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

[Wowbagger]

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, at the very least, tell us WHY we tend to value conscious creatures.

I agree that it does not, strictly speaking, tell us that we should do so. But, for all practical intents and purposes, it matters little.

Debating this point is a little like saying "Gravity is not needed to know that apples fall from trees". Yes, it's true. But, it matters little once we have Gravity to understand it better.

Science can tell us the consequences of this decision, but can't dictate which decision to make.

Beyond the initial statement of "let's value conscious creatures", I think it is clear enough that science does tend to dictate the best decision to make, from all the examples we've shown.

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.

Meanie!

 

[Earthborn]

Why is it that science must be excluded from addressing moral questions?

I think you are thinking about this the wrong way around. What you should be asking is: "why is it that adressing moral questions must be excluded from doing science?" I think the answer then be deduced.

Adressing moral questions must be excluded from doing science, because science cannot be free to discover how things are if it is hampered by questions of how things ought to be. As a society we have decided that scientists have a different job then answering how things ought to be, and have assigned that job to other people; philosophers, ethicists, politicians, the general public.

There is a sort of seperation between "science and morality" just as there is one between "church and state". Of course such a seperation isn't perfect, and people like Sam Harris can point out as many examples as they want in which the two magisteria sort of overlap; but that does not prove the whole seperation should be abandonned.

That is, why is it that some say science cannot address these questions?

I think the problem is not so much that it cannot address these questions, but rather that it ought not do so. If we were to use science to address moral questions, what will guarantee that the answers science will give are even recognisable as "moral" to us? Science has the rather annoying tendency to give us incredibly counterintuitive results. And how could we possibly expect people to follow a scientifically discovered morality if the average person cannot even begin to understand it? Science has the rather annoying tendency to discover things in such deep and intricate mathematical detail that only a handful of specialists can hope to understand it. If we had a scientific understanding of morality that deep, we can only expect people to follow their own moral intuitions just as they do now.

And that's all assuming such a scientific morality is even possible, and with societal and cultural changes (often propelled by science) as fast they are now there is no reason to think such a thing could ever form a stable paradigm.

What science can try to do, is empirically measure the health and well-being of conscious creatures,

"Health" and "well-being" are not empirically measurable quantities.

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.

I don't think it is. If I say "the brush helps me paint" I cannot legitimately shorten that to "the brush paints". If I want to say "the typewriter helps me write my essay" I cannot say "the typewriter writes my essay". Doing so eliminates the person actually doing something, and ascribes the action to something else. It changes the meaning significantly.

Semantics: it's a science.

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.

This example is easily refuted. In the environment these women live in burqas do not degrade their well-being. It improves their well-being; by removing harrassment by people who demand they wear burqas. In some other environment their well-being may be degraded by people who demand that they do not wear burqas. It is therefore more likely that their well-being would benefit from not being harrassed over their choice of clothing, and has very little to do with burqas.

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.

Please explain what you mean with this "workable solution" and how "science" developed it.

 

[Wowbagger]

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.

Over time, there seems to be an expanding circle of altruism.

In one sense you are correct: There is certainly a strong "us" vs. "outsiders" mentality among humans.

However, those same mechanisms are prone to adjustment. What counts as "inside" and "outside" the group can (and does) change over time. And, the general tenancy is to allow more in, than out, over time.

As we understand consciousness better, it becomes clearer than more people are just like us, than we may have thought otherwise.

If you still don't like the conscious creatures value, there is a more generalized alternative: The Needs and Interests of Humans. As human needs and interests change over time, so will our morals and ethics, and other stuff like that.
But, these are never completely arbitrary: There are patterns and predictions we can make, based on our understanding of human nature, and the changing environments we find ourselves in; and any other relevant factors.

...Even in those general terms, the expanding circle becomes apparent: In evaluating needs and interests, it becomes clear how those overlap with more people, than we may have thought otherwise.

The circumstances may however make it good for those I identify with and care about.

And, I would argue that, in almost all cases, those circumstances would be delusions*. Science would very likely show otherwise: It would likely make things worse off for those you identify with.

