 

[mheslep]

There seems to be no shortage of hubris in the commentary of guys like Harris, who don't seem inclined to build upon the great thought gone before him but instead waive it all aside. In Harris' http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/moral_confusion_in_the_name_of_science3/" to Carrol he waives away Hume:
"...Hume’s lazy analysis of facts and values..."

If Harris' books are still around and taught in classics courses in a couple centuries he can demand an apology.

 

[Evo]

I moved this to Social Sciences.

 

[arildno]

That's one of the better 1/4 page descriptions of utopian thought, conservative thought (ala Burke), and the challenges with conservative thought I've seen. I suggest the answer to status quo conservatives is that they go wrong when they mistake the status quo for more fundamental tenets and institutions of the society - the source of true conservatism.

As for the compass direction bit, I filched that from a cursory reading of Herbert Spencer (horror of horrors?)

 

[brainstorm]

Even if a consensus of goals can be established it in no way detracts from the fact that it is a subjective consensus.

Don't forget about multiculturalism and liberalism that promote the idea that cultural consensus in neither necessary or desirable. The exception is pluralist multiculturalism that favors segmentation into multiple territories of cultural conformity/consensus and 'protects' each separate consensus from interference by the others relegated to avoiding each other. The only moral prerogative becomes separation and relegation of those who cannot reach consensus. Everything else goes as long as you can find others to agree with you.

Let me just briefly state explicitly that I'm morally opposed to this ideology and I much prefer approaches to cultural regulation that allow for contact and conflict between conflicting views with the aim of simultaneously avoiding monocultural hegemony AND total moral relativism.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

Something important to keep in mind, that I'm not sure people keep focused: My view of ethics feeds on human nature, it doesn't attempt to countermand human nature. This is the essential issue of the fight between communsim/socialism and democracy/capitalism as framed by Carroll. The problem is simple: if you attempt to fight human nature, you end up with conflict. You find a system that works with human nature and you will will be much more successful in achieving your goals.

In the 20th century, communism/socialism and democracy/capitalism both attempted to further human development in essentially the same ways, under the criteria I listed above. Communism/socialism failed, democracy/capitalism succeeded. Why? Because in order to function as designed, communism/socialism requires people to act contrary to their nature. By contrast, democracy/capitalism harnesses human nature to achieve the same goals.

What if conflict is in our nature?

This is an appeal to nature fallacy. You really want to base morality on human social behavior developed during, and for,the Pleistocene? Not to mention your view of human nature is not proven. There is no consenus on if there even is a human nature, much less what it is. One can't say that humans are naturally more tuned to communism or capitalism. Nor does science prefer one neural correlate over the other. We do. Science says UV rays can damage or kill cells. It says nothing about whether sunscreen should be compulsory. What "ought" the gravitational constant be? What would you prefer? Not what it is. What do you want it to be? It is what it is. An infinite oughts can justified by a single is, none more scientific than the other. And Harris is already jumping to say that science can tell us what is worth living and dying for and what constitutes a good and meaningful life? How could that possiblly be a scientific question? Harris is trying to turn science into a religion. Minus the science.

 

[JoeDawg]

Sam Harris' interview about his TED talk (His TED talk is in the second link):

As an advocate of atheism, Sam Harris does a pretty good job, but like Dawkins his understanding of philosophy and ethics is rudimentary at best. (I'm an atheist btw)

I stopped reading his rebuttal at the point where he called Hume lazy. Hahah.
There are lots of interesting discussions that can be had with regard to the is/ought problem, but reducing it to a matter of laziness on Hume's part, is the pot calling the kettle black.

All Harris (and some of the other 'new atheists') are doing with regards to ethics, is rebranding Utilitarian ideas. Pain is bad, pleasure is good. We should maximize the latter and minimize the former. Sounds good, in the shallow end, but it presents just as many ethical dilemnas as it purports to solve, when one examines it in any depth.

There is nothing new there, and its not based on science. Science is about observation and prediction of natural phenomena. Its not about value. Value is subjective. It starts with wanting something. Science can help you, in terms of determining a strategy for attaining what we want, but when you get down to the bottom of it, the wanting X is always irrational. We want X, so we can get Y, and we want Y, so we can get Z... Z corresponds to an instinct we have... and it tastes good.

One of the major issues confounding political philosophy is the good of the group vs the good of the individual. All societies face this question, and must decide on some sort of balance. And deciding how best to reduce pain on a society level is quite difficult.

 

[JoeDawg]

In the 20th century, communism/socialism and democracy/capitalism both attempted to further human development in essentially the same ways, under the criteria I listed above. Communism/socialism failed, democracy/capitalism succeeded. Why? Because in order to function as designed, communism/socialism requires people to act contrary to their nature. By contrast, democracy/capitalism harnesses human nature to achieve the same goals.

