Is Scientific Morality the Solution to Moral Dilemmas?

[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.