Science and Morality (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Kirata -> Science and Morality (3/28/2010 11:16:26 AM)

Respect for the beliefs of others is routinely touted as a good thing. But the consequences of this view are far from satisfying when those beliefs include "honor killings" and other excesses. A reasonable person senses that there has to be a line somewhere.

In this TED talk, Sam Harris suggests how to define that line.

It's often said that science cannot give us a foundation for morality and human values because science deals with facts, and facts and values seem to belong to different spheres. It's often thought that there's no description of the way the world is that can tell us how the world ought to be. But I think this is quite clearly untrue. Values are a certain kind of fact. They are facts about the well-being of conscious creatures.

Enjoy and comment.

K.




Musicmystery -> RE: Science and Morality (3/28/2010 11:19:53 AM)

Ethics deals with this too, especially in the problem of Cultural Relativism.

It sounds great, until the 13 year old girl next door is screaming while her clit is amputated.

Do you shrug, just their culture, or do you call the police and report the abuse?




NorthernGent -> RE: Science and Morality (3/28/2010 11:43:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

It's often said that science cannot give us a foundation for morality



Both science and religion inform the law - and therefore what is and isn't acceptable. The great philosophers of the modern world were driven by scientific developments - the aim being to apply science to human behaviour and discover the springs and mechanisms of human law. Patently it was an age where 99% of those philosophers were religious men too.

In terms of where you draw the line - the law is the place where the line is drawn - as decided by the majority. So where someone is acting in an illegal manner - it isn't a case of: "his life/his call" - it's a case of you're beholden to the laws of the land so face the consequences of behaving outside of them.

In a D/s context - you expect your other half to conform to the rules agreed by the two of you - otherwise face the consequences. It's no different with a nation of people.

Can science inform morality and values? Absolutely. To illustrate: science is underpinned by close observation - I may conclude that I'm morally obliged to accept only that which I have experienced - and conclude further that to believe anything beyond sensory experience is self-defeating and delusional (or I may conclude that human beings have vision and imagination and to discard them is to discard what it means to be a human being).

Your personal ethics can be based on pretty much anything you choose.



Sanity -> RE: Science and Morality (3/28/2010 11:49:27 AM)


Science is cold and blind to morality. Through hindsight I could foresee science giving marching orders to Gestapo-like agents "for the good of the planet" or "the greater good of humanity" that would have no bearing on what spiritual humans with actual hearts would consider true morality.





ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Science and Morality (3/28/2010 11:52:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Through hindsight I could foresee science giving marching orders to Gestapo-like agents "for the good of the planet" or "the greater good of humanity" that would have no bearing on what spiritual humans with actual hearts would consider true morality.



Under exactly what real-world circumstances does science give "marching orders" to Gestapo-like agents?



Musicmystery -> RE: Science and Morality (3/28/2010 11:57:23 AM)

Given that ethics examines how best to live, it seems in line with scientific observation and conclusions.



Thadius -> RE: Science and Morality (3/28/2010 12:33:14 PM)

*Fast reply*

I am not sure that science has a morality, it seems to be fairly neutral in that it in it's purest sense is an observation and testing of the truth. It is as Tim suggests the ethics of what we do with that science (or what is discovered) that seems to come under the moral judgements. For example harnessing nuclear science for either peaceful or destructive purposes.

I suppose this is where we wind up entering into the areas of philosophy and the application of Natural Law?[;)]



Musicmystery -> RE: Science and Morality (3/28/2010 12:37:00 PM)

Yup. Enter Aquinas. [:D]

One distinction---ethics, strictly speaking, isn't morality; ethics examines how best to live, while morality makes judgments about good and bad. Ethics includes morality, of course, as a subset, but the two are not interchangeable.

My points deliberately refer to ethics, intentionally avoiding specifically morality judgments.



Louve00 -> RE: Science and Morality (3/28/2010 12:50:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Respect for the beliefs of others is routinely touted as a good thing. But the consequences of this view are far from satisfying when those beliefs include "honor killings" and other excesses. A reasonable person senses that there has to be a line somewhere.

In this TED talk, Sam Harris suggests how to define that line.

It's often said that science cannot give us a foundation for morality and human values because science deals with facts, and facts and values seem to belong to different spheres. It's often thought that there's no description of the way the world is that can tell us how the world ought to be. But I think this is quite clearly untrue. Values are a certain kind of fact. They are facts about the well-being of conscious creatures.

Enjoy and comment.

K.




I know this is going to sound cliche but I think its all relative.  First! I do think science and moral values are in two different spheres altogether.  Science, based on hard, cold, unveering fact.  And moral values, loosely based on ethics, usually with some memes and ideologies mixed in together. 

I think respect for others beliefs is a good social etiquette thing, sure.  I try to give others the respect of their beliefs, but as you said, if they believe in honor killings, or in MusicMystery's example, if a young girl is getting her clit cut off, then my ethics, morals, and beliefs are going to get wrinkled.