(* I can not think of any examples where people would genuinely be better off. But, I accept that it might be possible for someone more maniacally creative than me to think of one.)

That I doubt.

Do I need to spell this out?!

Baker makes bread for some customers in a village. Some of them get killed in an arbitrary genocide. Now, he has fewer customers to make bread for.

All of that is one argument albeit not scientific; other stances exist, and Science could well be invoked to defend them.

Science can tell us how to make a car with square-shaped wheels**. But, science also tells us that this usually not going to be an efficient design.
(** one axle could be diagonal to the other)

Yes, science can tell us how to invoke evil deeds. But, science can also tell us that these deeds are evil.

The benefits or lack thereof of Point 4, "master race" being irrelevant, is an opinion rather than a fact.

Science can show us that this opinion has no basis in fact, and any policy set based on that opinion would be ultimately be detrimental to everyone involved. Usually, this includes the one setting the policy.

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

Most of the world, then. Same difference.

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

You can shoot the messenger. But, that ain't gonna keep the message, itself, from being accurate.

 

[I Ratant]

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

Linda

.
Eugenics was a respected science... until it was actively applied.

 

[AlBell]

Over time, there seems to be an expanding circle of altruism.

In one sense you are correct: There is certainly a strong "us" vs. "outsiders" mentality among humans.

However, those same mechanisms are prone to adjustment. What counts as "inside" and "outside" the group can (and does) change over time. And, the general tenancy is to allow more in, than out, over time.

You are living in some world I don't inhabit.

As we understand consciousness better, it becomes clearer than more people are just like us, than we may have thought otherwise.

What difference do you think it makes to me, or most people, that other people are "just like us"?

If you still don't like the conscious creatures value, there is a more generalized alternative: The Needs and Interests of Humans. As human needs and interests change over time, so will our morals and ethics, and other stuff like that.

Why again am I caring about 'their' needs and interests?

But, these are never completely arbitrary: There are patterns and predictions we can make, based on our understanding of human nature, and the changing environments we find ourselves in; and any other relevant factors.

There are? Where would I find any that I would agree with?

...Even in those general terms, the expanding circle becomes apparent: In evaluating needs and interests, it becomes clear how those overlap with more people, than we may have thought otherwise.

So what?

And, I would argue that, in almost all cases, those circumstances would be delusions*. Science would very likely show otherwise: It would likely make things worse off for those you identify with.

(* I can not think of any examples where people would genuinely be better off. But, I accept that it might be possible for someone more maniacally creative than me to think of one.)

Delusions indeed.

Do I need to spell this out?!

Baker makes bread for some customers in a village. Some of them get killed in an arbitrary genocide. Now, he has fewer customers to make bread for.

When was any genocide ever arbitrary? Your example is silly.

Science can tell us how to make a car with square-shaped wheels**. But, science also tells us that this usually not going to be an efficient design.
(** one axle could be diagonal to the other)

Yes, science can tell us how to invoke evil deeds.

Assist us in doing so more efficiently anyway.

But, science can also tell us that these deeds are evil.

Facts not in evidence.

Science can show us that this opinion has no basis in fact, and any policy set based on that opinion would be ultimately be detrimental to everyone involved. Usually, this includes the one setting the policy.

Most of the world, then. Same difference.

You can shoot the messenger. But, that ain't gonna keep the message, itself, from being accurate.

Shall we join hands and sing kum-bay-ah now? I'll pass.

 

[I Ratant]

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.

.
The folks involved didn't ignore the science. They built on eugenics, which had quite a following after it's introduction in the early 20th Century in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
That it was corrupted... not really the right word... it failed common sense and basic morals wasn't much of a concern until the facts were established as to its horrors.

 

[I Ratant]

Her choices worked for you anyway.

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

.
With very different paths to the action also.
There's no glib answers to that question.

 

[Lithrael]

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.

I never said that. Obviously that research is science. What I'm saying is that that decision to look for what the most efficient allocation is - THAT part is not science.

