Science of Morality, Anyone?

[coberst]

Science of Morality, Anyone?

Where, in American culture, is the domain of knowledge that we would identify as morality studied and taught?

I suspect that if we do not quickly develop a science of morality that will make it possible for us to live together on this planet in a more harmonious manner our technology will help us to destroy the species and perhaps the planet soon.

It seems to me that we have given the subject matter of morality primarily over to religion. It also seems to me that if we ask the question ‘why do humans treat one another so terribly?’ we will find the answer in this moral aspect of human culture.

The ‘man of maxims’ “is the popular representative of the minds that are guided in their moral judgment solely by general rules, thinking that these will lead them to justice by a ready-made patent method, without the trouble of exerting patience, discrimination, impartiality—without any care to assure themselves whether they have the insight that comes from a hardly-earned estimate of temptation, or from a life vivid and intense enough to have created a wide fellow-feeling with all that is human.” George Eliot The Mill on the Floss

We can no longer leave this important matter in the hands of the Sunday-school. Morality must become a top priority for scientific study.

 

[Brainache]

Hasn't Ethics (I think that is what I would call it, rather than "morality") been a part of philosophy since the ancient Greeks?

It's not as if people haven't been studying the questions, only that we haven't been teaching these things to kids along with maths and language, history and science. I think teaching ethics to kids from about age ten or so should be considered as important as teaching any other subject, if not moreso.

 

[seayakin]

Hasn't Ethics (I think that is what I would call it, rather than "morality") been a part of philosophy since the ancient Greeks?

It's not as if people haven't been studying the questions, only that we haven't been teaching these things to kids along with maths and language, history and science. I think teaching ethics to kids from about age ten or so should be considered as important as teaching any other subject, if not moreso.

The political problems with this is that it is very easy to wander into religion since so many ethical codes are tied to religious practice. This is my guess why it is not taught below the college level (at least in the US). However, as you indicate, there is nothing new about studying ethics but I don't think it can be broken down scientifically other than making an argument that we have ethics due to some evolutionary process and that it is ultimately at best an abstract concept we impose on ourselves and not reflective of observed events or phenomena of the physical world.

 

[Brainache]

The political problems with this is that it is very easy to wander into religion since so many ethical codes are tied to religious practice. This is my guess why it is not taught below the college level (at least in the US). However, as you indicate, there is nothing new about studying ethics but I don't think it can be broken down scientifically other than making an argument that we have ethics due to some evolutionary process and that it is ultimately at best an abstract concept we impose on ourselves and not reflective of observed events or phenomena of the physical world.

I agree. I may have not read the OP as closely as I should. Teaching a "science of morality" course is a weird concept.

How does one quantify things like "good" or "evil"? Is there a formula or an equation that I can use to determine whether or not to take my neighbour's abandoned grill?

We might as well try to teach the science of comedy or the poetry of accountancy.

 

[coberst]

Hasn't Ethics (I think that is what I would call it, rather than "morality") been a part of philosophy since the ancient Greeks?

It's not as if people haven't been studying the questions, only that we haven't been teaching these things to kids along with maths and language, history and science. I think teaching ethics to kids from about age ten or so should be considered as important as teaching any other subject, if not moreso.

Philosophy is the mother of science but is no substitute for scientific empirical study similar to other human sciences. I think that psychology and SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) can be useful in starting such an effort.

Also, I think that there is confusion regarding the meaning of ethics and the meaning of morality. Thus further evidence for the need for an empirical science of morality.

 

[coberst]

I agree. I may have not read the OP as closely as I should. Teaching a "science of morality" course is a weird concept.

How does one quantify things like "good" or "evil"? Is there a formula or an equation that I can use to determine whether or not to take my neighbour's abandoned grill?

We might as well try to teach the science of comedy or the poetry of accountancy.

I think that there is also a good bit of confusion as to the meaning of the word "science". I use the word 'science' here to mean a systematic and disciplined study of a domain of knowledge. I do not restrict the word to mean only those domains of knowledge that can be measured with a scale and/or calipers.

