The Future of Moral Science

[Wowbagger]

As some of you might know, I happen to be a purveyor of the idea that science can answer moral questions. However, I recognize (quite brutally) that it is really difficult to convince most other intellectual types of that idea. Not merely that science can help us answer such questions, after values are established. My claim is that values, themselves, can be determined by science, as well. And, here, I make the bold claim that this will, eventually, be a much more accepted notion. But, it will not happen right away. It is going to take a couple of generations of turnover before it goes more mainstream.

My predictions take the following, more specific, form:

Prediction #1: Academia will transform morality almost entirely into a science. Perhaps a "soft" form of it. But, the role of philosophy will become diminished to that of pure systematics: taxonomy, nomenclature, etc. It might take 1 or 2 generations (of roughly 20 years each), before progress will be noticeable.

Prediction #2 is about how morality will change. It has three sub-predictions, that more-or-less follow from each other: (In a previous draft these were numbered separately.)

2A: Morality will take on more of a consequentialist type of angle, in a greater number of people. This will also take a couple of generations to notice. And, some parts of the world will transform slower than others. This is NOT classical utilitarianism, in the Jeremy Bentham sense. This is a "new" form that more fully encompasses the six foundations of morality, that folks like Johnathan Haidt have documented. (Though, Haidt might not agree that they can be unified in this way.)

2B: The average "well being" of all human lives will continue to improve at an accelerated rate. Our measurements of "well being" might be primitive today. But, they will improve over time, across various components: health, wealth, "happiness", etc.
I used the word "continue" because this seems to be happening, anyway. The real key word is "accelerated rate". And, this would be as a result of #2A happening, of course.

2C: Skepticism will become much more of a recognized and respected skill. To be reliable, the consequentialist requires oodles and oodles of information: The more you know about everything, the better you can foresee the possible consequences of your actions, without relying on any arbitrary principles. But, as we all know: Good information ends up swimming around in oceans of bad information. Therefore, information filtering, i.e. skepticism, will be a much more sought-after skill.

I am not sure, yet, if skepticism will ever become mainstream: It might end up as more of a specialized profession, like doctors and lawyers. But, if we can find better ways to teach those skills, it might spread like reading and writing after the industrial revolution.

I recognize that there are some forces working against these ideals:
* Our own evolutionary heritage has favored principles and duty for so long, it will take some mighty powerful forces to overrule them in the general population.
* I also read up on recent findings on how evolution could favor the collapse of reciprocal altruism in certain situations.
* And, some temporary set-backs will sometimes crop-up ("The Great Sort" of U.S. politics, the rise of ISIS in the Middle East, etc.)

But, we live in a world where we can start to see all of these coming, and I think we can become increasingly adept at neutralizing them.

I would also like to point out that I could wrong about one of these predictions (either #1 or the collection of #2's parts), and still be correct about the other. If that turns out to be the case, then I hope whoever happens to read this post, in that future, would be willing to grant me half-credit.

(If #2C should become true, but not any of the other parts of #2, I would NOT count that as a victory for the purposes of this thread. Skepticism could rise for reasons not related to morality. My prediction is in how morality will be its driving force.)

I plan to argue for these predictions, this weekend, at SkeptiCamp NYC 2014. So, I probably should have started this thread sooner. While I might not have time to post too many responses before that event, I promise to read all of the posts before it takes place. And, I might revise the form of the predictions after the event is over, based on feedback and such.

So, your thoughts are appreciated.

Daniel Dennett once described the Theory of Evolution as a "universal acid", that eats away at all other notions of biological origin before it. I am much worse than that: I see the very disciple of science, itself, as a universal acid: Eating away at all other forms of thinking-about-stuff that came before it! I predict that this will, eventually, include pretty much all of morality, itself!

 

[Spindrift]

What proof or evidence do you have that science can answer moral questions?

 

[tsig]

As some of you might know, I happen to be a purveyor of the idea that science can answer moral questions. However, I recognize (quite brutally) that it is really difficult to convince most other intellectual types of that idea. Not merely that science can help us answer such questions, after values are established. My claim is that values, themselves, can be determined by science, as well. And, here, I make the bold claim that this will, eventually, be a much more accepted notion. But, it will not happen right away. It is going to take a couple of generations of turnover before it goes more mainstream.

