Is God necessary for (objective) morality?

[Piscivore]

I think you are mostly right, but I don't think he is trying to fool anyone with this.

No, not intentionally. The first person we fool is ourselves.

His contention is that this is how all fields of science work and even how science itself works. For example, he says:

Can we justify this goal scientifically? Of course not.

"Of course not", because science has nothing to say about "goals" at all, let alone "justifying" them.

Contrariwise, "morality" is all about "justifying".

Does this make science itself unscientific?

No. "Science" is simply a method for testing the reliability of information. if we discover that part of that method does not produce reliable results, we change it- as has been done a number of times. No contradiction there.

Further, "science" itself isn't thought to be "objective" in the sense of "existing independent of the experience of conscious beings". It is meant only to be applied objectively (free from bias) so that the results it produces are as close to objective (existing independent of the experience of conscious beings) as is possible given our human limitations. There is (ideally) no "right answer" decided on before the process is applied.

Contrariwise, "morality" is supposed to be about "Oughts" and "Shoulds", and does explicity state what the "right answer" is- in fact, morality is nothing more than a collection of "right answers"... and some people claim that these are "inherent". Yet they change, all the time, sometimes from one minute to the next. That's a pretty big contradiction.

So he's talking apples and oranges. Science is a method that seeks to describe nature. Morality is not a method at all, as science is, but an inventory of prescribed behaviours.

it would be impossible to prove that our definition of science is correct

No. "Science" is defined to mean what we decide it means. Whatever we want science to mean is what it means because there is no objectively (existing independent of the experience of conscious beings) "correct" definition.

The same with "morality". The "correct" defintion is what people say it is, because there is also no objectively (existing independent of the experience of conscious beings) "correct" definition

I think he is just saying that we have to start somewhere. All sciences have to have some unjustifiable (subjective?) goals/axioms/definitions to start with, and from there objective facts can be derived.

The goals are subjective, yes. The axioms and defintions follow from the facts and have little to nothing to do with the goals, if they are indeed "objective". If the axioms and defintions are tailored to fit the goals (as is done with morality) then they are subjective and unscientific.

 

[OhMan]

Kant said (not much unlike Jesus long before) that you should not do to others what _you would not wish_ be done to yourself. The underlined section is what makes this principle a subjective one, at least when we get to the details. A suicide bomber is only doing to others what he is doing to himself too, so he does not break Kant's moral imperative.

Pretty sure this is wrong dude.
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." That is what I know to be the categorical imperative.

This would have suicide bombers blowing each other up ad nauseum until nothing is left, so it does not work as a universal law.

Here is what Wikipedia says:
It is often said that the Categorical Imperative is the same as The Golden Rule. In the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals Kant states that what he is saying is not the same as the Golden Rule; that the Golden Rule is derived from the categorical imperative with limitations. Under the Golden Rule many things cannot be universal. A criminal on the grounds of the Golden Rule could dispute with judges or a man could refuse to give to charity, both of which are incompatible under the universality of the categorical imperative. Kant makes this point when arguing that a man who purposefully breaks a promise is immoral.

SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

 

[bluskool]

"Of course not", because science has nothing to say about "goals" at all, let alone "justifying" them.

Contrariwise, "morality" is all about "justifying".

Science has nothing to say about goals, true, but it does have goals. Harris here is saying that morality too has certain goals that can't be justified, but if you accept the goals (maximizing well-being for instance), we can go about collecting moral facts.

No. "Science" is simply a method for testing the reliability of information. if we discover that part of that method does not produce reliable results, we change it- as has been done a number of times. No contradiction there.

Right, but the goal here is discovering reliable information. If someone else has the goal of proving Genesis to be literally true, can you say they are unscientific? At best we can say that that shouldn't be the goal of science. Similarly, if someone said that the goal of morality was to gain as much money and power for him/herself at the expense of others, we can say that that shouldn't be the goal of morality.

Further, "science" itself isn't thought to be "objective" in the sense of "existing independent of the experience of conscious beings". It is meant only to be applied objectively (free from bias) so that the results it produces are as close to objective (existing independent of the experience of conscious beings) as is possible given our human limitations. There is (ideally) no "right answer" decided on before the process is applied.

