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

[AvalonXQ]

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

It's a good example of how science is amoral.

Science can never tell us, "We should try to achieve objective X".

But science can tell us, "Doing A will help you to achieve objective X, while doing B will hinder you from achieving objective X".

The reason why we sometimes fail to see it, is that many times objective X is pretty much universally assumed and noncontraversial. For example, "we should try to eliminate the suffering and prolong the lives of innocent people".

 

[fls]

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

I asked you. What is the harm?

Can we stick to one issue?

Yes. That is why I pointed out that you were asking a new and different question.

What do you and Science have to say about the morality of abortion?

What is the harm? That is, I could think of situations where control of reproduction can lead to detrimental outcomes (such as heavily unbalanced sex ratios), but I want to understand why you would even ask the question in the first place (for example, what do you have to say about the morality of chocolate ice cream?).

Linda

 

[Wowbagger]

.
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.

Science already knew gassing of whole populations would be detrimental to whole populations. Thus, science was indicating it was immoral.

The fact that it was carried out, anyway, meant the folks in charge ignored the science showing it was immoral; and replaced it with their own ideology - using only the portion of science that told them how to do it, anyway.

The solution, if they paid attention, would NOT be "useful" to society as a whole, (and in the end we can see that it really wasn't). That was ignored, and they ran with it, anyway.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Science already knew gassing of whole populations would be detrimental to whole populations. Thus, science was indicating it was immoral.

Sorry, where does science prove that killing a whole population is immoral?

Science can tell us the results of killing a whole population, but it can't make the jump to whether that outcome is ethically desireable, or whether the behavior is moral.

 

[fls]

It's a good example of how science is amoral.

Science can never tell us, "We should try to achieve objective X".

But science can tell us, "Doing A will help you to achieve objective X, while doing B will hinder you from achieving objective X".

The reason why we sometimes fail to see it, is that many times objective X is pretty much universally assumed and noncontraversial. For example, "we should try to eliminate the suffering and prolong the lives of innocent people".

Yeah, people really seem to stuck on this kind of thinking. But meanwhile, progress and science move on. The idea that we base our actions on what we "should" do doesn't seem to hold. The issues we discuss, other than shaking off the last remnants of "shoulds" from religious texts, are those which we arrive at empirically - global warming, the AIDS epidemic, dwindling non-renewable resources, etc. Instead of Objective X's read out of The Bible, we seem to react to those things in the real world whose impact has value regardless of what humans think about it. Even your last sentence is telling. Our "human values" would offer benefits to "innocent people". Instead, we offer benefits to a much broader population because we are informed by scientific reasoning, rather than depending upon human values. Like I said earlier, it looks like we choose to eliminate suffering and prolong lives only because we value those things. But it really seems to be the other way around. Human values imperfectly mimic those characteristics which offer value independent of what humans think about them.

Linda

 

[AlBell]

Science already knew gassing of whole populations would be detrimental to whole populations. Thus, science was indicating it was immoral.

What does Science have to do with declaring genocide immoral as good operating practice? In some circumstances it appears to remain a rational approach to actually winning a war.

The fact that it was carried out, anyway, meant the folks in charge ignored the science showing it was immoral; and replaced it with their own ideology - using only the portion of science that told them how to do it, anyway.

The solution, if they paid attention, would NOT be "useful" to society as a whole, (and in the end we can see that it really wasn't). That was ignored, and they ran with it, anyway.

Perhaps it would be "useful" to society as a whole; another question that depends on who you ask.

Like who is harmed by an abortion; on that one, I'm not harmed anyway. Society? Depends on what one chooses to value. Choose life; your mama did.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Yeah, people really seem to stuck on this kind of thinking. But meanwhile, progress and science move on. The idea that we base our actions on what we "should" do doesn't seem to hold. The issues we discuss, other than shaking off the last remnants of "shoulds" from religious texts, are those which we arrive at empirically - global warming, the AIDS epidemic, dwindling non-renewable resources, etc. Instead of Objective X's read out of The Bible, we seem to react to those things in the real world whose impact has value regardless of what humans think about it. Even your last sentence is telling. Our "human values" would offer benefits to "innocent people". Instead, we offer benefits to a much broader population because we are informed by scientific reasoning, rather than depending upon human values. Like I said earlier, it looks like we choose to eliminate suffering and prolong lives only because we value those things. But it really seems to be the other way around. Human values imperfectly mimic those characteristics which offer value independent of what humans think about them.