ETA: It really looks like everyone who's saying science can do morality is defining "morality" as 'whatever is best for human society'. If you define it that way sure, science can do morality. But I think it's clear that in the real world, there's still a lot of debate about what exactly is 'best for human society'. It's the 'best' in that which I think is the real moral question and I don't think it's answerable by science or anything else because you're never going to get everyone to agree on it. The most you can hope for is a general consensus and we all know those change over time anyway. Yes, yes, science can help to change the consensus. That's not the point.

 

[lemurien]

Not having waded through the postings here I just add a little note.
It seems that very few people have thought about the real source of what we call our morality.

WHY is it that we find that it is right not to cheat or steal or kill?
It does not FEEL right. Our morality is very strongly attached to our feelings, as if certain modes of behavior were hard-wired in our system. And of course, they are. Very little children already have basic ideas of right and wrong and they have feelings of guilt and satisfaction to guide them. Also we can witness moral-like behavior in social animals who do not have the apparatus for abstract thinking.

It is silly to think that all the rights and wrongs would be imposed by the society we live in, with punishments and rewards. Now it is clear again that SOME of the things are societal. Otherwise, it would be impossible to explain how the moral rules have evolved...in fact the stabler and wealthier the societies have become, the more they have been 'humanized' in the same time.

So the conclusion is that we have a certain amount of hardwiring that adjusts itself to the demands of the society. We have needed science to find this thing out. Science will also find out details about why a little detail can make an action acceptable or not.
How our hard-wired morality works, in other words.

It would be a big mistake to think that the hard-wiring should serve as a model to how legislation should be developed. It would be like asking a horse what kind of a harness he'd like to put on. Also, making a harness without an idea what a horse is like would not bring about any satisfactory results.

Our inborn morality has evolved in an environment where the group size was a lot smaller, where there were things mostly practical and people were not expected to have stable abstractions to guide their behavior ..like "democracy" or "basic human rights".
In the hugely complicated modern world, the moral decisions take multiple twists and turns until they finally arrive to the hard-wired 'gut level' and sometimes they don't.

In these cases, the 'gut connection' has to be created with enforced laws.
And still we see that people give in to their basic nature. Instead of serving the common good for instance as bankers or politicians, they corrupt the system for their own good, endangering the existence of the whole on the side.
Our modern society is way too complicated for the unaided human nature.

And that's where science can and does help us.
'nuf said to thinking people, I have presented my case

m

 

[lemurien]

readings: Hauser: Moral Minds, Tancredi: Hardwired Behavior

 

[INRM]

The thread is about why it's a bad idea. Not why it's a good idea -- there's already a thread about that and the associated merits.

 

[lemurien]

The thread is about why it's a bad idea. Not why it's a good idea -- there's already a thread about that and the associated merits.

I imagine you do not think that it is a good idea to discuss the question without any common definitions for 'moral' or ideas as to how science might or might not be applied in justice and legislation?

I presented a general idea.
Now you can find fault with it if you like.

 

[Wowbagger]

The thread is about why it's a bad idea. Not why it's a good idea -- there's already a thread about that and the associated merits.

Good point. But, I don't think you're likely going to get anyone to build up a solid case against the idea.

It seems to be much, much easier for some of us to build up a case for why it is a good idea, and then allow those who disagree to try to knock it down, with what amounts to stupid arguments.

"Health" and "well-being" are not empirically measurable quantities.

Our methods of measuring them, empirically, are not perfect nor precise, yet. But, that does not mean it is going to remain impossible to do so.

When, and if, we develop refined methods for doing so, the question of how much science can help us answer moral questions becomes more relevant.

I don't think it is. If I say "the brush helps me paint" I cannot legitimately shorten that to "the brush paints". If I want to say "the typewriter helps me write my essay" I cannot say "the typewriter writes my essay". Doing so eliminates the person actually doing something, and ascribes the action to something else. It changes the meaning significantly.

I get what you are saying.

But, I think in almost all cases, those who say "science can determine moral values" are really adding a silent "help us" to the sentence: "science can help us determine moral values".