Okay, so we apply the method and then get "right answers" (at least our closest approximation). I don't see any reason in principle that we couldn't do that with morality as long as we have a goal.

Contrariwise, "morality" is supposed to be about "Oughts" and "Shoulds", and does explicity state what the "right answer" is- in fact, morality is nothing more than a collection of "right answers"... and some people claim that these are "inherent". Yet they change, all the time, sometimes from one minute to the next. That's a pretty big contradiction.

The "ought" is the goal. We ought to want to maximize well-being. If we agree to that, we can come up with right and wrong answers for how to do that. With science, one of our goals is that we ought to obtain reliable information. If we agree on that and the definition of reliable, we can come up with right and wrong ways to go about obtaining reliable information.

So he's talking apples and oranges. Science is a method that seeks to describe nature. Morality is not a method at all, as science is, but an inventory of prescribed behaviors.

I don't think he is saying that morality is a method. I think the idea is that we can use the scientific method to discover what is right and wrong/true or false in relation to certain goals.

No. "Science" is defined to mean what we decide it means. Whatever we want science to mean is what it means because there is no objectively (existing independent of the experience of conscious beings) "correct" definition.

The same with "morality". The "correct" defintion is what people say it is, because there is also no objectively (existing independent of the experience of conscious beings) "correct" definition.

I think that is exactly correct, but I am not seeing how this contradicts what Harris said. Saying that the "standards of proof will be built into any proof we would offer" seems to me to be the same as saying that "the correct definition is what people say it is."

The goals are subjective, yes. The axioms and defintions follow from the facts and have little to nothing to do with the goals, if they are indeed "objective". If the axioms and defintions are tailored to fit the goals (as is done with morality) then they are subjective and unscientific.

I meant that concepts like "well-being," "health" and "reliable information" are goals that need to be defined before you can say what falls into each category. Axioms are, by definition, unproven assumptions, so I don't see how they could follow the facts. But, my use of axiom there probably just needlessly complicated things and isn't really necessary anyway. Disregard.

 

[Piscivore]

Science has nothing to say about goals, true, but it does have goals.

It has one goal- "to find out". It does not (at least, it isn't supposed to) care about what the answer is. Morality has hundreds of goals, and those goals are subject to change at any time.

Harris here is saying that morality too has certain goals that can't be justified, but if you accept the goals (maximizing well-being for instance), we can go about collecting moral facts.

This word "justified" you keep using- "justified" to whom?

But yes, that's what I said too. Only, "moral goals" and "moral facts" are not the same things, and while you can say objective things about subjective matters, it does not make them objective themselves.

Right, but the goal here is discovering reliable information. If someone else has the goal of proving Genesis to be literally true, can you say they are unscientific?

We can if they manipulate the data so it says what they want the outcome to be.

At best we can say that that shouldn't be the goal of science.

No, we really can't. There is no reason they "shouldn't" investigate anything they want. To most of us, it looks like a collosal waste of time because we already have so much evidence refuting Genesis, but as long as their rigor and integrity remain intact, they'll come to the same conclusions (granting they don't discover something really spectacular ). No one has the obligation or even the right to stop them from doing the work again if they want to. Reproducibility is a keystone of science.

Similarly, if someone said that the goal of morality was to gain as much money and power for him/herself at the expense of others, we can say that that shouldn't be the goal of morality.

That's just imposing our subjective standards on them. There's nothing in science or nature to dictate that opinion.

Okay, so we apply the method and then get "right answers" (at least our closest approximation). I don't see any reason in principle that we couldn't do that with morality as long as we have a goal.

We can, but again, you're talking about facts about the goal, not the goal itself.

The "ought" is the goal. We ought to want to maximize well-being.

And that's a subjective judgement, that opens up a plethora of questions with only subjective answers. "Maximize well-being" for who? Everyone? Our countrymen? Our peer group? Our kin group? What about non-participators (criminals, idlers)? Does "maximize well-being" include accepting a lesser degree of well-being for some to increase the numbers of those experiencing "well-being"?

If we agree to that, we can come up with right and wrong answers for how to do that. With science, one of our goals is that we ought to obtain reliable information. If we agree on that and the definition of reliable, we can come up with right and wrong ways to go about obtaining reliable information.