I completely disagree. Our scientific research and then the commercial, engineering, and medical applications that accompany and follow it are not some sort of emergent behavior that occurs by following some sort of basic "rules of science". We spend time and money on those avenues that we think will have practical benefits according to what we value.

Are you saying you don't think we need organizations that decide, based on what they value, to fund certain research, or other organizations that decide, based on what they value, to undergo massive efforts to use this research to improve human lives in some way? You think technological and practical improvements to human lives are an accidental biproduct of science rather than a clear, directional effort to acheive identified goals?

Working towards fixing the AIDS outbreak in Africa isn't just something that is happening "because we're doing science". It's a result of a very intentional set of decisions by people with resources and authority saying "people are dying, and we need to work to stop that". What we value drives our what we do, and directs our science.

 

[Lithrael]

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

...erm ok? I was thinking more along the lines of, how do we want to use our medical resources - how much effort should we spend on cute kids with awful diseases versus general health care that helps everyone? That's not a scientific issue at all - you can be draconian and say cut the cute kids loose, you can be all heart and say give all your help to the ones who can't help themselves, you can find a compromise that helps many people and still lets society feel good about itself. You can even determine how much "society feeling good about itself" helps general health outcomes. But I don't think you can determine what the moral thing to do is. That's a judgement call.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Human values imperfectly mimic those characteristics which offer value independent of what humans think about them.

Linda

How do you feel about bumping off patients?

 

[AlBell]

How do you feel about bumping off patients?

There are no are "patients"; just numbers.

Do no ill has been supplanted by "ill is ok for you" as long as "we" have statistics that imply X number of other people will have fewer bad effects.

 

[fls]

...erm ok? I was thinking more along the lines of, how do we want to use our medical resources - how much effort should we spend on cute kids with awful diseases versus general health care that helps everyone? That's not a scientific issue at all - you can be draconian and say cut the cute kids loose, you can be all heart and say give all your help to the ones who can't help themselves, you can find a compromise that helps many people and still lets society feel good about itself. You can even determine how much "society feeling good about itself" helps general health outcomes. But I don't think you can determine what the moral thing to do is. That's a judgement call.

Ah, another person who tells me that the medical research which I and others perform (such as research which approaches issues like how to allocate resources most efficiently between cute kids with awful diseases and general health) is not science. Just don't tell the granting agency, please.

Linda

 

[Wowbagger]

Sorry, where does science prove that killing a whole population is immoral?

Science can tell us the results of killing a whole population, but it can't make the jump to whether that outcome is ethically desireable, or whether the behavior is moral.

If we think of it in terms of health and well-being for conscious creatures, I hope it becomes clearer.

Gassing people, especially whole arbitrary populations of people, is NOT good for their health and well-being.
It's not even good for those not being gassed: They would be breaking ties with friends, partners, customers, etc.

It's not good for the leaders in power, making these orders, because:
1. They're losing tremendous number of assets and allies within their now dead population.
2. Those who lost their friends, partners, customers, etc. would be really mad at the leaders for that. (Even if they agreed with the plan at first, they would soon realize its true implications.)
3. The rest of the world values conscious creatures so highly (and, we can understand the scientific reasons why), that their reign would be seen as "evil".
4. The perceived benefits were imaginery, to begin with. For example: The "master race" ideal is not scientifically valid. Arguments about resource-handling ignore the fact that technology can provide better solutions than killing people, etc.

ALL OF THAT was ALREADY KNOWN by most people, through science, before the gassing started.

Those who thought otherwise were delusional. And, science can even shed light on how and why their delusions developed and came to power.

 

[fls]

I completely disagree. Our scientific research and then the commercial, engineering, and medical applications that accompany and follow it are not some sort of emergent behavior that occurs by following some sort of basic "rules of science". We spend time and money on those avenues that we think will have practical benefits according to what we value.

Are you saying you don't think we need organizations that decide, based on what they value, to fund certain research, or other organizations that decide, based on what they value, to undergo massive efforts to use this research to improve human lives in some way? You think technological and practical improvements to human lives are an accidental biproduct of science rather than a clear, directional effort to acheive identified goals?

Working towards fixing the AIDS outbreak in Africa isn't just something that is happening "because we're doing science". It's a result of a very intentional set of decisions by people with resources and authority saying "people are dying, and we need to work to stop that". What we value drives our what we do, and directs our science.

