Science and morality.

[Frenger]

Hi there.

I am new to this forum after watching a lot of thunderf00ts videos I was finally lead here.

Anyway, I am due to give a talk on how science can answer questions of morality and was hoping some people on this forum could lead me in the direction of studies or books to research.

So far I have been wathcing the harvard videos posted on the last thread and reading sam harris "the moral landscape".

Any tips would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers

 

[Noth]

Hey there and welcome

I can recommend Qualiasoup's latest YT series on morality. The 3rd one he released only a few days ago, but here's the first:



As for books I don't know many from the top of my head. If it's books on morality that bases itself in science the Moral Landscape was the only thing that popped to mind.

 

[Frenger]

Thanks for that, they look great. I shall watch them this afternoon.

I was struggling to find books too. The Morla landscape is all I could find.

Is this a fairly new area for science? Resources seem a bit sparse.

edit: thanks again, these videos are perfect for what I wanted to do. Really appreciated.

 

[Squawk]

I'd argue that science is ill adapated for morality. Science can explain the origins of morality, and can start to compare the way that moral beings interactm but it can't really tell you what is moral simply because morality is subjective. Game theory would be a great place to start.

 

[Aught3]

One that comes to mind is The Origins of Virtue.

 

[Frenger]

@Squawk

I think science can be used to answer questions of morality. I would think we measure morality on the impact it has on human happiness and well being. If this is the case there are definite right and wrongs, this isn't to say there aren't mulitple right and wrongs in a given situation, but there are right and wrongs.

I don't want to pose an "ipto facto" set of rules here but I would suggest we can measure happiness and well being through science and therefore answer what is moral in a given circumstance.

I am new to this subject (which is why I picked to give a talk on it....*face palm*) so feel free to tear apart my argument

@Aught23

I LOVE Matt Ridley. Thanks for the suggestion, I have just ordered it.

 

[nemesiss]

@Squawk

I think science can be used to answer questions of morality. I would think we measure morality on the impact it has on human happiness and well being. If this is the case there are definite right and wrongs, this isn't to say there aren't mulitple right and wrongs in a given situation, but there are right and wrongs.

I don't want to pose an "ipto facto" set of rules here but I would suggest we can measure happiness and well being through science and therefore answer what is moral in a given circumstance.

interesting TEDtalk for you.



summary: science can tell us what molecule makes us moral

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

@Squawk

I think science can be used to answer questions of morality. I would think we measure morality on the impact it has on human happiness and well being. If this is the case there are definite right and wrongs, this isn't to say there aren't mulitple right and wrongs in a given situation, but there are right and wrongs.

I don't want to pose an "ipto facto" set of rules here but I would suggest we can measure happiness and well being through science and therefore answer what is moral in a given circumstance.

I am new to this subject (which is why I picked to give a talk on it....*face palm*) so feel free to tear apart my argument

@Aught23

I LOVE Matt Ridley. Thanks for the suggestion, I have just ordered it.

The thing is that you're assuming that all that matters for matters of morality is the level of happiness in every party. You have to provide some sort of basis for that claim before you start talking about science and happiness.

 

[Frenger]

@Squawk

I think science can be used to answer questions of morality. I would think we measure morality on the impact it has on human happiness and well being. If this is the case there are definite right and wrongs, this isn't to say there aren't mulitple right and wrongs in a given situation, but there are right and wrongs.

I don't want to pose an "ipto facto" set of rules here but I would suggest we can measure happiness and well being through science and therefore answer what is moral in a given circumstance.

I am new to this subject (which is why I picked to give a talk on it....*face palm*) so feel free to tear apart my argument

@Aught23

I LOVE Matt Ridley. Thanks for the suggestion, I have just ordered it.

The thing is that you're assuming that all that matters for matters of morality is the level of happiness in every party. You have to provide some sort of basis for that claim before you start talking about science and happiness.

I think I know what you mean? Do you mean that I have to show that all humans, no matter what cutural and sociological background have the same perception of happiness and well being?

I think we do know that, as I said earlier there are many different ways of being happy and moral and there are different interpretations on how to moral to other human beings and animals. People get it wrong all the time, but that's not because the question of morality is difficult, it's because people get it wrong. We can say that forcing woman to wear burkas is morally wrong, it's oppressive and it in no way adds to the well being of those woman. Of course if it is THERE choice to wear burkas then that holds no moral conflict. and as such is not deemed immoral.

We know that torturing and killing children to increase wealth and prosperity (as has been reported recently) is morally wrong, not just because it holds no naturalistic truth and that the killing of children in no way affects personal fortune, but because causing harm to others does not add to a persons happiness or well being.

There are definite distinctions between morally right, and morally wrong, that's not to say that there are not many ways to be morally right and morally wrong but just that is definte ways of being both.

I think you can relate it to freedom of speech (specifically your question on happiness in all parties) in that we all have freedom of speech unless it incites hatred or violence, we all have access to happiness unless it personally affects the happiness and well being of others. The people who kill those children can be as happy as they like by doing it, but that doesn't make it morally correct and can be easily deemed as not only immoral, but evil.

I'm not suggesting science is the only way to answer questions of morality, but I am proposing it can and should be a big part of it. Happiness and well being can be measured very well by science in terms of health, standard of living, live expectancy which all play a big part in an individuals happiness.

(I'm still learning about the subject so the above may seem incredibly scatty, there just thoughts and ideas at the moment)

 

[Frenger]

@nemisess

That video was astounding, thank you very much, I'm going to track down the study report for that. Wow.

 

[Sparky]

I think I know what you mean? Do you mean that I have to show that all humans, no matter what cutural and sociological background have the same perception of happiness and well being?

