The Future of Moral Science

[angrysoba]

You've snipped the post. I say more: “the rapidly emerging areas in the cognitive sciences, such as neurobiology and sociobiology, science is, or will be in my view, the best discipline to inform us of the optimum behaviours required to maintain the social cohesion we require to survive as a species”. Morality is defined as the “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour”. That’s what it has to do with morality - behaviour that best enhances the survival of the species is right behaviour. Social cohesion and survival of the species are the foundation of our moral system, i.e our code of behaviour, and have been from our earliest days.

You're confusing two notions of good and bad. I could say, "This is a good car" but that is not equal to saying, "This is a (morally) good car".

Now you are saying "behaviour that best enhances the survival of the species" is moral in and of itself, despite attempting to twist away from that.

Once again: So, you consider your views on morality and how one arrives at a moral position, to be irrelevant in a discussion on morality? I disagree.

Then make your case.

 

[Tassman]

You're confusing two notions of good and bad. I could say, "This is a good car" but that is not equal to saying, "This is a (morally) good car".

You arrive at this typical misrepresentation by snipping the argument. Again: “Morality is defined as the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour”. It takes a vivid imagination to apply this definition to a car. Morality can only come into being when creatures capable of moral reasoning come into being.

Now you are saying "behaviour that best enhances the survival of the species" is moral in and of itself, despite attempting to twist away from that.

If one is approaching this from the scientific viewpoint, which is the area of discussion, then "behaviour that best enhances the survival of the species" can only be “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent”, to quote Stephen J. Gould. But, as always in science, this is a potentially falsifiable position.

Then make your case.

“Discussion” is usually defined as “talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas”. It implies an interaction of ideas between participants. The Q&A approach adopted by you is interrogation not discussion.

So, again: In your view, what is morality and how is one able to arrive at a moral position?

 

[angrysoba]

You arrive at this typical misrepresentation by snipping the argument.

I didn't "snip" anything. I typically reply to your posts in their entirety which is more than can be said for you, good sir!

Again: “Morality is defined as the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour”. It takes a vivid imagination to apply this definition to a car. Morality can only come into being when creatures capable of moral reasoning come into being.

I am not equating the two. I am saying that you are doing something analogous by arguing that the "optimum behaviours" in this sentence:

“the rapidly emerging areas in the cognitive sciences, such as neurobiology and sociobiology, science is, or will be in my view, the best discipline to inform us of the optimum behaviours required to maintain the social cohesion we require to survive as a species”

are equal to the "right and wrong or good and bad" in this sentence:

Morality is defined as the “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour”.

It is one thing to talk about "optimum behaviours" for maintaining social cohesion and for the survival of the species but it is yet another to show that maintaining social cohesion or the survival of the species is the correct moral end (i.e moral in and of itself) which you would need to show to demonstrate that this "optimum behaviour" is equivalent to "moral behaviour". I see no reason to assent to your view.

If one is approaching this from the scientific viewpoint, which is the area of discussion, then "behaviour that best enhances the survival of the species" can only be “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent”, to quote Stephen J. Gould. But, as always in science, this is a potentially falsifiable position.

But again, what is moral about it?

“Discussion” is usually defined as “talking about something in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas”. It implies an interaction of ideas between participants. The Q&A approach adopted by you is interrogation not discussion.

Tough! In science there is something called peer-review where someone's ideas are subject to scrutiny. If you don't like it then try something else.

So, again: In your view, what is morality and how is one able to arrive at a moral position?

Morality is usually divided into two categories: descriptive and prescriptive (this one is also sometimes called normative). There is actually a third known as meta-ethics, but I think two is enough for now.

In descriptive ethics, we simply look at the phenomenon from the outside, as it were, in a non-judgemental manner such as noticing that there are a lot of different ideas about what is good and bad and how different societies and cultures arrange their ideas about morality, perhaps whether emotions or rationality are the biggest driving forces in morality etc... and also where these ideas of right and wrong came from, whether or not divine command, culture or evolution have been important in shaping human moral sentiments etc...

In normative ethics, this is where people make claims about what is actually right or wrong. In order to do this you have to argue why it is good to do X and what stems from this. This is where you are best putting your arguments into premises in order to show the conclusions. If you do this, however, then please be prepared for people to look at the argument for signs of logical inconsistency. People will grab hold of the premises and give them a shove in order to test whether they wobble or not. Similarly, if the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, this will be pointed out as well. And of course, the argument may be incomplete. The conclusion may be baldly asserted without being properly argued for. It might be a non sequitur. It may be incoherent.

Here are some tips if you want to demonstrate your argument in a convincing manner.

Try to make each premise easy to read. Each premise should really be reduced to a single line. Try to avoid too many clauses. Can the premise be accepted or rejected in its entirety?

Here's how I might reconstruct your argument, as I see it, although please feel free to correct me and replace it with your actual argument. Also, I will leave a blank space for where I think you have to place a premise but have refused to assent to what I think is the most logical premise so far:

1. certain behaviour is optimum for enabling the survival of the species
2. science can tell us what that optimum behaviour is.
3. ?????

4. therefore science can tell us what is moral.

Now, Tassman, do you agree that that is a fair representation of your argument?