My predictions take the following, more specific, form:

Prediction #1: Academia will transform morality almost entirely into a science. Perhaps a "soft" form of it. But, the role of philosophy will become diminished to that of pure systematics: taxonomy, nomenclature, etc. It might take 1 or 2 generations (of roughly 20 years each), before progress will be noticeable.

Prediction #2 is about how morality will change. It has three sub-predictions, that more-or-less follow from each other: (In a previous draft these were numbered separately.)

2A: Morality will take on more of a consequentialist type of angle, in a greater number of people. This will also take a couple of generations to notice. And, some parts of the world will transform slower than others. This is NOT classical utilitarianism, in the Jeremy Bentham sense. This is a "new" form that more fully encompasses the six foundations of morality, that folks like Johnathan Haidt have documented. (Though, Haidt might not agree that they can be unified in this way.)

2B: The average "well being" of all human lives will continue to improve at an accelerated rate. Our measurements of "well being" might be primitive today. But, they will improve over time, across various components: health, wealth, "happiness", etc.
I used the word "continue" because this seems to be happening, anyway. The real key word is "accelerated rate". And, this would be as a result of #2A happening, of course.

2C: Skepticism will become much more of a recognized and respected skill. To be reliable, the consequentialist requires oodles and oodles of information: The more you know about everything, the better you can foresee the possible consequences of your actions, without relying on any arbitrary principles. But, as we all know: Good information ends up swimming around in oceans of bad information. Therefore, information filtering, i.e. skepticism, will be a much more sought-after skill.

I am not sure, yet, if skepticism will ever become mainstream: It might end up as more of a specialized profession, like doctors and lawyers. But, if we can find better ways to teach those skills, it might spread like reading and writing after the industrial revolution.

I recognize that there are some forces working against these ideals:
* Our own evolutionary heritage has favored principles and duty for so long, it will take some mighty powerful forces to overrule them in the general population.
* I also read up on recent findings on how evolution could favor the collapse of reciprocal altruism in certain situations.
* And, some temporary set-backs will sometimes crop-up ("The Great Sort" of U.S. politics, the rise of ISIS in the Middle East, etc.)

But, we live in a world where we can start to see all of these coming, and I think we can become increasingly adept at neutralizing them.

I would also like to point out that I could wrong about one of these predictions (either #1 or the collection of #2's parts), and still be correct about the other. If that turns out to be the case, then I hope whoever happens to read this post, in that future, would be willing to grant me half-credit.

(If #2C should become true, but not any of the other parts of #2, I would NOT count that as a victory for the purposes of this thread. Skepticism could rise for reasons not related to morality. My prediction is in how morality will be its driving force.)

I plan to argue for these predictions, this weekend, at SkeptiCamp NYC 2014. So, I probably should have started this thread sooner. While I might not have time to post too many responses before that event, I promise to read all of the posts before it takes place. And, I might revise the form of the predictions after the event is over, based on feedback and such.

So, your thoughts are appreciated.

Daniel Dennett once described the Theory of Evolution as a "universal acid", that eats away at all other notions of biological origin before it. I am much worse than that: I see the very disciple of science, itself, as a universal acid: Eating away at all other forms of thinking-about-stuff that came before it! I predict that this will, eventually, include pretty much all of morality, itself!

Then came the Scientific Inquisition forcing all to accept the Truth^TM. The Heisenberg Morality Test allowed the Sci-inqusitors to determine the moral worth of each individual infallibly but unfortunately required the body of the suspect to be burnt to acquire a sample.

 

[Sophronius]

Not merely that science can help us answer such questions, after values are established. My claim is that values, themselves, can be determined by science, as well.

When you say 'determined', do you mean 'discovered' or 'chosen'? If the former, I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, I would even go as far as to say that science can point out when values conflict, tell us how to optimize them, and identify when we are confused about what our values are. If you mean the latter, that makes no sense to me, since that would require somebody to do the choosing.