But that's still focusing on the facts about the goal, not the goal itself.

I don't think he is saying that morality is a method.

I know, that wasn't really even necessary to mention. The point is is that science describes, morality prescribes. That's the key difference- and why "science" isn't a good analogy with "morality". In fact, this whole tangent hinges on that distinction.

I think the idea is that we can use the scientific method to discover what is right and wrong/true or false in relation to certain goals.

Yes. As I said, we can objectively measure whether an action has a result that assists or impedes progress to a goal. That does not make the goal itself an objective one.

I meant that concepts like "well-being," "health" and "reliable information" are goals that need to be defined before you can say what falls into each category.

Which is the essence of subjectivity. None of these categories- in fact, no categories at all- exist independent of the experience of conscious beings.

 

[JJM 777]

Scientifically we can observe what morals is and how each persons acts. We can observe and classify acts and people into destructive, freely competitive, mutually cooperative, self-sacrificial, victim etc. That is what science can do, just as science can observe and classify anything else in the world. How things ought to be is a different story -- again in all topics observed and classified by science.

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

Give 1000 people from 200 countries the task of writing on paper what moral maxims come in their mind after reading his definition. That should prove how subjective the definition is.

 

[bluskool]

It has one goal- "to find out". It does not (at least, it isn't supposed to) care about what the answer is. Morality has hundreds of goals, and those goals are subject to change at any time.

So why, in principle, can't a science of morality be indifferent to its discoveries? Also, why, in principle, do the goals of morality have to change. It seems to me that if our goal is something like well-being, it can remain the same while the facts about how to achieve it change with our knowledge. That's not unlike other sciences.
I also think it is a little simplistic to say that science only has one goal. What about the goals of curing disease, building more efficient batteries, make predictions, etc...?

This word "justified" you keep using- "justified" to whom?

Justified to the skeptic of the legitimacy of any science.

But yes, that's what I said too. Only, "moral goals" and "moral facts" are not the same things, and while you can say objective things about subjective matters, it does not make them objective themselves.

Would you say that any science has objective goals?

We can if they manipulate the data so it says what they want the outcome to be.

A desire for data that is not manipulated is a value of what we would consider science. What if they didn't value that?

No, we really can't. There is no reason they "shouldn't" investigate anything they want. To most of us, it looks like a collosal waste of time because we already have so much evidence refuting Genesis, but as long as their rigor and integrity remain intact, they'll come to the same conclusions (granting they don't discover something really spectacular ). No one has the obligation or even the right to stop them from doing the work again if they want to. Reproducibility is a keystone of science.

Okay, but we are under no obligation to take them seriously. For some reason, when it comes to morality, many people seem to think that we have to respect all moral systems equally.

That's just imposing our subjective standards on them. There's nothing in science or nature to dictate that opinion.

So, would you say that we are imposing our own subjective standards of science of creationists?

We can, but again, you're talking about facts about the goal, not the goal itself.

I think I understand what you mean by that and it seems to me that this is the central point. Are you saying that the goals are subjective, but facts about the goals can be objective? If that's the case, I'm not really disagreeing with that. But what I would like to know is if you think that this criticism could apply equally to any science.

And that's a subjective judgement, that opens up a plethora of questions with only subjective answers. "Maximize well-being" for who? Everyone? Our countrymen? Our peer group? Our kin group? What about non-participators (criminals, idlers)? Does "maximize well-being" include accepting a lesser degree of well-being for some to increase the numbers of those experiencing "well-being"?

I can eliminate a few objections by modifying the goal to state "increase the well-being of conscious organisms." But I think your broader point is that it is complicated, but so are many things in science. The concept of "health" or "nutrition", for example, could suffer from similar objections. I should note, though, that I understand the goals we choose are just value judgements. I just think we have to start somewhere, and this is the case with any science. We wouldn't be doing science at all if we didn't value discovery.

I know, that wasn't really even necessary to mention. The point is is that science describes, morality prescribes. That's the key difference- and why "science" isn't a good analogy with "morality". In fact, this whole tangent hinges on that distinction.

The idea is that morality could be a science, not that it is analogous. But this whole distinction between science describing and morality prescribing is a little blurry. A science of morality could just tell us the right and wrong ways to increase the well-being of conscious organisms, but it doesn't have to say that you must act moral. That would be up to the government and society as a whole to decide.