I guess, to be fair, a more compatible way to decide would be...where are these beliefs being carried out?  If they are being carried out in America, where honor killings and female mutilation thru a poor attempt at circumcision are not practiced and not condoned, then I struggle morally on whether to intercede or not.  If I am in a country that supports either/or, then I have to swallow hard and accept it as "their belief".  I may not believe in the practice....ever.  But, if I were in a land that practiced it, I would respect it as their belief, and thats as far as it would go.

Just as an aside thought here, too...an honor killing would be breaking American law.  So if a foreigner was on American land, carrying out an honor killing, I feel I have a right to bring that to the law's attention.  If a foreigner was choosing to circumsize his daughter for religious beliefs, I may think a bit differently about involving the law or myself in the matter.  I wouldn't like it one bit, but there is a saying that goes something like..."Do not free a camel of the burden of his hump: you may be freeing him from being a camel."




Elisabella -> RE: Science and Morality (3/28/2010 5:05:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity
Through hindsight I could foresee science giving marching orders to Gestapo-like agents "for the good of the planet" or "the greater good of humanity" that would have no bearing on what spiritual humans with actual hearts would consider true morality.



Under exactly what real-world circumstances does science give "marching orders" to Gestapo-like agents?



If analyzed purely objectively, the most obvious solution to overpopulation, starvation and disease in India, without involving any external nations or agents, would be a culling of the population.



LadyAngelika -> RE: Science and Morality (3/28/2010 5:25:43 PM)

I really appreciated this, thank you. I wanted to paste the conclusion because it struck such a chord with me.

quote:

But this is just the point. Whenever we are talking about facts certain opinions must be excluded. That is what it is to have a domain of expertise. That is what it is for knowledge to count. How have we convinced ourselves that in the moral sphere there is no such thing as moral expertise, or moral talent, or moral genius even? How have we convinced ourselves that every opinion has to count? How have we convinced ourselves that every culture has a point of view on these subjects worth considering? Does the Taliban have a point of view on physics that is worth considering? No. (Laughter) How is their ignorance any less obvious on the subject of human well-being? (Applause)

So, this, I think, is what the world needs now. It needs people like ourselves to admit that there are right and wrong answers to questions of human flourishing, and morality relates to that domain of facts. It is possible for individuals, and even for whole cultures to care about the wrong things. Which is to say that it's possible for them to have beliefs and desires that reliably lead to needless human suffering. Just admitting this will transform our discourse about morality. We live in a world in which the boundaries between nations mean less and less, and they will one day mean nothing.

We live in a world filled with destructive technology, and this technology can not be uninvented, it will always be easier to break things than to fix them. It seems to me therefore, patently obvious that we can no more respect and tolerate vast differences in notions of human well-being, than we can respect or tolerate vast differences in the notions about how disease spreads, or in the safety standards of buildings and airplanes. We simply must converge on the answers we give to the most important questions in human life. And to do that, we have to admit that these questions have answers. Thank you very much. (Applause)


Powerful.

- LA



Kirata -> RE: Science and Morality (3/28/2010 5:51:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

If analyzed purely objectively, the most obvious solution to overpopulation, starvation and disease in India, without involving any external nations or agents, would be a culling of the population.

However, if analyzed from the point of view of the well-being, the flourishing, of human beings, as Harris suggests, then "culling" them is in fact the most obvious non-solution. Killing someone does not further their well-being and flourishing.

K.



LadyAngelika -> RE: Science and Morality (3/28/2010 5:53:30 PM)

quote:

Killing someone does not further their well-being and flourishing.


He didn't address capital punishment but I wonder where he would stand on that. I personally would say that it advances nothing. But that is one of those tricky issues. That and abortion.

- LA



Elisabella -> RE: Science and Morality (3/28/2010 6:30:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

If analyzed purely objectively, the most obvious solution to overpopulation, starvation and disease in India, without involving any external nations or agents, would be a culling of the population.

However, if analyzed from the point of view of the well-being, the flourishing, of human beings, as Harris suggests, then "culling" them is in fact the most obvious non-solution. Killing someone does not further their well-being and flourishing.

K.


Right but it would go back to the "greater good" - the question of whether it is just to sacrifice one man (or one million) to save a hundred men (or one hundred million) if it can be proven that without the one/million, the hundred/million would have a better chance of survival.

ETA: Especially if the one million killed were the elderly and infirm, at what point does an individual human life outweigh the lives of the whole? Our automatic response, "all human life is valuable" is neither objective nor scientific.



Kirata -> RE: Science and Morality (3/28/2010 6:32:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

He didn't address capital punishment but I wonder where he would stand on that. I personally would say that it advances nothing. But that is one of those tricky issues. That and abortion.

As you say, tricky issue. Locking someone in a cage for 25 years can't rank very high on the "well-being and flourishing" scale either. Many of us prefer that choice, but we prefer it because it spares us the risk of executing an innocent man, not because it follows from our consideration for the well-being and flourishing of our prisoners. So we're violating that concern either way.

