Why is it a Bad Idea to Have Science Answering Moral Questions

INRM

Philosopher
I
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
5,505
I've heard people talking about Sam Harris's book and we've talked about why it's a good idea, but why is it a bad idea?
 
Because science concerns itself with "can we build it" not "Should we build it"
 
It can't be a good or bad idea, because it's impossible. There wouldn't even be a way to try.

This is like asking why it's a bad idea to cut a wooden board with a pile of mashed potatoes. It's too far into "can't" to be a matter of "should" or "shouldn't".
 
Science can weigh in on ethical questions under the framework where moral choices come from values and facts. Science can only provide facts, however, and it's a clear case of the naturalistic fallacy to try and equate facts and values.

So science can be used to refute moral arguments based on incoherent facts, just as logic can be used to refute moral arguments based on inconsistent or fallacious logic. There's really nothing science can contribute to the rest of the argument, though. What possible basic moral values could you pull from a knowledge of the way things work? There's little reason to assume that the way things are is the way things ought to be.
 
I think the replies are good enough that we're already beating a dead horse.
 
TShaitanaku said:
That sounds more like engineering than science.
Click to expand...

Science says "Is it theoretically possible to build it?".
Engineering says "Given that it's possible, how would we actually do so?".
Morality says "Given that we know how, is it actually a good idea?".
Humanity says "**** it, we know how so we're doing it anyway.".
 
Science would have us not coddle the weak or infirm but would instead give us cold numbers indicating they should be culled.
 
It isn't a bad idea. In fact, we already do it. For example, many questions are answered in terms of health outcomes.

Linda
 
I've heard people talking about Sam Harris's book and we've talked about why it's a good idea, but why is it a bad idea?
Click to expand...
Science is a tool. It can't answer moral questions more than a compass, map, weight or calculator. The scientific method is for accumulating knowledge, nothing more. This knowledge, however, is often invaluable in decision-making.
 
fls said:
It isn't a bad idea. In fact, we already do it. For example, many questions are answered in terms of health outcomes.

Linda
Click to expand...
Indeed, given that any moral issues regarding health outcomes were previously decided.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Science is a tool. It can't answer moral questions more than a compass, map, weight or calculator. The scientific method is for accumulating knowledge, nothing more. This knowledge, however, is often invaluable in decision-making.
Click to expand...

Why not? I hear people say this all the time, but there's never any justification for such a statement that I've seen. What is it about moral questions which separates them from any other kind of question?
 
Please provide an example of a scientific answer to a moral question.
 
Delvo said:
It can't be a good or bad idea, because it's impossible. There wouldn't even be a way to try.
Click to expand...

What science can try to do, is empirically measure the health and well-being of conscious creatures, and help us develop an optimal strategy for maximizing such things.

And, that is close enough!

As science gets better and better at measuring and improving the health and well-being, it will become more and more irresistable to use science in such a way.

Technically, science is a tool being used to help us answer moral questions. It is not, strictly speaking, answering moral questions. But, in everyday conversation, that distinction means very little. Saying "Science is answering moral questions" is a perfectly good abbreviation of a complex symantical point.

But, if it makes you feel better, you can add two words, if you insist: "Science is helping us answer moral questions".

MG1962 said:
Because science concerns itself with "can we build it" not "Should we build it"
Click to expand...
Only for sufficiently limited definitions of "science". ;)
 
AlBell said:
Please provide an example of a scientific answer to a moral question.
Click to expand...

I'd like my question, which was asked first, to be addressed, please. Any I'll provide a bit more clarity in the question...

Why is it that science must be excluded from addressing moral questions? That is, why is it that some say science cannot address these questions? Why is it assumed that morality is, by definition, beyond science?

Whether or not science actually has addressed any moral questions is not relevant to my question. I'm asking a different question: Can science address morality? And what is the justification for saying that science cannot address morality, as so many here have maintained?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom