Is Scientific Morality the Solution to Moral Dilemmas?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Royce
Because it becomes dogma then.

Huh? Gravity exists, and we understand it. Our understanding of gravity in the Newtonian sense (limits and all) will likely never change. Does that make it dogmatic? (answer: no. Its still scientific).

Something is not dogmatic becaus it never changes, its dogmatic because people won't ACCEPT changing it. There is a huge difference there.

The opposite of this thinking is freedom and libery, the freedom to believe what I think is right and the libery to put in practice that which I believe. So long as I do not infringe upon the rights of others I am free to believe and do whatever I like. It is as simple as that.

Thats fine. Would you say that should apply to everyone? Universally...?

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Huh? Gravity exists, and we understand it. Our understanding of gravity in the Newtonian sense (limits and all) will likely never change. Does that make it dogmatic? (answer: no. Its still scientific).

Fortunately, gravity is not influenced or controlled by human nature or human beings. Scientific theory or principles can and do become dogma. Didn't you mention something about Galileo. Need I say more? History does repeat itself.

Thats fine. Would you say that should apply to everyone? Universally...?

Yes, of course I do; but, who am I to say what should or should not apply to everyone.
I repeat, it is not the philosophy or reasoning that is wrong but we human beings. Human nature is the culprit. If we were perfect and count count on no one taking advantage of their power and our universal moral code then of courseI would agree with you whole hardily. But then if we were perfect we wouldn't need a moral code at all would we?

 

[Another God]

Hmmm, too many posts to quote one, so let me try to address everything in one foul swoop: Russ, I do understand. It's sort of frustrating, because I want to engage with someone who believes differently, and instead, I find u, and you seem to have essentially the same view as me (we just call it by different names). And I think, even in an absolute scale, perspective still matters. I point this out, because the perspective of a tribe gives rise to a different set of ultimate morals, to the perspective of a country, to the perspective of a global community. Yet for each situation there is some moral code which is the best possible moral code for that community.

I'm going to have to go back to absolute first principle here and spell out how I understand all of this exactly.

Firstly, I believe 'right' and 'wrong' only make sense in light of a goal/desire/ends. If you want water, then it is 'right' to burn hydrogen in the presence of oxygen and make H2O. When we talk about human desires, then we may term those 'right' and 'wrong' directives as morals.

Evolution wants us to reproduce. Evolution is our master, is has created us, and it has created us so that we actually want to survive and reproduce. So, the primary human desire, is survival. (to dumb it down) Evolution knows best how to make us survive, society is the only way we can do it now, and so we desire social interaction.\

So, we want to live, and we want to be in a society. The 'Right' thing to do with this in mind, is to find a social moral system which allows both of these prime directives to be maintained as best as possible. The best possible way that this can be done, would be the Absolute Right. But we are restricted to circumstances, and as such we have to approach morality from where we are, and try to achieve the bost possible LOCAL maxima for the moral code.

If we are isolated in a tribe, the moral code would be different to that of a global community. (in the absolute best moral code sense) I am sure one of those two communities would be more effective at achieving the human desires (survival, social interaction), but you can't expect the tribe to adopt the morals of a global community, and you can't expect a global community to adopt the morals of a tribe. The 'Local Maxima' is different to the 'Global Maxima' (Using fitness terrain terms, not meaning to refer to tribal (local) and global communities)




So are you starting to see where our slight difference is Russ? We have essentially the same view I think, but I really do believe perspective is important, because although there is an 'Umtiate best' social construct, it doesn't mean everyone can achieve it.

In fact, what the best moral code is, is going to be an almost impossible answer to find, because of all of the variable. Just like any other science equation, there are variables. How big the community is, how many communities there are around it, what their moral systems are etc. These MUST be considered, because there is a possibility that the best social construct is a tribal system, where you have one system full of altruists, with 2 neighbouring selfish tribes, with 4 neighbouring...somethings outside that etc...

I know we all think that a global community with a solid standing set or morals is the best social construct...but we could be wrong.

More likely, we are just entering another Local Maxima. Trying to find the best social construct, given the situation we are in.

That's perspective.

 

[Royce]

The only absolute morale code that make any sense to me is that code which best insures that my offspring survive. I would freely give up my life to insure that my children survive. However, if the situation was such that my children could not survive without my survival then my personal survival becomes parmount. I must survive so that even if my children don't I will still be around to make more and then attempt to insure their survival.

My next priority is that my tribe or immediate community survive for it's survival better insures my children's and my survival. Whatever moral code my community adapts to insure its survival as a viable productive society must become my moral code or I must find a society within which I can accept it's morale code as absolute.

Next is my state's or nation's survival and it's absolute moral code that insures all of the above.

Last is the global absolute morale code.