Prediction #1: Academia will transform morality almost entirely into a science. Perhaps a "soft" form of it. But, the role of philosophy will become diminished to that of pure systematics: taxonomy, nomenclature, etc. It might take 1 or 2 generations (of roughly 20 years each), before progress will be noticeable.

Prediction #2 is about how morality will change. It has three sub-predictions, that more-or-less follow from each other: (In a previous draft these were numbered separately.)

2A: Morality will take on more of a consequentialist type of angle, in a greater number of people. This will also take a couple of generations to notice. And, some parts of the world will transform slower than others. This is NOT classical utilitarianism, in the Jeremy Bentham sense. This is a "new" form that more fully encompasses the six foundations of morality, that folks like Johnathan Haidt have documented. (Though, Haidt might not agree that they can be unified in this way.)

2B: The average "well being" of all human lives will continue to improve at an accelerated rate. Our measurements of "well being" might be primitive today. But, they will improve over time, across various components: health, wealth, "happiness", etc.
I used the word "continue" because this seems to be happening, anyway. The real key word is "accelerated rate". And, this would be as a result of #2A happening, of course.

2C: Skepticism will become much more of a recognized and respected skill. To be reliable, the consequentialist requires oodles and oodles of information: The more you know about everything, the better you can foresee the possible consequences of your actions, without relying on any arbitrary principles. But, as we all know: Good information ends up swimming around in oceans of bad information. Therefore, information filtering, i.e. skepticism, will be a much more sought-after skill.

I really, really hope that you are right, but I'm worried that this is wishful thinking. Sure, if civilisation continues to go forward, this will eventually happen. But history is filled with civilisations that completely dropped the ball and collapsed, and current evidence does not convince me we are any different.

* Our own evolutionary heritage has favored principles and duty for so long, it will take some mighty powerful forces to overrule them in the general population.

Yes, there is that. More worryingly however are the forces which directly go against rationality: The power of lying for political purposes, or rationalizing to feel better about yourself.

* I also read up on recent findings on how evolution could favor the collapse of reciprocal altruism in certain situations.

A total collapse in altruism does not seem likely, and lack of altruism in some cases is already something we're dealing with. Efforts to fight global warming suffer from this, for example, combined with our inability to coordinate properly...

* And, some temporary set-backs will sometimes crop-up ("The Great Sort" of U.S. politics, the rise of ISIS in the Middle East, etc.)

I think you are WAY too optimistic when you talk about 'temporary setbacks'. A more worrying concern would be:

Prediction 3: We are acquiring more destructive power at an accelerating rate, without a corresponding increase in wisdom. It is inevitable that at some point some idiot will get a weapon capable of destroying human civilisation, and use it.

I plan to argue for these predictions, this weekend, at SkeptiCamp NYC 2014. So, I probably should have started this thread sooner. While I might not have time to post too many responses before that event, I promise to read all of the posts before it takes place. And, I might revise the form of the predictions after the event is over, based on feedback and such.

You will have a very hard time defending scientific morality to sceptics. I suggest explaining in very clear and simple terms what you mean, how it differs from the consensus, and why you're right.

 

[Meed]

I know I've gone back and forth with you on this subject before, but unfortunately my memory is hazy so I will risk posing you questions that I've posed to you in the past.

Can you give an example of a moral question that science might hypothetically answer in the future and an example of how it might be answered?

 

[Apathia]

"A gramme is better than a damn."

 

[angrysoba]

Science can tell us a lot from a descriptive point of view and hopefully will increase the data that is necessary to make ethical decisions about various problems such as animal rights, global warming and even economic disparity etc...

However, on a normative or meta-ethical level it does not make sense to talk about moral science.

Even by saying that consequentialism is the foundation of morality you are essentially coming to your conclusions before the data is in. This is not science is it?

Unfortunately most of these pop scientific (or pseudoscientific to put it less charitably) attempts at a science which answers moral questions, tend to smuggle in the moral assumptions to begin with and then proceed to explain how these assumptions can be best realized. Shermer, Harris and Haidt pretty much all do this, and you are doing this already with your announcement of where moral values lie before doing the experiments, and will not apparently ever see that they have skirted over the moral questions to begin with.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

1. Game Theory is intrinsically part of our Universe.
   
2. Evolutionary_game_theory^WP explains why co-operation has a slight evolutionary advantage over non-co-operation.
   
3. Co-operation is "morality".
   
4. QED.

 

[Wowbagger]

What proof or evidence do you have that science can answer moral questions?