Which is the essence of subjectivity. None of these categories- in fact, no categories at all- exist independent of the experience of conscious beings.

So you agree that "health" and "reliable information" are subjective goals?

 

[bluskool]

Give 1000 people from 200 countries the task of writing on paper what moral maxims come in their mind after reading his definition. That should prove how subjective the definition is.

But it doesn't. It only proves that people have different opinions. If I told you that objects are held to the earth by invisible rubber bands, would you then think physics is subjective?

 

[Piscivore]

So why, in principle, can't a science of morality be indifferent to its discoveries?

It can, but again, you're moving a step away from the "goals" and studying facts about the goals.

Also, why, in principle, do the goals of morality have to change. It seems to me that if our goal is something like well-being, it can remain the same while the facts about how to achieve it change with our knowledge.

Because circumstances change, which changes what "well-being" is. Spraying the garden hose around the living room is usually not conducive to one's "well being"... until the house is on fire. Cutting into someone's belly with a sharp knife is harmful... unless they have appendicitis.

That's not unlike other sciences.
I also think it is a little simplistic to say that science only has one goal. What about the goals of curing disease, building more efficient batteries, make predictions, etc...?

Those are material benefits and secondary goals to which we apply science.

Would you say that any science has objective goals?

No. Name one.

A desire for data that is not manipulated is a value of what we would consider science. What if they didn't value that?

Then they wouldn't be doing science.

Okay, but we are under no obligation to take them seriously.

Just integrity, if they follow all the same rules as we do. But yes, "integrity" is a subjective value also.

For some reason, when it comes to morality, many people seem to think that we have to respect all moral systems equally.

Really? I'eve never heard that. Most people to me seem to assume their particular moral system is an unquestionable, objective universal truth and all others are deficient in some way.

So, would you say that we are imposing our own subjective standards of science of creationists?

Yes, absolutely. We prefer ours because it gives more consistant results, they prefer theirs because they can make it give them the results they want.

I think I understand what you mean by that and it seems to me that this is the central point. Are you saying that the goals are subjective, but facts about the goals can be objective?

Certainly, I have said exactly that, many times.

If that's the case, I'm not really disagreeing with that. But what I would like to know is if you think that this criticism could apply equally to any science.

How do you mean?

I can eliminate a few objections by modifying the goal to state "increase the well-being of conscious organisms." But I think your broader point is that it is complicated, but so are many things in science. The concept of "health" or "nutrition", for example, could suffer from similar objections. I should note, though, that I understand the goals we choose are just value judgements. I just think we have to start somewhere, and this is the case with any science. We wouldn't be doing science at all if we didn't value discovery.

Indeed.

The idea is that morality could be a science, not that it is analogous. But this whole distinction between science describing and morality prescribing is a little blurry.

Let me try to clarify. Science can describe the way that a human works, what nutrients it requires, how emotions works and even predict what events tend to produce which emotions. It can describe the physical structure of the human and and describe the physical laws that will apply when one cuts into a human. It cannot tell you what should be done to or with the human.

Morality, on the other hand, does tell us (prescribe) that harming a human is "bad" or "good", in which certain circumstances. Cutting into a sick human with certain illnesses is "good". Cutting into a human with other illnesses, or a healthy human is "bad"... etc.

A science of morality could just tell us the right and wrong ways to increase the well-being of conscious organisms,

Yes, but it can never tell you that "increase the well-being of conscious organisms" is "good" or "right".

but it doesn't have to say that you must act moral. That would be up to the government and society as a whole to decide.

Ultimately it comes down the the moral agent himself. All a government or society can do is apply pressure. That's why we have crime.

So you agree that "health" and "reliable information" are subjective goals?

Yes.

 

[bluskool]

It can, but again, you're moving a step away from the "goals" and studying facts about the goals.

Yes, I understand this. Did I make it seem like I didn't?

Because circumstances change, which changes what "well-being" is. Spraying the garden hose around the living room is usually not conducive to one's "well being"... until the house is on fire. Cutting into someone's belly with a sharp knife is harmful... unless they have appendicitis.

I asked you why the goal has to change. The goal remained "well-being" in every example you gave. That the means for attaining the goal change in different circumstances is obviously true, but the goal remains the same.

