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

[Wowbagger]

I meant your argument not his.


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.

3) It's 4 AM, in the morning, where I happen to live, right now.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

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.

The more I read that the less it makes sense. Somehow knowing more about reality will lead us to be less moral? If 'morality' is really at odds with 'reality' then something is fundamentally wrong somewhere.

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.

Using a hypothetical example from a work of fiction doesn't present a strong case for me. Nor does this seem like an example of a moral issue.

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.

What do you mean by 'something else' in this context?

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.

I'm not religious nor am I a philosopher but I still feel uncomfortable with abortion. Now rationally I can put that discomfort to one side and examine the arguments and support the availability of abortion as a practical and pragmatic solution to an issue. Whether its a moral solution is a different question and one I'm starting to think may not even be answerable. Maybe the question 'Is X moral?' is a faulty question?

I don't doubt that you do.

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

i'm not sure how we would ascertain the morality of something without a clear definition of moral and a methodology to measure it. Perhaps asking if something is moral is as meaningless as asking whether God exists without a clear definition of God?

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

Nor can anything else though. Unless you accept bold assertion as an alternative.

Her choices worked for you anyway.

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

I'm not sure if they are and yet at the same time I am pretty sure they are. Which i think shows the problem with trying to define a system of morality right there.

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 yet people come up with all sorts of situations where its OK to cheat steal and kill. It's as impossible to find a completely internally consistent and meaningful system of morality as it is to find a completely internally consist and meaningful definition of God. I don't think its a coincidence that people sometimes conflate the two things.

 

[lemurien]

Last of the Fraggles: And yet people come up with all sorts of situations where its OK to cheat steal and kill. It's as impossible to find a completely internally consistent and meaningful system of morality as it is to find a completely internally consist and meaningful definition of God. I don't think its a coincidence that people sometimes conflate the two things.

You are making sense.
Going a bit further, it is impossible to find any absolutes outside of the Euclidean geometry and there it is only because it works in two dimensions.
(Go find a two-dimensional world)

So it is probably more fruitful to try and find solutions that work in the reality we are living in.

As you correctly pointed out, even one single person can be in an inner conflict with himself (knowing that it is not OK to cheat, steal and kill but still doing all three) and so it would be illusory to find solutions that would apply when there is a crowd.
At least 100%

But looking around you notice that people are doing remarkably well. In fact, in the modern societies where people are well fed and able to communicate their feelings and various abstract things verbally, the commonly accepted 'good' things need hardly any reinforcement.

In fact, you would not want to live in a society where people would do the right thing only because it is profitable or if not doing it would be punished by an institution. Not being considered a good person is an effective punishment already, the fear of shame. Or the pride of being a good person on the other side.
The gifts of Evolution to a social animal.

The fact that God is mixed with all kinds of things, morals, justice, consciousness and quantum physics is related to a simplistic but very human way of thinking: "I do not know where it comes from so goddidit". And "since I cannot understand quantum physics, human consciousness or God, they must be the same".

A lot has been learned from QP and human consciousness. Folkloristics and neurotheologists are finding out fascinating new things about gods.
Is it a coincidence that people who are ignorant about one thing are ignorant of other things as well? Is there a factor -g?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

For the same reason it's a bad idea to let a heart surgeon paint your car.

Or a car painter doing heart surgery

 

[Wowbagger]

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

I already did. Let me explain it, again, using my simple apocalypse example. Take these two phrases:

"Science has no evidence that the world is going to end any time soon."
And
"We ought not go around telling people that the world is going to end soon."
​

I will argue that the difference between those two statements is largely of relevance only to English professors.

To a sane brain, the two are going to be acted on equivalently.

Granted, there are those who do not accept the science. But, that is not relevant to the point. The point is that science can have an answer to a moral question!

How best to describe the attempts so far?

Perhaps I should not have used the word "stupid" so stupidly. But, the opposing arguments, so far, are not very strong. They are either:
1. Fallacies
2. Short-sighted
3. nitpicking on tangents
4. incorrect assumptions about my position
Etc.

Our methods of measuring many things could be more precise. But for 'health' and 'well-being', we must first decide what they are.

When you visit the doctor for a check-up he or she has lots of diagnostic measuring devices to estimate the health of your various physiological systems.

Granted, none of them are perfect. And, it would be naïve to assume total health could be placed on a single scale. But, at least we have some empirical basis to work from.

We also empirical ways to measure the wealth and (to a less accurate degree) the happiness of people, to estimate their "well-being". I realize that, often, these things are hard to define. But, one would also be naïve to assume we could not possibly improve in this field, as time marches on.