Unfortunately, we do not seem to have any direct tests of these ideas, yet. And, my previous attempts to latch onto existing psychology experiments, as indirect evidence, have not been well-liked, even by my own proponents. So, that is why the above post takes the form it does: A prediction about a change in attitude, rather than a claim of actual truth.

The change in attitude has a couple of steps to it:

The first step is already very much covered: Figure out HOW science can help answer moral questions.

The second, more difficult, one is: Have it recognized, by scientists and philosophers, as this is the ONLY reliable, effective way to answer such questions, going forward. Everything else is outdated and/or delusional.

The evidence that we can do this comes in a few forms:

* Historic Trends: Violence is going down, poverty is going down, intelligence is going up, etc. This is largely driven by the first step. Forces against this, from those who deny the recognition in the second step, seem to be getting weaker, over time; giving more fuel for Prediction #1.

* The discoveries the evolutionary origins of our morality, seem to point in the general direction of Prediction #2. If we take survival of the genes as a key foundation (or proto-morality, as I called it in an earlier thread), it becomes clearer that "well being" has its roots going all the way down there.
(Of course, most of our history reserved this for family members, we have discovered reciprocal altruism among strangers can help us survive even better! So, our moral concepts move onto the well-being of a greater number of people, over time.)

Then came the Scientific Inquisition forcing all to accept the Truth^TM. The Heisenberg Morality Test allowed the Sci-inqusitors to determine the moral worth of each individual infallibly but unfortunately required the body of the suspect to be burnt to acquire a sample.

That might have been in jest. But, for the record, that does NOT sound like an effective manner of morality, to me.

When you say 'determined', do you mean 'discovered' or 'chosen'?

Yes, this is more along the lines of "discovered".

If it was merely "chosen", it would not be very scientific, would it?

But history is filled with civilisations that completely dropped the ball and collapsed, and current evidence does not convince me we are any different.

We are different in that we can analyze how and why civilizations collapsed, and we can take steps to prevent that from happening again.

Could we collapse through some manner not yet known to us? I think the more we learn about the fundamental nature of our lives on this planet, that will become increasingly unlikely. Though, I admit it will never be 100% fool-proof. We can still head off some potential new types of problems, even before they become actual problems.

You might think we can't get seem to get our act together about Climate Change, but I do not see it as a hopeless situation. Even the most conservative of U.S. politicians are (perhaps quietly) acknowledging policy changes towards addressing it, when they need to. They are (almost silently, to us) being pressured by forces even they cannot ignore: The armed forces (who are literally in the trenches of climate change, and cannot afford to ignore it), and the insurance industry (which is largely conservatively minded, but they see the threat of raising premiums in risky places).

A total collapse in altruism does not seem likely, and lack of altruism in some cases is already something we're dealing with.

The following article is relatively recent, so I can't vouch for its usefulness, but this is one of the things I was thinking about, when I talked about favoring collapse:

http://phys.org/news/2014-11-game-theory-analysis-evolution-favors.html

Prediction 3: We are acquiring more destructive power at an accelerating rate, without a corresponding increase in wisdom.

I disagree. Violence, in general, is going down, across almost all classes of it, despite the creation of new, ever more powerful weapons.

It is inevitable that at some point some idiot will get a weapon capable of destroying human civilisation, and use it.

I do not think it is inevitable, but I DO think that is a very minor risk. But, so is a giant asteroid hitting the planet.

You will have a very hard time defending scientific morality to sceptics.

Oh, don't I know it!!

I suggest explaining in very clear and simple terms what you mean, how it differs from the consensus, and why you're right.

I will try my best!

I know I've gone back and forth with you on this subject before, but unfortunately my memory is hazy so I will risk posing you questions that I've posed to you in the past.

That's okay, I don't mind! It has been about a year since I've posted on this subject. Some of my answers might have evolved or changed, since then, anyway.