 

[Brainache]

I think that there is also a good bit of confusion as to the meaning of the word "science". I use the word 'science' here to mean a systematic and disciplined study of a domain of knowledge. I do not restrict the word to mean only those domains of knowledge that can be measured with a scale and/or calipers.

OK.
So what next? Suppose we systematise and study morality somehow to discover the answer to your question ‘why do humans treat one another so terribly?’ and it turns out that it is because most people are jerks. What do we do about it?

Maybe I'm just a pessimist.

 

[geni]

How does one quantify things like "good" or "evil"? Is there a formula or an equation that I can use to determine whether or not to take my neighbour's abandoned grill?

Several. Depends what your objective is.

We might as well try to teach the science of comedy or the poetry of accountancy.

Comedy is an area of scientific study.

 

[Integrity]

Coberst,

For myself I believe you can teach children from a very young age the discipline of good, bad, moral duty and moral obligation via the simple mode of children's stories through to philosophy and ethics study in later years.

An example of a morality based childs story delivered with the concept of empathy :

"See how Sally took Tommy's toy, see Tommy's face? How does Tommy look? That's right , he looks sad - why do you think Tommy looks sad? Is it because Sally took Tommy's toy? Do you think she should give Tommy's toy back?"

Then the page of the story book is turned and :

"Sally gave back Tommy's toy. How does Tommy look now? That's right. He looks happy now doesn't he? It was good to give back Tommy's toy wasn't it? It made Tommy happy again didn't it - and look, he is sharing the toy with Sally now - how do both their faces look? That's right - they both look happy."

I believe empathy is the key to morality and should be taught from a very young age so their young minds hard-wire to the concept that it is important to consider another's feelings and be sensitive to others expressions. As they get older and more life experienced we can gradually increase the intensity of this learning through to university. In this way it has become a learned, but through possitive experience reinforcement, and now natural trait within their concept matrix which they can easily carry through to their adulthood with confidence.

I say empathy as a basis for morality because I believe it is the foundation stone to understanding the difference between right and wrong.

Empathy, 'according to the Merriam/Webster definition' is the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner.

Due to this encouraged attitude many people will enter society from the perspective of care for their fellow human beings feelings and a respect for their belongings, an attitude which seems to be a disappearing art in today's society.

Because of this long term delivery through the educative processes it will be a natural reaction within each educated person and society will reap the rewards of less crime, less hate, less suspicion etc. Empathy is the key to a moral and just society which will then be more open, sensitive and honest with each other.

Why do I believe it will make a fundamental difference to society and have a chance of success? Because it is in this way I was raised and I, as well as those I associate with on any level, receive the benefits of it every day in the form of trust, respect and even love. Empathy, but not sympathy, is the potential saving grace for an alarmingly selfish, materialistic and venal society that we see around us today which, in my opinion, has been brought about by the love of money, suspicion and greed in general. If we can teach individuals to feel the pain of another's loss or suffering and to be sensitive to the needs of others then we can, within only a few generations, reverse this selfish tidal wave consuming our global community.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Science of Morality, Anyone?

Where, in American culture, is the domain of knowledge that we would identify as morality studied and taught?

I suspect that if we do not quickly develop a science of morality that will make it possible for us to live together on this planet in a more harmonious manner our technology will help us to destroy the species and perhaps the planet soon.

It seems to me that we have given the subject matter of morality primarily over to religion. It also seems to me that if we ask the question ‘why do humans treat one another so terribly?’ we will find the answer in this moral aspect of human culture.

The ‘man of maxims’ “is the popular representative of the minds that are guided in their moral judgment solely by general rules, thinking that these will lead them to justice by a ready-made patent method, without the trouble of exerting patience, discrimination, impartiality—without any care to assure themselves whether they have the insight that comes from a hardly-earned estimate of temptation, or from a life vivid and intense enough to have created a wide fellow-feeling with all that is human.” George Eliot The Mill on the Floss

We can no longer leave this important matter in the hands of the Sunday-school. Morality must become a top priority for scientific study.