This is such a mishmash of nonsense, I'm not sure where to start.

Democratic socialism was very much a part of the western world in the 20th century... and it continues today. Equating the socialism that has existed in the western world with the communism of the east is mindbending.

Humans evolved in small 'communal' tribal groups which competed with predators and other groups, for resources. Capitalism is not in any way natural. If anything, various kinds of feudalism are the most successful human institutions. A mix of capitalism/socialism has proved successful for modern industrialized societies, but the variety is immense, and relatively recent and short term. What the future holds is anyone's guess.

And, in fact, Canada, with its socialist regulatory control of its banking system, was one of the most successful of the western democracies in weathering the lastest recession, which was caused by unrestrained capitalist greed. :-)

 

[Nusc]

All Harris (and some of the other 'new atheists') are doing with regards to ethics, is rebranding Utilitarian ideas.

That's right he's just popularizing it given the events that have occurred in the last decade. He's trying to encourage rethinking our current establishment. Because we are still hinged by antiquated ideas both in society and in science.

Pain is bad, pleasure is good. We should maximize the latter and minimize the former.

That's right. http://www.newsweek.com/id/160080/page/1

Sounds good, in the shallow end, but it presents just as many ethical dilemnas as it purports to solve, when one examines it in any depth.

Read that link. Can you be specific?

There is nothing new there, and its not based on science. Science is about observation and prediction of natural phenomena.

First one has to define what you mean by science - we're not referring to the empirical sense.

One of the major issues confounding political philosophy is the good of the group vs the good of the individual. All societies face this question, and must decide on some sort of balance. And deciding how best to reduce pain on a society level is quite difficult.

The group-think notion requires that everyone be educated to decide how best to reduce pain.

Education doesn't establish grounds for moral compassion. e.g. the prominent members of the Republican party who have law degrees who are opposed to healthcare in the U.S - it's not even a public option, just basic healthcare.

The notion Harris is trying to point out is that the elite moralist should decide, not the uneducated.

 

[JoeDawg]

That's right he's just popularizing it given the events that have occurred in the last decade. He's trying to encourage rethinking our current establishment. Because we are still hinged by antiquated ideas both in society and in science.

Sam Harris' main gripe... and this is the real problem... is with 'moral relativism'. Like many people who have studied as scientists, or are inclined to scientific ideas, relativism has become an academic boogieman. Its an argument that goes back to the ancient greeks... but with regards to Harris and his ilk, it stems mainly from this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars"
Not all the criticisms of moral relativism are unfounded, by the way. There are plenty of nutty relativists, but because of the threat from postmodern ideas, many in the science community have circled the wagons and latched onto 'utilitarianism' as the scientific answer to morality... because on the surface it is commonsensical.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/160080/page/1

Palin is a nut... you don't need to be a utilitarian to know that.

Can you be specific?

Not sure where to start... but try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#Criticism_and_defense"

And I highly recommend this... it is an excellent place to start:
http://www.justiceharvard.org/"

First one has to define what you mean by science - we're not referring to the empirical sense.

Science in a non-empirical sense?

The group-think notion requires that everyone be educated to decide how best to reduce pain.

You know 'groupthink' is bad right?

Education doesn't establish grounds for moral compassion.

Compassion is about empathy, and empathy is instinctive, you either have it, or not.

The notion Harris is trying to point out is that the elite moralist should decide, not the uneducated.

Well, in that case, he's a self-righteous hypocritical douchebag.
That is exactly the same position as the catholic church.
And we all know how well that turned out.

 

[zomgwtf]

First, "better" from an evolutionary standpoint is a completely objective description of what has caused an organism to evolve in a certain direction. Sperm evolve tails, multiplying the number of offspring? That's "better" from a strictly objective biolgical point of view.

This isn't even correct so maybe if this is where your objectivity of ethics comes into play you should relook it over.

As for moral relativism, I really like the ideas presented by Nieztche. Kind of 'old' but still...

 

[Nusc]

Palin is a nut... you don't need to be a utilitarian to know that.

No but when nearly half of your electorate votes for the MCCain Palin ticket, it raises concern over democracy - representation by popularity.

You know 'groupthink' is bad right?

If the group is uneducated and have a say in democracy, then yes. but what were your reasons?

 

[Evo]

This isn't a philosophical discussion people. This is what happens when a thread is not started properly. This thread has been all over the place. Apparently it was a religious topic that violated the guidelines so was edited instead of closed.

Please adhere to the Philosophy guidelines when starting a thread.

In general, one should attempt to flesh out questions and arguments in the philosophy forums adequately enough that readers will have a good understanding of the problem, the backdrop against which it resides, and the justification of one's perspective. This might include

* explicitly defining key terms;
* justifying why this is a valid issue or problem in the first place;
* explicitly stating starting premises or assumptions;
* providing logical or empirical support for such premises or assumptions;
* making subtle logical steps more explicit;
* summarizing previous arguments made on the topic and explaining how they are relevant to your argument;
* etc.

In particular, please make a concerted effort to adequately define key terms whose meaning might otherwise be ambiguous and to provide proper justification for any claims that might be contentious. Doing so will go a long way towards stimulating productive discussion, whereas failure to do so will inevitably lead to lots of confusion, wasted words, and effort, and ultimately to moderator intervention as outlined above.

 

[Nusc]

Well, in that case, he's a self-righteous hypocritical douchebag.
That is exactly the same position as the catholic church.
And we all know how well that turned out.

No that's bull$hit. Religious demagogues are beholders of absolute truths, scientists are not and subject to criticism.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

No that's bull$hit. Religious demagogues are beholders of absolute truths, scientists are not and subject to criticism.

Harris is trying to prop up his own morality as absolute truth. He wants "moral experts". How does this not sound familiar?

Here is his rebuttal on criticism of his speech. He lists "facts".

FACT #1: There are behaviors, intentions, cultural practices, etc. which potentially lead to the worst possible misery for everyone. There are also behaviors, intentions, cultural practices, etc. which do not, and which, in fact, lead to states of wellbeing for many sentient creatures, to the degree that wellbeing is possible in this universe.

That isn't a scientific fact. Nobody can predict worse possible misery. Has anyone ever tried it? What does it even mean? He says "potentially" lead. What about actually lead? The worst possible misery for EVERYONE? That is impossible.

FACT #3: Our “values” are ways of thinking about this domain of possibilities. If we value liberty, privacy, benevolence, dignity, freedom of expression, honesty, good manners, the right to own property, etc.—we value these things only in so far as we judge them to be part of the second set of factors conducive to (someone’s) wellbeing.

Now the tenets of American libertarianism are apparently "facts", and bring about well-being. And of course Harriss all about well being. The right to own property is a "fact". Good manners? This is the guy whose first response to Carroll's critique was to call it stupidity. Somebody should find a scientific method of civil discourse and then exclude Harris from it.

FACT #4: Values, therefore, are (explicit or implicit) judgments about how the universe works and are themselves facts about our universe (i.e. states of the human brain). (Religious values, focusing on God’s will or the law of karma, are no exception: the reason to respect God’s will or the law of karma is to avoid the worst possible misery for many, most, or even all sentient beings).

FACT #5: It is possible to be confused or mistaken about how the universe works. It is, therefore, possible to have the wrong values (i.e. values which lead toward, rather than away from, the worst possible misery for everyone).

lol. I'm not even going through the rest of these "facts". Harris talks about science using only opinion.

 

[SixNein]

Sam Harris' interview about his TED talk (His TED talk is in the second link):



Criticism by Sean Carroll:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...e-moral-equivalent-of-the-parallel-postulate/

Harris' rebhuttal:

http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/moral_confusion_in_the_name_of_science3/

[religious issue deleted]

Moral questions are very subjective. One man's moral is another man's evil.

 

[brainstorm]

Not all the criticisms of moral relativism are unfounded, by the way. There are plenty of nutty relativists, but because of the threat from postmodern ideas, many in the science community have circled the wagons and latched onto 'utilitarianism' as the scientific answer to morality... because on the surface it is commonsensical.

I have seen so many intellectuals reject postmodernism based on a naive assumption that moral relativism and other relativism is the basis or consequence of it. These are the same intellectuals who associate modernism with the belief in truth.

I have found postmodern and poststructural approaches to knowledge to actually reveal the dogmatic relativism of many modern discourses. The fact is that while such discourses claim to embrace truth, they are so institutionalized (modernized) in terms of language and concepts that their practitioners have fallen into a habit of conformity and avoidance of questioning dogma that is very misleading and stifling to critical scrutiny of ideas.

The deconstruction approach of postmodernism actually promotes critical questioning of such dogmatism, and as a result paves a road to truth by breaking with methodologies that avoid truth where it jeopardizes paradigm conformity. People fixated on conforming to the dogma of a paradigm take deconstruction and other postmodernism to be diversions from truth-pursuit, but that is often because they view their institutionalized pursuit of truth as truth-itself and, as a result, they defend it staunchly even against claims that it is enshrouding, through simulation, the real pursuit of truth by substituting for it the recapitulation of dogma and dogmatic knowledge-processes.

 

[Nusc]

Harris is trying to prop up his own morality as absolute truth. He wants "moral experts". How does this not sound familiar?

Because on the one hand you have religious demagogues with overwhelming influence, on the other you have philosophers (and those influenced by philosophy).