K.




Kirata -> RE: Science and Morality (3/28/2010 6:51:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

Right but it would go back to the "greater good" - the question of whether it is just to sacrifice one man (or one million) to save a hundred men (or one hundred million) if it can be proven that without the one/million, the hundred/million would have a better chance of survival.

Says who? Why? Is it "automatic" or something? If an individual chooses to sacrifice himself for others or for the greater good, that is one thing. For a committee to issue arbitrary death sentences is another. Even if it is deemed to be an unavoidable necessity for the reasons you cite, that would not make it moral in Harris' terms.

Killing people does not further their well-being or flourishing. There is no rationalizing it. The occasion of such a case would represent a necessary exception to the application of the morality that Harris is suggesting. Just as in war, where necessity sometimes overrules values we ordinarily uphold, even though we continue to value them.

K.




Elisabella -> RE: Science and Morality (3/28/2010 6:59:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

Right but it would go back to the "greater good" - the question of whether it is just to sacrifice one man (or one million) to save a hundred men (or one hundred million) if it can be proven that without the one/million, the hundred/million would have a better chance of survival.

Wrong. Says who? Why? Is it "automatic" or something? If an individual chooses to sacrifice himself for others or for the greater good, that is one thing. For a committee to issue arbitrary death sentences is another. Even if it is deemed to be an unavoidable necessity for the reasons you cite, that would not make it moral in Harris' terms.

Killing people does not further their well-being or floushing. There is no rationalizing it. The occasion of such a case would represent a necessary exception to the application of the morality that Harris is suggesting, just as in war, where necessity must sometimes overrule values we ordinarily uphold, even though we continue to value them.

K.




But that's where it gets tricky, if you can say "going to war and killing one million enemy soldiers will save one hundred million lives" the only distinction you're drawing is one between "enemy soldiers" and "civilians" and when you look back to the two most "ethical wars" fought, the US Civil War and WWII, you'll see that there was a draft system involved on both sides, further blurring the distinction between "civilian" and "enemy soldier"

My post was more a reply to Panda than to Harris' speech though.



Musicmystery -> RE: Science and Morality (3/28/2010 7:02:34 PM)

Just reading through this thread, I'm struck by just how prevalent either/or thinking is to our mindsets.



Silence8 -> RE: Science and Morality (3/28/2010 11:21:12 PM)

Harris makes some good points I think regarding the pitfalls of moral relativism, though the talk has this underlying thread of anti-Muslim rhetoric. Simultaneously you get a sense that Harris hasn't really considered Muslim culture relativistically enough.

He makes the sadism - religion comparison in the U.S. schools north - south. Still, honestly, is corporal punishment really the biggest problem facing U.S. education? Of course not. Is Muslim fundamentalist dress really comparable to suicidal terrorism? Is 'clothe bags' really a proper description? Harris here is too emotional here, and in opposition to his message, to be objective.

'Your daughter gets raped, and then you want to kill her.' -- so Harris brings up a really difficult but important question in the argument. Trying to fill the gap, and someone understand this way of thinking, can be incredibly difficult. It's somewhat bizarre, though, that Harris seems to suggest that we need futuristic brain-imaging technology to know 'really' what Muslim women think about traditional Muslim dress! One gets this sense, though, that Harris is using these forms of cultural extremity as a kind of mental receptacle for his emotional reaction to terrorism -- ironically, perhaps, you get a sense that Harris is performing a sort of, shall we say, scapegoating. 'It's science, damn it!'

Likewise, I want almost to draw the parallel to the American fundamentalist in relation to the abortion as ideology. Just as one gets a sense that Harris at no point wants really to unveil Muslim women, but has other militaristic fixations, so too does one get the sense that the opponents of abortion do not really care what happens to the object of their struggles, once and if they in fact save it. Even if were abortion made illegal all throughout the U.S., another 'object' would immediately arise.

Nowhere, then, is there any mention of the most difficult taboo, not sex in this context but the political-economic. This is an indeed an inversion of the fundamentalist perspective, though not wholly is the way Harris suggests.

I think the answer is not, as he frames it, they are sometimes barbarians and we are not barbarians to change their barbarism, but rather -- they are barbarians, we are barbarians, what now? Where will our abilities, scientific and cultural, take us?



Termyn8or -> RE: Science and Morality (3/28/2010 11:45:27 PM)

FR

Someone mentioned FGM. Well to me that is the same as circumcision, not in effect but in scope. The kid cannot consent, they don't even know how to talk. But how I see it calls much farther. My roomie's sister comes over with her baby. The infant has pierced ears and earrings. I told her straight out "How dare you ?". I don't care what anyone says, this is my house and I said it. If she doesn't like it too bad.

I don't know if the human race ever advanced to the point where common sense would tell them "You don't cut up, poke holes in or remove body parts from children". I can't see how we could put a Man on the moone and not fucking understand that. Are we that stupid ? No, no not me, I stated my position. Are THEY that stupid ?

T



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875