Would I give my life up for the global society, for all of humanity?
Only within the context of all of the above.

Is this the absolute morale code we are seeking? I don't think so but it is the only one that makes any difference to me. I don't think that there is any universal absolute right or wrong or moral code possible in a multinational, multicultural world.

It becomes then situational morales and ethics; a phrase and thought that I personally detest. I am, however, hindered by the knowledge that all of the above applies to every individual alive on this planet and what makes my or my children's survival any more important than his or her's? It is only my perspective that makes my survuval more important than yours, my right to life more right than your right to life.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Royce
Is this the absolute morale code we are seeking? I don't think that there is any universal absolute right or wrong or moral code possible in a multinational, multicultural world.

I think it is most likely that multinational arrangements, and multiculturalism will need to end before the global moral system can come to exist.

"Oh that's terrible" i hear a lot of people out there say (probably not people in here, but I can guarantee people 'out there' are) and so I reply: "deal with it."

It becomes then situational morales and ethics; a phrase and thought that I personally detest. I am, however, hindered by the knowledge that all of the above applies to every individual alive on this planet and what makes my or my children's survival any more important than his or her's? It is only my perspective that makes my survuval more important than yours, my right to life more right than your right to life.

100% agreeance. Just as long as each individual recognises that the societies we are in are there to help us achieve our own individual primary goals (the most important ones anyway - Survival and survival of our kids), then there shouldn be a good enough deal of stability in our societies.

Of course, there will always be the one psycho, or the odd person who doesn't understand, or who wants more than their fair share etc... And it is up to the Moral System of the societies to deal with that abberation in the best way possible.

 

[Royce]

Of course thus along with survival the next priority is law and order. I think survival is first but we need law and order to help secure survival, personal and societal.
Next,I think is food and shelter or maybe that's more primal than law and order then trade and commerse. This way we build a morale code to cover every aspect of our lives. Is is absolute? Yes to our society and culture. Is it universal? No unless our society is so large and powereful that it can conquer the world and impose our absolute morales on the rest of the world.

One way or another to have a universal absolute morale code we would have to have one universal global society and culture. Is it right?
Only if it's your culture that is the strongest. It's Machivellian but I'm afraid its true

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Royce
Of course thus along with survival the next priority is law and order. I think survival is first but we need law and order to help secure survival, personal and societal.

Well survival is the prime directive, law is the embodiment of the 'ethics' that allow survival to be achieved, and order is how the ethical standards enforce themselves.

Next,I think is food and shelter or maybe that's more primal than law and order then trade and commerse. This way we build a morale code to cover every aspect of our lives.

The law (ethics) should cover how food/shelter etc is accessible to each individual. Food, shelter, possesions and societal relations are all necessary things in our life, and so are all governed to some extent (Monitored? Regulated) by the ethical system. So the Law and Order concept doesn't really fit into this ladder you are trying to construct IMO, but rather it is the guidelines as to how every rung of this ladder should be reachable by any member of the given society.

Is is absolute? Yes to our society and culture. Is it universal? No unless our society is so large and powereful that it can conquer the world and impose our absolute morales on the rest of the world. One way or another to have a universal absolute morale code we would have to have one universal global society and culture. Is it right?
Only if it's your culture that is the strongest. It's Machivellian but I'm afraid its true

I don't really like your use of the word absolute here. I don't think it should be thought of as absolute at all. This is precisely the way of thinking which I am trying to break out of. I believe that there is an absolute best morality (in any given situation), but it is unlikely that any society has them. As such, any Law (ethical system) should be constantly under self-revision.

As for the universal morals, I assume you ar referring to morals which everyone is under: Well, I still disagree that they ar universal, or absolute. They are only the morals selected by the members of the society/the powers at hand. The one defining characteristics of the Absolute Best Moral System (of any given situation) is that it provides the greatest stability for the society presented in the situation.

It is unlikely that any ethical system ever created by Humans has come close to that Absolute and it is even less likely that a culture which conquers the world will have such appropriate ethics.


Here is an important conception: The members of a society, need not be humans. Humans may be the fundamental units of Families, Work Places, Social Groups, and even states...but in the Global COmmunity, it is possible to have a central government which only has the task of administrating the ethical system which guides the countries of the world (where the countries are the members of that society.) The ethics outlined in the Law of the Global Government may not even mention humans.

This system is much more likely to provide a stable global community, than having a single government trying to unite all of the people of the world, and then trying to formulate ethical guidelines for all of them.

If instead we have individual 'states' which rule the ethical guidelines of the people within that state, and then having the global politics guide the ethical guidelines of the states (how the states should interact etc), then people are freeer to move to states which have individual ethics more closely in line with their own ethical system. (Which makes more sense than trying to tell every person in the world "You all must be Identical!")

