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

[I Ratant]

Please provide an example of a scientific answer to a moral question.

.
Cyklon B.

 

[lemurien]

Please provide an example of a scientific answer to a moral question.

You might get some idea by reading the experiments about how people in general (there are a number of subjects) consider whether it is right or wrong to kill somebody to save somebody other's life etc.


link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

The recently developed branch of science is called neuroethics.

 

[jiggeryqua]

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?

You're very convincing. Give science a chance! There's nothing I can see which prevents science addressing moral questions. Why should morality lie beyond science?

OK? Now your turn:

Please provide an example of a scientific answer to a moral question.

 

[JJM 777]

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

I am not so much concerned about science answering questions, I am more concerned about who would define the questions, and who would originally define the values that science would then defend and optimize.

 

[CAC Wirraway]

it depends on what moral standards you adopt. if its a purely utilitarian decision, then science is well suited for making these kinds of cost-benefit analyses.

 

[Wowbagger]

Please provide an example of a scientific answer to a moral question.

Recent example: The "apocalypse". Science is not indicating that the world is going to end any time soon. It is morally unjust to ask people to give up their worldly possessions in anticipation that it will. Religious views on this matter are, in fact, wrong... and demonstrably so.

An example Sam Harris uses is the Burqa: Certain theocracies require women to wear them in public. But, if we can demonstrate scientifically that it degrades their well-being, how would they be anything less than morally reprehensible. (Even though this is a superficial aspect of a much larger problem of disrespect for half the population.)

When kidney dialysis machines were rare, science was able to develop a workable solution to the problem of who should be allowed access to them; when all other directions of thought on the manner become either a confusing mess or a controversial outrage. Those same insights are being used for organ donation waiting lists.

Though, as science changes, so does the strategy: Should people be allowed to bypass the list, if someone volunteers to sell them an organ? I think science will have more insights into this than any other form of thinking.

Science gives us profound insight into all sorts of biological issues: cloning, stem cells, abortion, etc; that other "more morally prone" frameworks fail to address properly.

In fact, any time there is a new technology, the science behind it yields information on how to use it responsibly, if and when anyone cares to look for it.
There was a time, perhaps, when such insights were disrespected: Where ideology overrode the warnings of scientists. But, we are learning that science is more-often ahead of the curve on such things than other forms of thinking.

Perhaps you can think of some moral problems you believe science could not answer? And, we will see what we can do to answer them... with science.

 

[AlBell]

You might get some idea by reading the experiments about how people in general (there are a number of subjects) consider whether it is right or wrong to kill somebody to save somebody other's life etc.


link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

The recently developed branch of science is called neuroethics.

The answers one gives are contingent on moral issues already decided.

I await any counter-example, where science actually provides The Answer to any moral question. Religions don't answer them either; men answer them (well, women help too ). And of course the Answer changes with time and additional discussion.

Mattus: I have no interest in discussing 'why' the impossible can't be done.

 

[lemurien]

What is the alternative?
A religious council?
A mob?
A board of corrupted lawyers?

In fact, moral and legal questions are emotional questions and the thing that judges are doing is trying to find a certain 'spirit' in the legislation that could cover the very case he is working at. If he got a couple of agreeing cases, he could conclude that this is the way our people think that justice should run.

There are no absolutes. Just the tradition of lawmaking and the zeitgeist of now. it is clear that the concepts of right and wrong evolve with the society and the judge has to be aware of the current status.

Some scientific screening tests in the general population would certainly not hurt.

 

[AlBell]

Recent example: The "apocalypse". Science is not indicating that the world is going to end any time soon. It is morally unjust to ask people to give up their worldly possessions in anticipation that it will. Religious views on this matter are, in fact, wrong... and demonstrably so.

You think it takes Science to determine that?

An example Sam Harris uses is the Burqa: Certain theocracies require women to wear them in public. But, if we can demonstrate scientifically that it degrades their well-being, how would they be anything less than morally reprehensible. (Even though this is a superficial aspect of a much larger problem of disrespect for half the population.)

OK. Go ahead and demonstrate scientifically that well-being is being degraded.

When kidney dialysis machines were rare, science was able to develop a workable solution to the problem of who should be allowed access to them; when all other directions of thought on the manner become either a confusing mess or a controversial outrage. Those same insights are being used for organ donation waiting lists.

Note the answers to 'moral questions' have been decided by the weighing factors assigned to the solution matrix.

Though, as science changes, so does the strategy: Should people be allowed to bypass the list, if someone volunteers to sell them an organ? I think science will have more insights into this than any other form of thinking.

Then demonstrate it.

Science gives us profound insight into all sorts of biological issues: cloning, stem cells, abortion, etc; that other "more morally prone" frameworks fail to address properly.

Better said, fail to address in a way you like.

In fact, any time there is a new technology, the science behind it yields information on how to use it responsibly, if and when anyone cares to look for it.

Yeah, I'll go with the Cyclon B example.

There was a time, perhaps, when such insights were disrespected: Where ideology overrode the warnings of scientists. But, we are learning that science is more-often ahead of the curve on such things than other forms of thinking.

Perhaps you can think of some moral problems you believe science could not answer? And, we will see what we can do to answer them... with science.

Pick one yourself and answer it.

 

[MattusMaximus]

The answers one gives are contingent on moral issues already decided.