 

[Nusc]

That isn't a scientific fact. Nobody can predict worse possible misery. Has anyone ever tried it? What does it even mean? He says "potentially" lead. What about actually lead? The worst possible misery for EVERYONE? That is impossible.

He's obviously referring to historical fact.

One often says, we learn history to avoid repeating itself.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

He's obviously referring to historical fact.

One often says, we learn history to avoid repeating itself.

But again, we are talking about a scientific way of revealing moral truths and Harris is throwing around opinion and historical and political "facts".

History does not always repeat itself. I think Mark Twain's quote is more accurate"

"History doesn't repeat itself - at best it sometimes rhymes."

You want to reduce science to things that sometimes rhyme, or quotes?

Statements like "history repeats itself" and all these other political positions claimed by Harris to be fact are not far from superstition.

"The root of all superstition is that men observe when a thing hits, but not when it misses."

That's what Harris is doing. Only reporting the hits. For every hit he can show for a moral claim or statement I can show misses. You show me where democracy hits. I'll show you a miss. You show me where capitalism hits. I will show you where it misses. Because that is all it seems his argument is based on. He totally subjectively presents a morality and shows you instances of it hitting. Hitting by his own subjective standard of course. This is politics, not science.

 

[brainstorm]

Sorry to quote citation and response in the same box without user-reference, but I can't get both to show up by clicking the "quote" button. I want to quote both because you're both actually right at the same time:

FACT #1: There are behaviors, intentions, cultural practices, etc. which potentially lead to the worst possible misery for everyone. There are also behaviors, intentions, cultural practices, etc. which do not, and which, in fact, lead to states of wellbeing for many sentient creatures, to the degree that wellbeing is possible in this universe.

That isn't a scientific fact. Nobody can predict worse possible misery. Has anyone ever tried it? What does it even mean? He says "potentially" lead. What about actually lead? The worst possible misery for EVERYONE? That is impossible.

For people who understand the relationship between behavior and spiritual experience, "FACT #1" is indeed a fact, and a very useful one for making their own lives go well. People who understand this cringe when they see other people making choices that they can already see is going to lead to misery in some form or another.

Nevertheless, it's also true that there's nothing scientific about it. I spent years trying to figure out how my becoming a vegetarian would directly reduce the number of animals slaughtered for meat and I simply couldn't find a direct relationship. Nevertheless, I know intuitively that my cultural choice sets a precedent and has the potential to pave a road that others may one day choose to follow, which eventually could lead to a reduction in animal slaughter and suffering.

So, is it a fact that becoming a vegetarian reduces animal suffering directly? No. Is it a fact that animals are raised and slaughtered for meat on the basis of market prices, production quotas, wholesale orders, etc.? Yes. But does that mean that it's not a fact that meat-consumption causes suffering for many animals? No, of course it does.

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.

There's a reason why scientific theories are never proven but only supported. It's because absolute knowledge is never possible. Falsifiable propositions never become immune to the possibility of falsification; the plausibility of falsification just continues to decrease. The 0.00001% doubt that science always leaves still requires a leap of faith to go from tentative-regard to positive belief.

 

[Nusc]

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions 1/8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iK82Se93748&feature=related

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions 2/8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=He6mi4Kxrrk&feature=related

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions 3/8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3X_18DCJCI&feature=related

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions 4/8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjS14-aR7Pw&feature=related

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions 5/8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSaz849SY2U&feature=related

#4 & 5 addresses the ******** posts above.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

Sorry to quote citation and response in the same box without user-reference, but I can't get both to show up by clicking the "quote" button. I want to quote both because you're both actually right at the same time:


For people who understand the relationship between behavior and spiritual experience, "FACT #1" is indeed a fact, and a very useful one for making their own lives go well. People who understand this cringe when they see other people making choices that they can already see is going to lead to misery in some form or another.

Nevertheless, it's also true that there's nothing scientific about it. I spent years trying to figure out how my becoming a vegetarian would directly reduce the number of animals slaughtered for meat and I simply couldn't find a direct relationship. Nevertheless, I know intuitively that my cultural choice sets a precedent and has the potential to pave a road that others may one day choose to follow, which eventually could lead to a reduction in animal slaughter and suffering.

So, is it a fact that becoming a vegetarian reduces animal suffering directly? No. Is it a fact that animals are raised and slaughtered for meat on the basis of market prices, production quotas, wholesale orders, etc.? Yes. But does that mean that it's not a fact that meat-consumption causes suffering for many animals? No, of course it does.

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.

There's a reason why scientific theories are never proven but only supported. It's because absolute knowledge is never possible. Falsifiable propositions never become immune to the possibility of falsification; the plausibility of falsification just continues to decrease. The 0.00001% doubt that science always leaves still requires a leap of faith to go from tentative-regard to positive belief.

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?