Just like your earlier moral examples, science makes a late appearance merely to measure, to provide facts to assist us in answering moral questions.

Late is better than never!

As our societies get better at this, science could be introduced earlier and earlier in the process.

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...

The former is, in fact, what I am doing. I am advocating the scientific method for finding answers to scientific questions. Regardless of whether or not I like the conclusions.

If science, hypothetically speaking, actually demonstrated that eugenics was a viable solution for improving the health of the larger population, then in that scenario, it would be difficult to say eugenics was not moral. HOWEVER, science on the matter was already clear: It was not going to work.

For one thing: A better understanding of genes (even back before we knew what they were), revealed that the "bad traits" they were trying to eliminate were too systemic, in too much of the population, to be flushed out by sterilizing certain people who seemed to be symptomatic. I will see if I can find references for what was already known about genes, back then. But, of course, today, we know even more, and eugenics looks even less viable. The science was reliable, if those in charge paid attention to 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 think that is enough common ground, that we can put away this silly argument.

But you hear 'science can define morality' (and on the hoof at that).

Anything can define morality: Religion can define morality. Darts thrown randomly at words on a wall can define morality.

In each of these cases, there is actually a tool helping us define morality. But, in each case, we tend to leave out the words "helping us".

If a madman decided to use the random dart approach to define morality, no one would really think the darts, themselves, were actually making the moral decisions, if he said "Random darts can answer moral questions".

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

See my comments about the apocalypse example, at the top of this post, for how that distinction is largely one of language, and not of any practical concern.

I meant your argument not his.

My argument appeals directly to the methods and standards that directly define science.

A typical No True Scotsman fallacy goes like this:

Scotsman #1: Aye, no Scotsman puts sugar in their porridge.
Scotsman #2: But, I put sugar in my porridge all the time. I like it that way!
Scotsman #1: Ah, but no True Scotsman would ever put sugar in their porridge!​

The above is a fallacy because the amount of sugar one puts in their porridge is not really a defining characteristic of what makes someone a Scotsman.

But, imagine the conversation like this:

Asian Man: I live in Asia, and all of my ancestors were born and raised in Asia (as far back as we have records for). But, I like to dress up as a Scotsman for anime festivals.

Scotsman: Ah, but no True Scotsman would live in Asia, have all of their ancestors come from Asia, and then only dress up as a Scotsman for anime festivals!!!​

The above line is not a fallacy, because it is very clear that the Asian fellow was not a Scotsman, and did not even claim he was a true one.

In a similar way, the eugenics part of this discussion is going as follows:

Poster #1: A corrupted version of science was used to push eugenics, but it didn't work.

Poster #2: Ah, but no True Science would have been as corrupted. Science, used properly, gives us the tools and methods to build a much more reliable view of the world.​

And, that is why I am NOT making a No True Scotsman fallacy. I am NOT appealing to the conclusions of science, but rather the methods and disciplines that directly define it.

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?

Post #22: lemurien posts a link about the Trolley Problem, and its relevance towards when it is right or wrong to take someone's life.

In Post #26: I offer a couple of examples: The unjust warnings of the "apocalypse", the forming of waiting lists for life-saving technologies, etc.

In Post #48, I answer the question about the morality of abortion, using science.
See also Post #55, where fls explains how the issue is really a lot more simple than religions would have us think.

Basically you are saying that it is a Bad Idea to Have Bad Science Answering Moral Questions. And I agree fully.

Emphasis added. I agree, too.

But, I would add that Good Science can and will do so, if we think it ought to or not!

 

[I Ratant]

...
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.
....

.
I didn't say -all- science can't answer social questions.
As fate would have it, I read myself to sleep last night in Gould..."Science and Jewish Immigration"... (Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes collection)
He mentions Karl Pearson, who "practically invented the science of statistics, also founded the "Annals of Eugenics" and was a factor in limiting the immigration of lower races into England.
Good and bad science from the same source.
How to know which is which, at the time?

 

[I Ratant]

It's a no true Scotsman argument.

.
And I didn't make it.. it's a hysterical response to my message.
Also not atypical... going to the general from a specific, to the extreme.

 

[fls]

Her choices worked for you anyway.

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

Not when it comes to the example you provided. For the trillions of humans who will never be, it makes no difference one way or the other.

Linda

 

[I Ratant]

...

It is a Bad Idea to Have Science Answering Moral Questions because Scien(tists) Cannot Determine What is Moral (due to cultural bias).