I await any counter-example, where science actually provides The Answer to any moral question. Religions don't answer them either; men answer them (well, women help too ). And of course the Answer changes with time and additional discussion.

Mattus: I have no interest in discussing 'why' the impossible can't be done.

But that's the crux of my question: why is it that you just assume science cannot address morality? Answering in the manner in which you are answering won't make the question go away, much as you'd like it to disappear.

If you wish to merely assert that such is the case without any form of argumentation and/or evidence, then I reserve the right to simply dismiss your assertion without any argumentation and/or evidence.

Consider your blatant assertion dismissed.

 

[MattusMaximus]

You're very convincing. Give science a chance! There's nothing I can see which prevents science addressing moral questions. Why should morality lie beyond science?

Gotcha.

OK? Now your turn:

Please provide an example of a scientific answer to a moral question.

I think Wowbagger addressed this question pretty well. I'll defer to that part of the thread.

ETA: I think before we dig too deeply into this part of the discussion, we need to define more thoroughly what would be an acceptable "answer" to a moral question. Using one criteria, Wowbagger's post is more than sufficient (in my view), but I can see how someone else might find it unsatisfactory.

 

[fls]

I think the problem is that philosophy is used to addressing these questions on the basis of human values (you see this in the answers that others here have given, where reference is made to science only having application once a value is chosen). Instead science simply bypasses philosophy, since human values do not have any value beyond their ability to detect (inaccurately) those things which are useful indicators, such as health or gratuitous suffering.

Linda

 

[Lithrael]

Science would have us not coddle the weak or infirm but would instead give us cold numbers indicating they should be culled.

That's utilitarianism, not science. The whole problem with this question is that science can help you find ways to get to the outcome you want, but you've got to figure out what outcome you want first, and what you're willing to do to get there.

ETA: even in cases like fls is citing, yes science is helping you cut through gut feelings, but what you're cutting through to is stilll a value people had to decide they were aiming for.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

What is the alternative?

A tremendously important question. All too often the 'science can't tell us why X' argument is used to justify alternative method Y neatly glossing over the fact that Y can't reliably tell us that either.

I find myself occasionally taking both sides of this science/morality question as I find both arguments unsatisfying.

What I am pretty sure of is that science is the only tool we have of for understanding objective reality and thus is important in understanding moral issues.

 

[Lamuella]

in my opinion it would be next to impossible to answer a moral or ethical question from first principles using only science. When people try to do so, what we more commonly end up with is essentially pseudoscientific justifications of existing biases. The scientific racists of the early 20th century used science as an excuse to think black people were inferior, but they professed that what they were doing was establishing this as scientific fact.

The ideas of science and the scientific method can however help us to see what courses of action best fit in with what we do or do not view as "moral". For example, if you take the view that preventing the deaths of children is a good thing, then our knowledge of medicine tells us ways in which such deaths can be prevented, and tells us which actions will prevent or cause the most child deaths. This is why it is possible to have a scientifically informed opinion on the morality of compulsory vaccination, for example.

However, there is no easy way that I know of to quantify such concepts as individual liberty, freedom of expression, or right to privacy in a way that allows us to look at such things entirely objectively, and without what objectivity we are at best using science to inform existing morals and at worst using science to justify existing morals

 

[MattusMaximus]

A tremendously important question. All too often the 'science can't tell us why X' argument is used to justify alternative method Y neatly glossing over the fact that Y can't reliably tell us that either.

Yes, that is a very succinct summary of my criticism in this thread.

I find myself occasionally taking both sides of this science/morality question as I find both arguments unsatisfying.

Personally, I am undecided at this point. But I'm quite suspicious of arguments which, without any reason given, assert that morality is beyond the ken of science.

What I am pretty sure of is that science is the only tool we have of for understanding objective reality and thus is important in understanding moral issues.

Ah, now that's an interesting point.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Humans are irrational creatures. It is possible that we may make some moral decisions correctly out of ignorance, and would actually make the incorrect decision if we knew more.

 

[Wowbagger]

You think it takes Science to determine that?

Do you think it took anything else?

Most people could use intuition, in this case, and be right. But, intuition is generally less reliable than science. And, as we can see, intuition failed many people who believed it was going to happen.

OK. Go ahead and demonstrate scientifically that well-being is being degraded.

I will see if I can find a citation from his book, when I get home. If you should read the book, yourself, you will see the idea is well defended. (In fact, it's probably overly defended. Too many liberals were thinking "maybe it's better for them", that he had to contend with.)

Note the answers to 'moral questions' have been decided by the weighing factors assigned to the solution matrix.

It is still an example of science answering a moral question, is it not?

Better said, fail to address in a way you like.

This is NOT a matter of what I like or not. It is important to make this clear.

This is a matter of determining what is acceptable policy, for the health and well-being of conscious creatures, regarding moral questions.

I, personally, might not even like all of the answers.

Pick one yourself and answer it.

If YOU think there are any moral questions that can not be answered with insights of science, YOU must provide examples.

Some of us, including me, already gave you examples where it does answer them.

 

[brodski]

It isn't a bad idea. In fact, we already do it. For example, many questions are answered in terms of health outcomes.

Linda

How is that a moral question? Deciding which outcomes it is right to promote and by what methods are moral questions, how we implement the answers us where science comes in.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Humans are irrational creatures. It is possible that we may make some moral decisions correctly out of ignorance, and would actually make the incorrect decision if we knew more.

True, but that isn't an argument against knowledge, is it?