Which can, more accurately, be stretched out to the much longer: "Scientists, using the scientific method, can help us deduce what the best moral values would be, under the circumstances faced by the particulars of the society".

(It might be worth pointing out, at this time, that we should not expect there to be a single answer to any moral question. There could, in fact, be a moral landscape: A variety of peaks that are as good as each other, and the optimal peak for you would depend on the particulars in the environment of your society.)

This example is easily refuted. In the environment these women live in burqas do not degrade their well-being. It improves their well-being; by removing harrassment by people who demand they wear burqas. In some other environment their well-being may be degraded by people who demand that they do not wear burqas. It is therefore more likely that their well-being would benefit from not being harrassed over their choice of clothing, and has very little to do with burqas.

This is an incredibly short-sighted, short-termed view of the situation. Clearly, their well-being would be improved, massively, if the demands to wear them were lifted entirely.

Pretend there was a sniper outside my home, itching to shoot me in the head, but who was only there between the hours of 10 AM and 5 PM. It would be in the best interest of my well-being to not leave my home between those hours, and only do so when he was not at his perch.
But, my well-being would be more improved if the sniper would simply go away entirely. That way, I can leave my home whenever I wanted to.

Please explain what you mean with this "workable solution" and how "science" developed it.

The waiting list. Similar to the ones now used for organ transplants. It cuts through the whole "who is more worthy of life saving technology" question that other less-than-scientific attempts had tried, and failed, to answer.

(Today, dialysis machines are more ubiquitous, and do not require such strict lists, anymore, in most places.)

You are living in some world I don't inhabit.

Ever notice how there are fewer wars, and more trade, between countries, these days?

What difference do you think it makes to me, or most people, that other people are "just like us"?

Our biological triggers for what constitutes "in group" and "out group" can be influenced by such things, like it or not.

Though, this tangent has little to do with the topic of the opening post.

Why again am I caring about 'their' needs and interests?

You do not have to care about anything, if you don't want to. But, in general, your own overall health and well-being would probably suffer as a result.
There could be rare cases where the opposite might happen. But, if you think public policy should not be based entirely on rare cases, you will most folks would not want to be dragged down with you.

When was any genocide ever arbitrary? Your example is silly.

The attempted extermination of Jews, for example. Granted, it was not completely without precedent: Jews were scapegoats for thousands of years. But, deciding to eliminate them was wholly without any real merit. Those who thought it was a good idea, the most, were deranged in some way, or brainwashed. And, it was very bad for them, in the end.

It was largely an easy, arbitrary, (if incredibly heartless) decision to make; in place of spending time developing real solutions to their problems.

Facts not in evidence.

If we can see evidence that evil deeds make people suffer, even (usually) those who commit them: How is that not evidence?

.
The folks involved didn't ignore the science. They built on eugenics, which had quite a following after it's introduction in the early 20th Century in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
That it was corrupted... not really the right word... it failed common sense and basic morals wasn't much of a concern until the facts were established as to its horrors.

What kind of argument is that?


1. Some folks had a corrupted, distorted idea of science.
2. They attempted to use that idea in social policy and failed.
3. Therefore, science (corrupted or not), should never, ever be allowed to innovate social policy ever again.

I do not know what that fallacy is called, but I am pretty sure it is a classic.

You will have to do better than that, if you are going to argue that science should not help us answer moral questions

Eugenics was a respected science... until it was actively applied.

The evidence for the unworkability of eugenics was already known before it was applied. The warnings were simply ignored by those who did.

Science is a tool: Yes, it can be applied to do evil things. It can even tell us how to apply ideas developed from a distorted, corrupted view of other sciences. But, I argue that it can also shed tremendous light into what actually is the right thing to do, and the wrong things to do, in any moral conundrum.

No one, here, has yet to build up a case as to why it would be bad for it to do so.

 

[lemurien]

Basically you are saying that it is a Bad Idea to Have Bad Science Answering Moral Questions. And I agree fully.
Unfortunately, people have very antiquated ideas about what social sciences are about.
Also, that only those who agree with the OP can post. That would be Bad Discussion.