Can you give an example of a moral question that science might hypothetically answer in the future and an example of how it might be answered?

The first step is easy: Find a moral question that science can help answer. The second part is the doozy: Have it recognized, almost universally, by scientists (and philosophers), as The Answer that is, probably, the only empirically correct one. (Technically, all scientific answers are provisional ones, hence the "probably").

For example, corporal punishment: Should students be beaten as an act of discipline?

The science shows us that it only causes more harm, and (in the long run) less discipline. (Though, in the short run, it will appear effective, because the kids will shut up for a while, as they silently plot their escape or revenge.) And, it effectively breeds more violence within that society.

The ones who allow it will likely cite reasons of blind respect for authority, and they might even quote the Bible about sparing rods and spoiling children. They will assume it is in the best interest for the children. But, science can see that such reasons are based on very unrealistic, unreliable terms.

Science would effectively answer the question with "No!" And, I predict it would only be a matter of time before most other people will see it that way. There is only so long a society can last before unrealistic, unreliable concepts are filtered out of our moral reasoning.

"A gramme is better than a damn."

No, this is way less insidious than that!

However, on a normative or meta-ethical level it does not make sense to talk about moral science.

And, I predict this attitude will seem quaint and outdated, in the future!

Even by saying that consequentialism is the foundation of morality you are essentially coming to your conclusions before the data is in. This is not science is it?

Well, I could be wrong about #2! If all the data from science starts moving away from consequentialism, and onto something else: That something else would be the foundation of morality. And, I would only be correct about Prediction #1.

But, it is worth reiterating that the form of consequentialism I am talking about is a very deep, broad form, that encompasses everything we need morality to encompass, in order to survive and thrive and such. It is hard to see morality taking any other form, but that, for any significant length of time, for any sufficiently large group of people.

This consequentialism is more like a direction morality will tend to bend towards, rather than a foundational value of its own. It ties together whatever foundations morality happens to have, such as those delineated by Haidt.
(This is a different take on the word, than what I previously used in threads on this topic. And, Haidt did have a bit of a role in my doing that. Though, the general idea is still largely the same.)

Unfortunately most of these pop scientific (or pseudoscientific to put it less charitably) attempts at a science which answers moral questions, tend to smuggle in the moral assumptions to begin with and then proceed to explain how these assumptions can be best realized. Shermer, Harris and Haidt pretty much all do this, and you are doing this already with your announcement of where moral values lie before doing the experiments, and will not apparently ever see that they have skirted over the moral questions to begin with.

I agree that Shermer and Harris do this. (Shermer even ends his upcoming book, The Moral Arc, with the audacity to prescribe how corporations ought to behave, based on his take of moral science. I was able to read it in advance, but don't tell anyone that!)

I don't think Haidt does that so much. He seems more interested in tracking down the evolutionary origins of morality, from the ground up, than asserting ideas from the top down. And, I am unsure if he would endorse the idea of tying everything together into a direction of consequentialism.

I am intentionally separating my predictions into two parts. The second prediction might be guilty of doing what you claim: I am putting the answers before the experiments. But, not the first one.

But, this is sort of like a BET that I am making: A future prediction, rather than a true prescription. I hope it is easier to swallow in that form.

1. Game Theory is intrinsically part of our Universe.
2. Evolutionary_game_theory^WP explains why co-operation has a slight evolutionary advantage over non-co-operation.
3. Co-operation is "morality".
4. QED.

Eh, that might work as a first approximation, I suppose.

 

[marplots]

I think scientific morality has about as much a shot at taking over as scientific economics does - but no more so.

 

[tsig]

Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Then came the Scientific Inquisition forcing all to accept the TruthTM. The Heisenberg Morality Test allowed the Sci-inqusitors to determine the moral worth of each individual infallibly but unfortunately required the body of the suspect to be burnt to acquire a sample.

That might have been in jest. But, for the record, that does NOT sound like an effective manner of morality, to me.

Once we know what the truth of morality is scientifically shouldn't people have to adopt it?

There can be no scientific morality. What hypotheses will you start with, what experiments will you perform and who will assess those experiments?