Your first question basically contains the definition of ethics.

That said, I don't think good and evil are objectively definable things, which would seem to be a prerequisite for a science of morality.
I'm not sure what you're calling for. Do you want scientists to come up with classifications of different moral systems? Do you want them to invent and teach the optimal morals? Or do you want them to find the objectively verifiable origins of our moral precepts and use this information to stimulate people to behave more harmoniously?

 

[Brainache]

Several. Depends what your objective is.

So no single theory then, like Evolution or Thermodynamics?

Comedy is an area of scientific study.

Can we use science to make predictions about comedy? I know a lot of jokes are predictable (most of mine for example(who didn't see that coming?)), but I always assumed that comedy/humour is subjective and extremely culturally dependent. I am quite prepared to be wrong on this though.

@ Integrity:
It sounds a bit too much like "why can't we all just get along?" to me. I think you are overlooking the jerk factor. Jerks will never learn empathy, that is why they are jerks.

 

[westprog]

I think that there is also a good bit of confusion as to the meaning of the word "science". I use the word 'science' here to mean a systematic and disciplined study of a domain of knowledge. I do not restrict the word to mean only those domains of knowledge that can be measured with a scale and/or calipers.

The problem is that there is no knowledge regarding ethics. We can study people's behaviour, and we can study whether something achieves some predetermined end. We can study what people believe to be right and wrong. What we can't do is know whether a given act is immoral or moral, from a scientific point of view. Indeed, the very question is scientifically meaningless. In science, no outcome is better or worse than any other outcome.

There are two possible views of morality - firstly, that moral choices are real, and really matter, and that acts can be objectively wrong or right. Alternatively, that moral choices are totally dependent on circumstances, and that all moral judgements are inherently subjective. Neither view has any scope for a "scientific" measure of morality.

 

[Integrity]

@ Integrity:
It sounds a bit too much like "why can't we all just get along?" to me. I think you are overlooking the jerk factor. Jerks will never learn empathy, that is why they are jerks.

I am not unaware of the jerk factor nor that jerks will always be but perhaps we can increase the level of decency within society rather than allowing the lowest common denominator to preside - namely the jerk.

By increasing this higher level of attunement to others emotions we can ensure that there are more examples of good and moral people walking the earth, who we can respect and emulate, rather than the depressing and demoralising effect of jerk city.

 

[sopsyched]

The field of psychology, particularly social psychology, has addressed many of these issues. Google "moral psychology" and you'll see some overviews as well as a NYTimes article. The Wikipedia article is a good place to start and lists some of the prominent researchers.

 

[Bikewer]

It's also partly a concern of anthropologists and evolutionary biologists. There have been a variety of studies in the area of an evolutionary advantage for such "moral" concepts as altruism.

 

[coberst]

OK.
So what next? Suppose we systematise and study morality somehow to discover the answer to your question ‘why do humans treat one another so terribly?’ and it turns out that it is because most people are jerks. What do we do about it?

Maybe I'm just a pessimist.

I am studying "The Sense of Beauty" by George Santayana, "Moral Imagination" by Mark Johnson, and "Art and Visual Perception" by Rudolf Arnheim. I have discovered that the study of values, morality is a species of value, has led me into a study of visual perception, the meaning of 'meaning', and the science of art.

The study of psychology and cognitive science has provided a foundation for this effort. I think that such studies must form the foundation of such an effort.

 

[coberst]

Inegrity

I agree that empathy is a vital aspect of morality.

 

[coberst]

Your first question basically contains the definition of ethics.

That said, I don't think good and evil are objectively definable things, which would seem to be a prerequisite for a science of morality.
I'm not sure what you're calling for. Do you want scientists to come up with classifications of different moral systems? Do you want them to invent and teach the optimal morals? Or do you want them to find the objectively verifiable origins of our moral precepts and use this information to stimulate people to behave more harmoniously?

I think that we badly need a science of morality and everything that is entailed by a systematic and disciplined study of any domain of knowledge.

 

[The Atheist]

Morality must become a top priority for scientific study.

Good luck!