Those are material benefits and secondary goals to which we apply science.

Secondary goals are not non-goals.

No. Name one.

I can't. That was my point.

Then they wouldn't be doing science.

According to you, but that's just you subjective opinion of what science is, right?

Really? I'eve never heard that. Most people to me seem to assume their particular moral system is an unquestionable, objective universal truth and all others are deficient in some way.

The word "most" was a poor choice. Maybe "most intellectuals" would have been a better choice.

Yes, absolutely. We prefer ours because it gives more consistant results, they prefer theirs because they can make it give them the results they want.

We prefer ours because it gives us the results we want too - those that are consistent.

How do you mean?

That they all have the some unjustifiable value judgements/goals at the heart of them. You have already said that you agree, though.

Let me try to clarify. Science can describe the way that a human works, what nutrients it requires...

"Requires" sounds like a value judgement to me. It only requires certain nutrients with respect to the goal of being alive or not acquiring a deficiency.

...how emotions works and even predict what events tend to produce which emotions. It can describe the physical structure of the human and describe the physical laws that will apply when one cuts into a human. It cannot tell you what should be done to or with the human.

This whole idea of "should" just confuses the matter. When we say an action is "good" or "bad," we are either saying something that is true or false (there is no other option). True or false with respect to certain goals, yes, but again, this is the case with all realms of human knowledge. Maybe science can't tell us that we "should" act morally, but I don't see any reason, in principle, it can't tell us what is moral or immoral.

Yes, but it can never tell you that "increase the well-being of conscious organisms" is "good" or "right".

It can't tell us that well-being should be the goal, but then we are left with the question, what would be a better goal?

Ultimately it comes down the the moral agent himself. All a government or society can do is apply pressure. That's why we have crime.

Of course, anyone can choose to act immorally.

I am actually beginning to struggle to put my finger on exactly what our disagreement is, if any.

 

[Piscivore]

Yes, I understand this. Did I make it seem like I didn't?

Just making sure.

I asked you why the goal has to change. The goal remained "well-being" in every example you gave.

Yes, but that's a bit of an equivocation, because the meaning of "well-being" changed.

Secondary goals are not non-goals.

No, they are not, but they are not inherent in "science", is the point. Science is a tool. There's nothing about a hammer that says that it is only "for" opening coconuts, making music, breaking into cars, hurting people, or driving nails- even though it can do all those things- It's "purpose", it's "goal" is to "hit things".

I can't. That was my point.

Fair enough, neither can I.

According to you, but that's just you subjective opinion of what science is, right?

Quite so.

The word "most" was a poor choice. Maybe "most intellectuals" would have been a better choice.

I was serious in that I've never heard it espoused in any serious way by anyone.

We prefer ours because it gives us the results we want too - those that are consistent.

Well spotted.

"Requires" sounds like a value judgement to me. It only requires certain nutrients with respect to the goal of being alive or not acquiring a deficiency.

Indeed.

This whole idea of "should" just confuses the matter. When we say an action is "good" or "bad," we are either saying something that is true or false (there is no other option). True or false with respect to certain goals, yes, but again, this is the case with all realms of human knowledge. Maybe science can't tell us that we "should" act morally, but I don't see any reason, in principle, it can't tell us what is moral or immoral.

Once we define to what end we wish to work for, no.

It can't tell us that well-being should be the goal, but then we are left with the question, what would be a better goal?

Personal enrichment?
Sexual pleasure?
Political power?

People sacrifice their "well-being" to these things all the time.

I am actually beginning to struggle to put my finger on exactly what our disagreement is, if any.

I wasn't assuming we were disagreeing, just clarifying.

 

[bluskool]

Yes, but that's a bit of an equivocation, because the meaning of "well-being" changed.

I don't see how. Well-being is not defined as "not spraying a hose in your house" or "not cutting someone." Outcome and intent seem to me to be essential aspects of well-being.

No, they are not, but they are not inherent in "science", is the point. Science is a tool. There's nothing about a hammer that says that it is only "for" opening coconuts, making music, breaking into cars, hurting people, or driving nails- even though it can do all those things- It's "purpose", it's "goal" is to "hit things".