Morality is a matter of human opinion not a fact of the universe so there is no objective way to say what should be.

Can you scientifically determine if chocolate or vanilla tastes better?

 

[marplots]

There can be no scientific morality. What hypotheses will you start with, what experiments will you perform and who will assess those experiments?

Morality is a matter of human opinion not a fact of the universe so there is no objective way to say what should be.

Can you scientifically determine if chocolate or vanilla tastes better?

Maybe you could. After all, "choosy mothers choose Jiff," and "4 out of 5 dentists agree."

 

[Spindrift]

Unfortunately, we do not seem to have any direct tests of these ideas, yet. And, my previous attempts to latch onto existing psychology experiments, as indirect evidence, have not been well-liked, even by my own proponents. So, that is why the above post takes the form it does: A prediction about a change in attitude, rather than a claim of actual truth.

An attitude change towards science that has no science to support the attitude change?

Cart. Horse.

 

[Pup]

1. Game Theory is intrinsically part of our Universe.
   
2. Evolutionary_game_theory^WP explains why co-operation has a slight evolutionary advantage over non-co-operation.
   
3. Co-operation is "morality".
   
4. QED.

I think that's an excellent example of both the strength and weakness of how science could answer moral questions.

Given a postulate or starting assumption, there's really not much problem. The assumption in the above proof is that survival (having an evolutionary advantage) is morally good. Easy, given that assumption, to apply game theory or any appropriate scientific application and figure out a conclusion.

Okay, but is the assumption true? If it is, does it apply only to humans, or to all species, or to humans and some other species but not all (not to fleas, ebola and smallpox, let's say)? Those are the questions I can't see being answered by "science," or if they are, what happens if the answers aren't to our liking? I suspect the best theory in the world that says smallpox has as much a right to its niche as we do, will be ignored.

Or we could start with another postulate, that it's moral to minimize total suffering. Many people would consider that reasonable.

Or that it's moral to cause the most net pleasure (pleasure minus suffering), thereby allowing great suffering as long as it creates more pleasure. Not too far from how one raises children, forcing them to attend school and behave, in the hopes it will pay off with a better future.

Starting with either of those assumptions, one could scientifically figure out how to achieve it.

But again, how does one prove those assumptions are the correct ones?

 

[angrysoba]

And, I predict this attitude will seem quaint and outdated, in the future!

It's a good thing for those people...in the future...that I will be long dead and therefore won't be able to show their ideas up for the fatuous piffle that they are.

After all, your ideas may seem quaint and outdated to aliens with advanced technology and with minds immeasurably superior to our own who regard this Earth with envious eyes.

They may look at your ideas and say, "Ha ha! Look at the creature thinking it knows science. Yet he can't siuwil, he can't mesnisthtil, he has no concept of slan. In his brutishness, he'd never evolved to use hunshur; his community's so rudimentary that hissins do not exist; nor does he see any need for chail, or even chailsinn!"

Instead these aliens may have adopted their own morality that we cannot understand at all but would basically be a form of extreme chauvinism in which they argued the Earth was to be drained of all human life and replaced by themselves. Would you be able to offer a scientific moral argument that defeats theirs?

Ultimately, "quaintness" and "outdatedness" might not have anything to do with morality per se. Some people think my accent is "quaint" - but does that make it wrong or immoral? I expect Jeremy Bentham's wig would look quaint and outdated to people today. Does that matter? Maybe your clothes will look quaint and outdated to those people of the future, but why should I privilege their opinion above mine?

This sounds like people saying, "In 100 years' time nobody will care!" So what, I don't really care what people in a 100 years' time think!

How about presenting some arguments or advocating some serious research instead of making these "predictions" which are really not anything like the types of scientific predictions that can actually be tested?

 

[angrysoba]

By the way, did your debate from last year ever make it to video? I remember you said you would post it whether you won or lost. I can't remember if you changed your mind or not.

And furthermore, is this discussion going to end up online?

 

[Dani]

Wowbagger: I remember debating with you some time ago in a similar thread, and I'll be glad to participate here again.

You state that science can answer moral questions. In order to better understand what you're claiming, can you provide a couple of examples of the types of questions science is/will be able to answer? How would you formulate those questions?