 

[brodski]

1. Some folks had a corrupted, distorted idea of science.
2. They attempted to use that idea in social policy and failed.
3. Therefore, science (corrupted or not), should never, ever be allowed to innovate social policy ever again.

I do not know what that fallacy is called, but I am pretty sure it is a classic.

It's a no true Scotsman argument.

 

[jiggeryqua]

No one, here, has yet to build up a case as to why it would be bad for it to do so.

No-one here has yet made a case that it can.

How best to describe the attempts so far?

what amounts to stupid arguments.

Yes, that will do, thank you.

I admire your confidence...and I'll not go too far down the rabbit hole of science-as-faith:

Our methods of measuring them, empirically, are not perfect nor precise, yet. But, that does not mean it is going to remain impossible to do so.

Our methods of measuring many things could be more precise. But for 'health' and 'well-being', we must first decide what they are. Just like your earlier moral examples, science makes a late appearance merely to measure, to provide facts to assist us in answering moral questions. Oh, imperfect and imprecise measurements do not mean it is going to remain impossible, you're right. It doesn't mean it is going to become possible either, does it? A more objective position would suit an advocate of the scientific method, don't you think? It's almost as if you started with a conclusion and looked for ways of supporting it...

I don't think anybody's arguing that It is a Bad Idea to Have All Relevant Facts Involved in Finding The Answer to Moral Questions, but I can only speak for myself. I'll defer to you on what most people are really saying when they say something else:

But, I think in almost all cases, those who say "science can determine moral values" are really adding a silent "help us" to the sentence: "science can help us determine moral values".

Which can, more accurately, be stretched out to the much longer: "Scientists, using the scientific method, can help us deduce what the best moral values would be, under the circumstances faced by the particulars of the society".

Your stretch is...what's the unit of elasticity? Lots of 'em, anyway, I can tell and I'm just a layman. Science can help us measure facts that we need to determine moral values. In that, way science can help us. But you hear 'science can define morality' (and on the hoof at that).

When, and if, we develop refined methods for doing so, the question of how much science can help us answer moral questions becomes more relevant.

I find that more usually constructed as "If and when", the 'if' being the more important part. But the question of how much science can help us maintains an admirable consistency - it can provide facts, and facts help us. Well, the nice easy ones do - the ones we're pretty certain of, the established canon, as it were. When it comes to collated data on health, and 'well-being' (whatever that is), for every PhD there is an equal but opposite PhD - and we can't measure anything, let alone compare to anything else, until we've decided what our notions of 'health and well-being' are. You won't find agreement on either, let alone morality. How will 'science' establish what is moral?

It is a Bad Idea to Have Science Answering Moral Questions because Science Cannot Determine What is Moral.

 

[jimtron]

No-one here has yet made a case that it can.

Yeah, I'm not buying that science can or should answer moral questions. Yes, it can help, by establishing facts, but not much beyond that.

Can anyone give an clear example of how science can do this?

 

[Wowbagger]

It's a no true Scotsman argument.

It actually seems more like a variation of Poisoning the Well, to me.

I will respond to jiggeryqua later on. There are some points some of you still aren't getting, yet, for some reason.

jimtron: What was wrong with the examples from previous posts, including (but not limited to) my own?

 

[brodski]

It actually seems more like a variation of Poisoning the Well, to me.

I meant your argument not his.

I will respond to jiggeryqua later on. There are some points some of you still aren't getting, yet, for some reason.

the reasons could be
1) you are wrong or
2) you have not yet, or are unable to, put forward a convincing case, possibly because of 1.

 

[jimtron]

It actually seems more like a variation of Poisoning the Well, to me.

I will respond to jiggeryqua later on. There are some points some of you still aren't getting, yet, for some reason.

jimtron: What was wrong with the examples from previous posts, including (but not limited to) my own?

Wowbagger, I read your posts, but I didn't see where you showed that science can be used to decide a moral decision. Maybe cite a post number, and I'll respond?