.
Just a little tweak.

 

[fls]

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

Eugenics was a philosophy to which some science was (mis)applied.

Linda

 

[AlBell]

Not when it comes to the example you provided. For the trillions of humans who will never be, it makes no difference one way or the other.

Linda

Anecdotally, choosing abortion makes a difference to at least some women who do so, and not in a positive way.

I've never chatted with a woman who was distraught over her naturally wasted eggs, fertilized or not.

 

[fls]

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.

Ah yes, my next poll:

"I am studying the allocation of health care resources. Which is of most value in determining distribution:

A) random number generators
B) willingness to evangelize religious tenets
C) monetary wealth
D) availability heuristics"

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.

There isn't all that much debate about what is best. What is debated are the justifications and apologies for practices which are clearly not useful, as though they represent moral questions/answers.

Linda

 

[I Ratant]

Eugenics was a philosophy to which some science was (mis)applied.

Linda

.
Yes. But who knew?
Very respected scientists supported the idea with both words and actions, according to the above mentioned article by Gould...
Who guards the guardians.. is the problem.

 

[MattusMaximus]

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.

Ok, I understand your argument now. Though I'm not sure I agree with it, because it seems to make a lot of unfounded assumptions.

 

[lemurien]

I Ratant: Who guards the guardians.. is the problem.

Time.
Democracy.
Free speech.
Peer reviewed literature.
I do. You do. The very idea of this forum is exactly that.

 

[fls]

What do you mean by 'something else' in this context?

Those characteristics that distinguish consequences which are useful. For example, it is useful for organisms to have offspring, survival is useful, avoidance of noxious stimuli, etc. (please note that by offering a few specific examples I am not suggesting that this list is even remotely complete or that these examples are not modified by additional characteristics).

I'm not religious nor am I a philosopher but I still feel uncomfortable with abortion. Now rationally I can put that discomfort to one side and examine the arguments and support the availability of abortion as a practical and pragmatic solution to an issue. Whether its a moral solution is a different question and one I'm starting to think may not even be answerable. Maybe the question 'Is X moral?' is a faulty question?

It is reasonable to explore the source of that discomfort to determine whether it is picking up on some characteristic which is useful. It may not be. As AlBell pointed out, choosing not to conceive vs. choosing to abort is perceived as different even though the consequences on the human who will never be is indistinguishable.

I have previously argued that "moral questions" are merely poorly formed questions, so I would probably say yes to your last question.

Linda

 

[Wowbagger]

I didn't say -all- science can't answer social questions.

It sounded that way when you used eugenics as an example for why science should not answer moral questions.

With this response, you seem to agree that it can, but we must be cautious.

I can agree with that.

Good and bad science from the same source.
How to know which is which, at the time?

The question of "How can we tell good science from bad?" is a separate question from what the opening post is asking. But, it is an important one. I wonder if it deserves its own thread.

 

[lemurien]

Bad science?

Its findings cannot be reproduced.
The methods used are not good for testing the hypothesis presented.
The observations are not accurate or knowingly falsified.
The results do not justify conclusions.
There are unjustified presumptions or gaps in the reasoning.
The terms used are not known to or accepted by the scientific community.
The language is vague and unclear.

Bad science does not work.
Stalin put a bullet through the head of his biologist Lysenko who could not teach his peas to survive in the cold.
It was a nice, politically correct scientific construction (Lamarckism) but it did not work. Bang!

Go start a thread but ...

 

[AvalonXQ]

Good science can simultaneously give you the tools to achieve opposite goals. As an elementary example, the same good science can teach you both how to spread a disease to a population and how to prevent that disease within the same population.
Good science can also tell you why human beings might want to take either of those actions -- killing or healing -- or even a combination of the two.
Good science doesn't have any basis upon which to make a judgment as to which of the two you should perform. Military technology can be researched, perfected, and used to devastating effect while remaining good science the whole time. The same is true of medical technology. When to use one or the other depends on what your goals are -- which are themselves simply a product of what you want. Science can tell you what that is, and why, but not whether it is good or bad or whether we should work to change it.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

How do you feel about bumping off patients?

I'm agin it.

Linda

And yet some doctors are not against it, just as some aren't against sterilising the mentally handicapped or poor, or that some are republicans and others are democrats.

It seems to me a large part of what people value depends on their life experiences. I.e., unique, unpredictable and random events that reinforced the connections between some neurons and pruned the connections between others in their brains.

I am therefore not convinced by the idea that human values are intuiting some underlying truth, but are rather just expressions of individual biases.