I'm not saying these issues emerge from the neutral/random application of science, unrelated to those things which interest us. I'm pointing out that those things which interest us also happen to be useful or important independent of whether we were interested in them to begin with. Why haven't our technological improvements gone towards maximizing everyone's experience of God, for example?

Linda

 

[fls]

How do you feel about bumping off patients?

I'm agin it.

Linda

 

[AvalonXQ]

If we think of it in terms of health and well-being for conscious creatures, I hope it becomes clearer.

Right, that's exactly what we have to do -- we have to decide that we value the health and well-being of conscious creatures.

Science can't tell us that we should value this; science can only tell us that if we do value it, here are things we can do consistent with that, and here are the likely results.

I don't value of the health and well-being of roaches near my house; I want them to die and I go out of my way to make them die. I value their destruction. And science tells me how to go about destroying them.

Of course, roaches aren't "conscious creatures". So why value "conscious creatures" but not other kinds of creatures? Science can tell us the consequences of this decision, but can't dictate which decision to make.

 

[fls]

Like who is harmed by an abortion; on that one, I'm not harmed anyway. Society? Depends on what one chooses to value. Choose life; your mama did.

My mama didn't choose life. I have dozens of unborn siblings she chose not to bring to life by delaying the start of child-bearing and stopping when she was still fertile. Same with me. I have failed to choose life far more often than the handful times I did.

Linda

 

[AvalonXQ]

I'm not saying these issues emerge from the neutral/random application of science, unrelated to those things which interest us. I'm pointing out that those things which interest us also happen to be useful or important independent of whether we were interested in them to begin with.

Yes, because we are interested in things we value, things we consider important. It's all caught up in establishing objectives or goals, are normative concepts outside of the realm of how the world is.

 

[fls]

...erm ok? I was thinking more along the lines of, how do we want to use our medical resources - how much effort should we spend on cute kids with awful diseases versus general health care that helps everyone? That's not a scientific issue at all - you can be draconian and say cut the cute kids loose, you can be all heart and say give all your help to the ones who can't help themselves, you can find a compromise that helps many people and still lets society feel good about itself. You can even determine how much "society feeling good about itself" helps general health outcomes. But I don't think you can determine what the moral thing to do is. That's a judgement call.

This is also a good example of how human values don't direct what we do, since we tend to react to cute kids instead of making more efficient use of our resources. That we have universal health care programs shows that human values don't direct "moral" behaviour.

Linda

 

[AlBell]

My mama didn't choose life. I have dozens of unborn siblings she chose not to bring to life by delaying the start of child-bearing and stopping when she was still fertile. Same with me. I have failed to choose life far more often than the handful times I did.

Linda

Her choices worked for you anyway.

I'd say choosing not to conceive, and choosing to abort, are very different issues.

 

[AlBell]

If we think of it in terms of health and well-being for conscious creatures, I hope it becomes clearer.

Why would anyone, even you, think in terms of health and well-being for conscious creatures?

I fear my terms of thought, and of most of humanity, are much closer to well-being of kith and kin, no thought to the rest.

Gassing people, especially whole arbitrary populations of people, is NOT good for their health and well-being.

Indeed not. The circumstances may however make it good for those I identify with and care about.

It's not even good for those not being gassed: They would be breaking ties with friends, partners, customers, etc.

That I doubt.

It's not good for the leaders in power, making these orders, because:
1. They're losing tremendous number of assets and allies within their now dead population.
2. Those who lost their friends, partners, customers, etc. would be really mad at the leaders for that. (Even if they agreed with the plan at first, they would soon realize its true implications.)
3. The rest of the world values conscious creatures so highly (and, we can understand the scientific reasons why), that their reign would be seen as "evil".
4. The perceived benefits were imaginery, to begin with. For example: The "master race" ideal is not scientifically valid. Arguments about resource-handling ignore the fact that technology can provide better solutions than killing people, etc.

ALL OF THAT was ALREADY KNOWN by most people, through science, before the gassing started.

All of that is one argument albeit not scientific; other stances exist, and Science could well be invoked to defend them. The benefits or lack thereof of Point 4, "master race" being irrelevant, is an opinion rather than a fact.

Point 3 is a joke; rest of the world?? LOL.

Those who thought otherwise were delusional. And, science can even shed light on how and why their delusions developed and came to power.

How well do scientists do after their heads are mounted on pikes courtesy of some delusional individual who has actual power?