Okay, it seems you are right.

I was serious in that I've never heard it espoused in any serious way by anyone.

Then I would say you are lucky, but I think you might just misunderstand. Have you never heard anyone say that while we find certain occurrences in the Muslim world to be abhorrent, we can't criticize them because that is just their culture?

Personal enrichment?
Sexual pleasure?
Political power?

People sacrifice their "well-being" to these things all the time.

Yes they do, but would any of those be a better ground for morality than well-being, in your subjective opinion?

I wasn't assuming we were disagreeing, just clarifying.

Oh, I wasn't saying you were. I was just thinking that we had a disagreement somewhere, but then realized that we are basically saying the same thing.

 

[Piscivore]

I don't see how. Well-being is not defined as "not spraying a hose in your house" or "not cutting someone." Outcome and intent seem to me to be essential aspects of well-being.

No, Outcome and intent are aspects of the actions taken to obtain "well-being"- in these cases the relevant aspects of "well-being" are "minimizing property damage" and "maximising personal health".

Then I would say you are lucky, but I think you might just misunderstand. Have you never heard anyone say that while we find certain occurrences in the Muslim world to be abhorrent, we can't criticize them because that is just their culture?

I have heard that, but I didn't extrapolate it to "respect all moral systems equally".

Yes they do, but would any of those be a better ground for morality than well-being, in your subjective opinion?

Since "well-being" is something so broad and vaguely defined, absolutely. Any one of them. Some of the worse things done to people and the most egregious insults to freedom have been done in the name of "the greater good"... Usually meaning the increased "well-being" of the people wearing the hobnailed boots or cashing in on the stock options.

 

[bluskool]

No, Outcome and intent are aspects of the actions taken to obtain "well-being"- in these cases the relevant aspects of "well-being" are "minimizing property damage" and "maximising personal health".

Even so, nothing about well-being changes. Spraying a hose in your house would minimize property damage if it was on fire and wouldn't if it was. The circumstance is the only thing that changes, not the definition.

Since "well-being" is something so broad and vaguely defined, absolutely. Any one of them. Some of the worse things done to people and the most egregious insults to freedom have been done in the name of "the greater good"... Usually meaning the increased "well-being" of the people wearing the hobnailed boots or cashing in on the stock options.

But you have to evaluate it on its own terms. increasing the well-being a few at the expense of many would violate the goal of increasing the well-being of all conscious creatures. You could make the same argument against the other options on the table. If increasing sexual pleasure is the goal, someone could increase their sexual pleasure at the expense of others (rape) and call it moral.

 

[Piscivore]

Even so, nothing about well-being changes. Spraying a hose in your house would minimize property damage if it was on fire and wouldn't if it was. The circumstance is the only thing that changes, not the definition.

Let me try a different example. Today, most people (in the US and Europe, at least) would consider electrical service and clean municipal water essential to their well-being. That wasn't true 100 years ago.

But you have to evaluate it on its own terms. increasing the well-being a few at the expense of many would violate the goal of increasing the well-being of all conscious creatures.

Does it follow that a small increase in the well-being of many at the great expense of a few is okay?

If increasing sexual pleasure is the goal, someone could increase their sexual pleasure at the expense of others (rape) and call it moral.

Indeed- but at least it's clearly defined. You know where you stand with that guy. And if enough people disagree then we can say that there is a clearly defined moral line there- one's freedom to gratify sexual pleasure ends at another's right to consent.

 

[JJM 777]

Outcome and intent seem to me to be essential aspects of well-being.

Actual outcome is not really a moral issue, if morals / ethics is defined as the study of human intentions. The actual outcome of action is not always the same as was the moral intention. A brain surgeon tries a difficult operation and fails, the actual outcome is homicide but the moral intention is not.

What I find outrageous in modern legislation is that attempting a crime and being lucky enough to fail in it gives you a smaller sentence than succeeding in the crime. The moral intention is the same, and the person poses the same future risk to the society in both cases.

Modern legislation also sets the victims of crime in an arbitrary situation, what compensation the victims will get, if any, depends on whether the police catch the criminal and whether the criminal has money to pay the compensation. Compensation of damage caused by crime should be a matter of national insurance, to which fund criminals would pay what they can, those who get caught and sentenced.