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

[AlBell]

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.

OK.

Now, about a case where Science answers a 'moral question'; do you have one? You are correct that I find wowbagger's examples unsatisfying, as I also find discussion of medical ethics pretending to be 'moral' choices.

Want a moral question? Is abortion moral?

ps. I find it immoral, but have no problem with it being legal. Could we extend the age of an individual being sublect to abortion to 21 years?

 

[AvalonXQ]

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

I would say it is. It is at least an argument that whether or not knowledge should increase may be a fact-specific question.

As one fictional example, there's a short story from one of the "Year's Best SF" volumes that postulates a small device which inerrantly lights up one second before you press it. It's absolutely 100% accurate; there is no known way to fool it. In the story, this resulted in a large percentage of humanity finally grasping intuitively that free will was an illusion -- and entirely shutting down.

If such a device could be researched to exist, and this would result, then we should not do so.

 

[fls]

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.

It gets presented as though that is the case, but it isn't. It's the other way around. Science looks at useful outcomes. Human values seem to imperfectly pick up on some of the same things, making it look like science is working off of human values. But realistically, science and human values are both looking at something else (that is, they are confounded), and science is much better at describing and judging that something else than our intuitions are.

Linda

 

[Wowbagger]

If such a device could be researched to exist, and this would result, then we should not do so.

If I recall correctly, there were already studies that indicate society would not shut down, if we all figured out free will was an illusion. We see this, in part, from the fact that most* people who already believe free-will is an illusion do not "shut down". There are too many instincts that get in the way.

(*Extreme cases, where someone does shut down are very rare.)

Society might transform in some way. But, your example is inherently bad.

Still, as a matter of thought exercise: If we discovered the opposite: That the denial of free-will really does cause people to "shut down" routinely - Science could probably respond by developing solutions to that, before it's too late. (I don't know what those solutions would be, but it's not like it's impossible for some creative person, who thought about this more, to propose at least something feasible.)

 

[AlBell]

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

Please provide an example demonstrating the phrase I bolded.

 

[AvalonXQ]

If I recall correctly, there were already studies that indicate society would not shut down, if we all figured out free will was an illusion. We see this, in part, from the fact that most* people who already believe free-will is an illusion do not "shut down". There are too many instincts that get in the way.

It was expressed in the story that this is untrue. Some human beings have an academic understanding that free will is illusory, but they still maintain that illusion in their own day-to-day process, and no human being currently has a visceral, intuitive grasp of their own lack of volition. This "toy" shattered that illusion with direct evidence and experience in a way that simply talking about free will didn't.

But personally I agree with you that, in practice, we would not shut down from the use of such a device. The point still stands that human irrationality may imply that perfect knowledge is suboptimal, and I think the Prisoner's Dilemma is a good example of why this may be.

 

[fls]

How is that a moral question?

How is what 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.

I realize that is the stock answer, but it doesn't seem to be what we do. Instead we seem to describe problems and offer solutions on the basis of useful outcomes - programs to decrease the spread of AIDS in Africa (rather than access to religious icons) are measured on the basis of disease incidence (rather than conversion to Christianity), for example.

Linda

 

[Wowbagger]

unsatisfying, as I also find discussion of medical ethics pretending to be 'moral' choices.

I think the distinction between morals and ethics is largely irrelevent to this discussion.

Is abortion moral?

Science is showing us that it is not a simple "yes" or "no" answer: The decision must be made on a case-by-case basis. And science can show us the relevant factors in doing so:

* We can determine if the childbirth would severely impede the health and well-being of a family, or society. It becomes more justifiable when we can make such a case.

* An important subset of the above, is if the mother was a victim of rape or incest. (The "rape" itself is less relevant, to science, than the fact that having the child could place more strain on her, than if it wasn't the result of rape.)

* The level of mental development of the fetus is also a factor. If we (biologically) value "concious creatures", the level of "conciousness" matters.


We have enough case history on the subject, now, that we can we can form an answer from scientific research, and not merely philosophical thinking.

 

[MattusMaximus]

OK.

Now, about a case where Science answers a 'moral question'; do you have one? You are correct that I find wowbagger's examples unsatisfying, as I also find discussion of medical ethics pretending to be 'moral' choices.

Why do you find his examples unsatisfying? Instead of merely dismissing what you dislike, try actually providing an argument or reason, then the conversation can progress.

Want a moral question? Is abortion moral?

ps. I find it immoral, but have no problem with it being legal. Could we extend the age of an individual being sublect to abortion to 21 years?

Ever heard of the death penalty? The death penalty goes well beyond 21 years of age (no age limit, in fact). But I digress, as this will derail the thread from the OP.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I would say it is. It is at least an argument that whether or not knowledge should increase may be a fact-specific question.

As one fictional example, there's a short story from one of the "Year's Best SF" volumes that postulates a small device which inerrantly lights up one second before you press it. It's absolutely 100% accurate; there is no known way to fool it. In the story, this resulted in a large percentage of humanity finally grasping intuitively that free will was an illusion -- and entirely shutting down.