 

[epepke]

Since I don't know what your thesis is, really, I'll respond as if it were similar to Sam Harris' thesis. I'm hoping that you are smarter than he is and can figure some way around this.

That science can, possibly, maximize well-being according to a measured set of criteria is not what I doubt. My thesis is that it is completely inaccurate to say that morality is about well-being.

First of all, well-being isn't a part of a definition. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is as good a source as any and better than most, the definition of morality is as follows:

The term “morality” can be used either

descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

There's nothing about well-being in there. There are a couple of interesting things. There's a mention that it's "rational," and I'm not sure how that is supposed to jibe with any idea of well-being. There's also the assertion, in both cases, that it's a code, which would seem to me to define away any explanation of moral behavior that is evolved, including explanations on the basis of empathy.

Second, simply empirically, if you go out and count instances of moral behaviors, that is, behaviors that are in the realm of morality as opposed to some other realm, like practice or optimizing making money or whatever, you'll find that the overwhelming majority of them are about hurting people because they do something you don't like. (In turn, most of the things they do that get people to be all moral have to do with sex.)

Now, I'm pretty sure that science can be used to analyze these phenomena. I suspect the there's something about morality that causes people to think that something is good, and it's pretty clear that morality is used to reprogram that sensation, very often with things that are destructive and hurt or kill people.

The conviction that some people who should know better. such as Harris and Dennett seem to have, may be (and in my view is likely to be) an effect of the function of morality itself, and that could be studied scientifically. That is, if morality can convince people that very harmful things are good, then it probably can convince people that morality itself is good. That, however, is merely a function, perhaps viral, of morality and its memes. Qualitatively, it may not be all that different from syphilis, which causes nerve damage that makes people horny, which in turn spreads the spirochete.

A moral code convinces the infected agent that various things are good, including morality itself, and thus spreads the morality, based on some mechanism according to which brains spread what they are convinced is good.

 

[Meed]

* Historic Trends: Violence is going down, poverty is going down, intelligence is going up, etc. This is largely driven by the first step. Forces against this, from those who deny the recognition in the second step, seem to be getting weaker, over time; giving more fuel for Prediction #1.

If one were to dispute your claim that there is a historic trend of violence and poverty going down, how would you back them up?

The first step is easy: Find a moral question that science can help answer. The second part is the doozy: Have it recognized, almost universally, by scientists (and philosophers), as The Answer that is, probably, the only empirically correct one. (Technically, all scientific answers are provisional ones, hence the "probably").

For example, corporal punishment: Should students be beaten as an act of discipline?

The science shows us that it only causes more harm, and (in the long run) less discipline. (Though, in the short run, it will appear effective, because the kids will shut up for a while, as they silently plot their escape or revenge.) And, it effectively breeds more violence within that society.

We already do this kind of science, though. The only difference is that we call it "social science" instead of "moral science".

 

[Cavemonster]

For example, corporal punishment: Should students be beaten as an act of discipline?

The science shows us that it only causes more harm, and (in the long run) less discipline. (Though, in the short run, it will appear effective, because the kids will shut up for a while, as they silently plot their escape or revenge.) And, it effectively breeds more violence within that society.

That doesn't address the moral question of corporal punishment, it addresses the practical question of corporal punishment, whether it achieves the aims it is meant to.

And I'd fully agree that a lot of seemingly moral questions are really practical questions in disguise. I'd also agree that the future will hold a lot of stripping away of obfuscations that have built up around moral and religious ideas to reveal practical questions answerable by science where before moral questions were seen.

But as we hack away at the underbrush, there is a core of "ought" that I have never seen a reason to believe empirical science could ever give answers for.

Let's say that the science had found the opposite. Kids subjected to corporal punishment had slightly better outcomes in terms of academic performance and personal discipline. How would a parent weigh those long term outcomes against the pain experienced by their child and the possible emotional negative consequences?

Describe the scientific study that will answer exactly what the exchange rate should be between increased GPA, physical pain, emotional closeness lost, increased personal discipline etc. These are all facets of well-being. How will we objectively value any one against the others? Those are moral questions.