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mattius_
An objective question from an objective person... You be the judge...

Yes, but if we die will it matter? And if it does, then at some point we should ask, "Why are we here?"

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yes, but if we die will it matter? And if it does, then at some point we should ask, "Why are we here?"

I don't know whether I should ignore this and hope comments like this go away, or if I should explain to you exactly why such comments are inappropriate.

It all depends on whether you are just being a smart arse or actually think what you said is meaningful.

 

[Royce]

AG, I agree with all that you said in your reply. By using the words absolute and universal I was trying to show that such codes are only absolute and universal to the members of that society. Our codes become so ingrained in us that we think of them as absolutely right and universally applicable when in reality they are only our codes.
I was pointing out the fallability of that thinking that you and I are both trying to get away from.

It is this thinking that leads to conflict and strife and eventually to war. It is this thinking that is at fault not the hypothesis of absolute universal right and wrong morale code that Russ was proposing and I was disagreeing with and that I don't think is possible.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Royce
It is this thinking that leads to conflict and strife and eventually to war. It is this thinking that is at fault not the hypothesis of absolute universal right and wrong morale code that Russ was proposing and I was disagreeing with and that I don't think is possible.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but it appears to me as if we have 3 people here who all understand this conception of ethics, and believe that it is an accurate model of what ethics actually is, and also how it needs to be understood so as to enable us, the human race, to manipulate things to as to improve the world. (Those three people at least being Royce, Russ and myself...??) We all seem to understand it on essentially identical criteria, and we all agree on it.

Now, why don't other people get this? Are we wrong? Are we missing something? Or does everyone else understand it, but I just haven't discussed it with them enough to see their understanding?

Why do people defend the "Immorality" of killing as a universal truth without mention of the situation? Why do people talk of rape and taking slaves as if they have some inner characteristic in them which defines them as evil?

And even better, why do these people cringe/laugh at you, when you challenge these most fundamental of assumptions?

(PS: I agree with the conclusions, for our situation at large, but why don't people even allow themselves to reason it out, instead prefering to start with the conclusion and then stay at the conclusion?)

 

[Royce]

Ag, I think it is, as I mentioned in my previous post, because our morale and ethic codes become so ingrained in us that they become obvious truths that require no thinking. "It has always been this way." "It has always been the way that we do it." "This is the right way and the only right way." We are taught this since birth and we see it happen every day and we see no other way done or even hear spoken of another way than ridicule.

It becomes a "given" a truth without thought or question, a foregone conclusion. As children we are not allowed to think or say anything that is contrary to what is the accepted right and wrong. Can't you just hear your parents telling, yelling, asking; "Don't you know the difference between right and wrong? Whats the matter with you? Have you hit your head? Are you crazy? I thought I taught you better than that."

No wonder we have such a deep need for an absolute morale code, an absolute truth, an absolute right and wrong.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Royce
Ag, I think it is, as I mentioned in my previous post, because our morale and ethic codes become so ingrained in us that they become obvious truths that require no thinking. "It has always been this way." "It has always been the way that we do it." "This is the right way and the only right way." We are taught this since birth and we see it happen every day and we see no other way done or even hear spoken of another way than ridicule.

Thats largely true, but it comes from religion. I specifically noted that a scientific approach to morality does not require religion and it CANNOT work under such a dogma.

Religion is in many ways a trap and a cloud.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but it appears to me as if we have 3 people here who all understand this conception of ethics, and believe that it is an accurate model of what ethics actually is, and also how it needs to be understood so as to enable us, the human race, to manipulate things to as to improve the world. (Those three people at least being Royce, Russ and myself...??) We all seem to understand it on essentially identical criteria, and we all agree on it.

Now, why don't other people get this? Are we wrong? Are we missing something? Or does everyone else understand it, but I just haven't discussed it with them enough to see their understanding?

We(the 3 you listed) agree on the underlying structure and utility and disagree soley on the implication (and the application of the word "absolute").

Generally, (as Royce indicated in the quote above) people look at morality from the opposite direction from us and this is why they don't see it our way. If you start with absolute morality from religion, which is where most people get it, you end up with all the contradictions (relative absolute morality for example) and problems of both schools of thought (relativism vs absolutism). Though I argued it from the absolutist side, I think it can be successfully argued that even relative moralities will converge if approached through a scientific process. The difference is anthropic: WHY do they converge?

One of the problems with morality is that it is in practice dogmatic. Even relative morality is passed down to the kids from the parents. And that's where the problems come in: people don't stop to THINK if their morality makes sense.

I may be idealistic, but I thik if people were taught in school to approach morality scientifically, it would eliminate most of the problems of both relative and absolute morality.