If such a device could be researched to exist, and this would result, then we should not do so.

So you're saying that because X might happen if we learn Y, with absolutely no reason to support your argument other than it might happen, then we should cease the search for knowledge?

 

[Lithrael]

It gets presented as though that is the case, but it isn't. It's the other way around. Science looks at useful outcomes. Human values seem to imperfectly pick up on some of the same things, making it look like science is working off of human values.

But surely we had to agree on what a useful outcome actually was first?

 

[fls]

But surely we had to agree on what a useful outcome actually was first?

Like how every time I plan a clinical trial I poll a random sample of the general population to determine what outcome I should measure?

"I am testing an antibiotic against streptococcus pneumoniae. Which of the following is of most value:

A) attractive hair
B) a sunrise on the beach
C) world peace
D) a chicken in every pot"

Linda

 

[I Ratant]

But surely we had to agree on what a useful outcome actually was first?

.
Useful to whom?
I mentioned Zyklon-B as a solution to a problem... too many JWs, gypsies, homos, mentally and physically disabled, useless eaters...
The "solution" was useful to the society as a whole.
Immoral as hell.
But accepted.

 

[AlBell]

Why do you find his examples unsatisfying? Instead of merely dismissing what you dislike, try actually providing an argument or reason, then the conversation can progress.

Why do I like vanilla rather than chocolate is the same kind of question, imo.

Ever heard of the death penalty? The death penalty goes well beyond 21 years of age (no age limit, in fact). But I digress, as this will derail the thread from the OP.

Why a derail? What does Science tell anyone about the morality of the death penalty?

 

[fls]

Want a moral question? Is abortion moral?

ps. I find it immoral, but have no problem with it being legal. Could we extend the age of an individual being sublect to abortion to 21 years?

That's a good example. It's treated as though it is a difficult question to answer because of the misinformation and baggage religion and philosophy have attached to the issue. Abortion can be a reasonably safe and effective way to stop an embryo from fully developing into a human who can survive independent of a womb. What is the harm? One can guess at what you are thinking by your next question which is otherwise entirely irrelevant. But issues about the control of reproduction are different from issues about killing humans (i.e. different lists of potential harm/benefit to discover). And it is a scientific approach which discovers those differences, not our imperfect human values which bungle the job.

Linda

 

[AlBell]

I think the distinction between morals and ethics is largely irrelevent to this discussion.

I don't doubt that you do.

Science is showing us that it is not a simple "yes" or "no" answer: The decision must be made on a case-by-case basis. And science can show us the relevant factors in doing so:

* We can determine if the childbirth would severely impede the health and well-being of a family, or society. It becomes more justifiable when we can make such a case.

* An important subset of the above, is if the mother was a victim of rape or incest. (The "rape" itself is less relevant, to science, than the fact that having the child could place more strain on her, than if it wasn't the result of rape.)

* The level of mental development of the fetus is also a factor. If we (biologically) value "concious creatures", the level of "conciousness" matters.


We have enough case history on the subject, now, that we can we can form an answer from scientific research, and not merely philosophical thinking.

I find those points offer nothing as to the moral status of abortion.

 

[AlBell]

That's a good example. It's treated as though it is a difficult question to answer because of the misinformation and baggage religion and philosophy have attached to the issue. Abortion can be a reasonably safe and effective way to stop an embryo from fully developing into a human who can survive independent of a womb. What is the harm?

What is the harm depends on who you ask, that beginning to address the moral issue.

One can guess at what you are thinking by your next question which is otherwise entirely irrelevant. But issues about the control of reproduction are different from issues about killing humans (i.e. different lists of potential harm/benefit to discover). And it is a scientific approach which discovers those differences, not our imperfect human values which bungle the job.

Linda

Can we stick to one issue? What do you and Science have to say about the morality of abortion?

 

[Wowbagger]

I find those points offer nothing as to the moral status of abortion.

The moral status is: Yes, in some cases. No, in others. Use what science we have to determine the answer for each case where the question arises.

If you think such a question needs to have a definite "YES!" or "NO!" answer, you are not living in the real world.

 

[AvalonXQ]

So you're saying that because X might happen if we learn Y, with absolutely no reason to support your argument other than it might happen, then we should cease the search for knowledge?

I didn't say that at all. Look again.
I said that if X will happen if we learn Y, then it is reasonable to avoid learning Y in order to avoid X. There is no general principal, then, that we should always attempt to learn Y for all values of Y.
And because of that, it is also reasonable to evaluate the consequences of gaining knowledge to determine if that knowledge should be gained.

 

[fls]

.
Useful to whom?
I mentioned Zyklon-B as a solution to a problem... too many JWs, gypsies, homos, mentally and physically disabled, useless eaters...
The "solution" was useful to the society as a whole.
Immoral as hell.
But accepted.

That's a good example of how our "first principles" fail us, when science is used to carry out our "human values".

Linda