I think CJ was looking for some reasoning behind why you believe that morality is based purely on the happiness and well being of the concerned parties. You need to provide reasoning behind why you think that morality is based only on these before performing an investigation.

 

[Frenger]

I think I know what you mean? Do you mean that I have to show that all humans, no matter what cutural and sociological background have the same perception of happiness and well being?

I think CJ was looking for some reasoning behind why you believe that morality is based purely on the happiness and well being of the concerned parties. You need to provide reasoning behind why you think that morality is based only on these before performing an investigation.

I think I'm confused about how else you would define morality. Not that I'm saying I disagree, just that I think you have to have astarting poiint and that morality can be measured in happiness and well being seemed a pretty solid platform.

 

[devilsadvocate]

Frenger,

Here is a couple of dilemmas that possibly show why the utilitarianist ethic* you seem to describe and follow is controversial,

Doctor has 5 patients that need (different) organ transplants to survive. Should she kill a healthy patient and harvest his organs to save the other 5? Wouldn't doing that increase the overall happiness?

Sheriff in a town knows that if he doesn't find and catch the serial killer that has murdered many people in the town, the people will riot violently and many will die in the riot. The Sheriff knows the killer has already left the town for good from his investigations, but the mob demands justice. There's a hermit living outside the city that has no family and whom nobody knows well. Should he frame the hermit and hang him in front of the crowd to prevent the riot?

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

 

[Frenger]

Frenger,

Here is a couple of dilemmas that possibly show why the utilitarianist ethic* you seem to describe and follow is controversial,

Doctor has 5 patients that need (different) organ transplants to survive. Should she kill a healthy patient and harvest his organs to save the other 5? Wouldn't doing that increase the overall happiness?

Sheriff in a town knows that if he doesn't find and catch the serial killer that has murdered many people in the town, the people will riot violently and many will die in the riot. The Sheriff knows the killer has already left the town for good from his investigations, but the mob demands justice. There's a hermit living outside the city that has no family and whom nobody knows well. Should he frame the hermit and hang him in front of the crowd to prevent the riot?

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

I did actually begin writing a response to this and then I realised I had made my guidelines far too simplistic and naive. I suppose all I can argue is that science can explain "why" something is moral and the evolutionary reason for morality but I'm struggling to show that science can tell us how to moral.

I will have to do some research. The story of this is by the way, I have been asked to give a talk to a religious philosophy class because apparently I am the only atheist in this college (I find that a bit hard to believe) and I am currently studying for a BA in evolutionary sciences, religions big foe.

As I am not a philosopher and have no background in it (except for the brief time we studied political philosophy in my first degree) do we think I am better sticking to why "religion should answer questions of morality" and maybe back it up with studies from the above videos? (The Paul Zak one is brilliant, I have just read the study submitted to nature).

Just so you know, I wasn't meaning to sound utilitarianist, I find that a grey area where people can pretty much justify any action they please, no matter how deplorable it may be.

What do we think to "Why religion can't answer questions of morality?"

Thanks for help so far guys. Really appreciated.

 

[devilsadvocate]

I suppose all I can argue is that science can explain "why" something is moral and the evolutionary reason for morality but I'm struggling to show that science can tell us how to moral.

Actually, it is just the other way around, if we are considering utilitarian or any consequentalist ethic. Science can describe the world, but it cannot tell how it should be. In general this is called Hume's is-ought problem. From knowing how things are, we do not gain the knowledge how they ought to be. Science is descriptive, morals are prescriptive. However, once we come to accept some normative moral theory, that is a theory that tells us how things ought to be, we need knowledge how to best achieve our goals. Science doesn't give us moral reason to eradicate smallpox, or to nuke the planet to barren wasteland for that matter, but it can give us the means.

the story of this is by the way, I have been asked to give a talk to a religious philosophy class because apparently I am the only atheist in this college (I find that a bit hard to believe) and I am currently studying for a BA in evolutionary sciences, religions big foe.

The book "Arguing for Atheism: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion" by Robin De Poilevin seems to be exactly what you need to read. It is meant as a textbook, and while there's interconnectedness between the topics, they are autonomous enough to be read on their own. I suspect you would like to take a look of the part II of the book "Moral arguments for atheism".

 

[Frenger]

I suppose all I can argue is that science can explain "why" something is moral and the evolutionary reason for morality but I'm struggling to show that science can tell us how to moral.

Actually, it is just the other way around, if we are considering utilitarian or any consequentalist ethic. Science can describe the world, but it cannot tell how it should be. In general this is called Hume's is-ought problem. From knowing how things are, we do not gain the knowledge how they ought to be. Science is descriptive, morals are prescriptive. However, once we come to accept some normative moral theory, that is a theory that tells us how things ought to be, we need knowledge how to best achieve our goals. Science doesn't give us moral reason to eradicate smallpox, or to nuke the planet to barren wasteland for that matter, but it can give us the means.

the story of this is by the way, I have been asked to give a talk to a religious philosophy class because apparently I am the only atheist in this college (I find that a bit hard to believe) and I am currently studying for a BA in evolutionary sciences, religions big foe.

The book "Arguing for Atheism: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion" by Robin De Poilevin seems to be exactly what you need to read. It is meant as a textbook, and while there's interconnectedness between the topics, they are autonomous enough to be read on their own. I suspect you would like to take a look of the part II of the book "Moral arguments for atheism".

Thanks for that, what you have said has made a lot of sense. If I were to put together a video (of the slides I'm showing plus me talking or something) would you be able to pick it apart? Sometime next week? I shall post it on here.

 

[devilsadvocate]

It would be interesting to watch, so sure. I'm sure there are other people out here as well that can chime in to help with your project.