If so, what is premise 3? (I have put some words in italics as a hint )

If not, then you will post your actual argument and end this game of whack-a-mole.

 

[epepke]

Do you think you could give us a little more to go on? Was this video available on You Tube? Do you have a link?

The problem is that I don't remember. I believe that it was a TED talk.

 

[epepke]

You're confusing two notions of good and bad. I could say, "This is a good car" but that is not equal to saying, "This is a (morally) good car".

But, isn't it interesting that basic terms such as "good," "bad," "right," and "wrong" can be used this way? Secondarily, this kind of conflation of different senses seems to happen a lot more often when morality is the subject. It would be interesting to see what a scientific study of those issues would find out.

 

[tsig]

I didn't "snip" anything. I typically reply to your posts in their entirety which is more than can be said for you, good sir!



I am not equating the two. I am saying that you are doing something analogous by arguing that the "optimum behaviours" in this sentence:



are equal to the "right and wrong or good and bad" in this sentence:



It is one thing to talk about "optimum behaviours" for maintaining social cohesion and for the survival of the species but it is yet another to show that maintaining social cohesion or the survival of the species is the correct moral end (i.e moral in and of itself) which you would need to show to demonstrate that this "optimum behaviour" is equivalent to "moral behaviour". I see no reason to assent to your view.



But again, what is moral about it?





Tough! In science there is something called peer-review where someone's ideas are subject to scrutiny. If you don't like it then try something else.



Morality is usually divided into two categories: descriptive and prescriptive (this one is also sometimes called normative). There is actually a third known as meta-ethics, but I think two is enough for now.

In descriptive ethics, we simply look at the phenomenon from the outside, as it were, in a non-judgemental manner such as noticing that there are a lot of different ideas about what is good and bad and how different societies and cultures arrange their ideas about morality, perhaps whether emotions or rationality are the biggest driving forces in morality etc... and also where these ideas of right and wrong came from, whether or not divine command, culture or evolution have been important in shaping human moral sentiments etc...

In normative ethics, this is where people make claims about what is actually right or wrong. In order to do this you have to argue why it is good to do X and what stems from this. This is where you are best putting your arguments into premises in order to show the conclusions. If you do this, however, then please be prepared for people to look at the argument for signs of logical inconsistency. People will grab hold of the premises and give them a shove in order to test whether they wobble or not. Similarly, if the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, this will be pointed out as well. And of course, the argument may be incomplete. The conclusion may be baldly asserted without being properly argued for. It might be a non sequitur. It may be incoherent.

Here are some tips if you want to demonstrate your argument in a convincing manner.
Try to make each premise easy to read. Each premise should really be reduced to a single line. Try to avoid too many clauses. Can the premise be accepted or rejected in its entirety?

Here's how I might reconstruct your argument, as I see it, although please feel free to correct me and replace it with your actual argument. Also, I will leave a blank space for where I think you have to place a premise but have refused to assent to what I think is the most logical premise so far:

1. certain behaviour is optimum for enabling the survival of the species
2. science can tell us what that optimum behaviour is.
3. ?????

4. therefore science can tell us what is moral.

Now, Tassman, do you agree that that is a fair representation of your argument?

If so, what is premise 3? (I have put some words in italics as a hint )

If not, then you will post your actual argument and end this game of whack-a-mole.

I see you want to not only argue both sides of the case but also referee the match.

 

[angrysoba]

I see you want to not only argue both sides of the case but also referee the match.

You "see" what you like, twig.

 

[tsig]

You "see" what you like, twig.

Masterful argumentation.

 

[angrysoba]

Masterful argumentation.

Whoops! Actually that was a combination of predictive text + alcohol.

Sorry about that.

Anyway, speaking of masterful argumentation do you wish to flesh out what you were saying about me "playing both sides"?

I don't really understand what you mean there.

 

[Tassman]

I didn't "snip" anything. I typically reply to your posts in their entirety which is more than can be said for you, good sir!

No, what you tend to quote are shortened forms of what I post resulting in a (deliberate?) distorted version of the argument.

I am not equating the two. I am saying that you are doing something analogous by arguing that the "optimum behaviours" in this sentence:



are equal to the "right and wrong or good and bad" in this sentence:



It is one thing to talk about "optimum behaviours" for maintaining social cohesion and for the survival of the species but it is yet another to show that maintaining social cohesion or the survival of the species is the correct moral end (i.e moral in and of itself) which you would need to show to demonstrate that this "optimum behaviour" is equivalent to "moral behaviour". I see no reason to assent to your view.

Unless you are attempting to argue that “morality exists in and of itself” in some self-contained ivory tower and serves no practical purpose, then it is obvious that it consists of a set of rules, grounded in our evolved instincts and arrived at via community discourse, which enable us as social animals to modify individual selfishness and thus facilitate the group living essential for survival.

If you have a different understanding of what morality is then please enlighten us.

But again, what is moral about it?

See above.

Tough! In science there is something called peer-review where someone's ideas are subject to scrutiny. If you don't like it then try something else.

So please present what, in your personal view, morality is and how one is able to arrive at a moral position so I can give it the scrutiny it deserves.

Morality is usually divided into two categories: descriptive and prescriptive (this one is also sometimes called normative). There is actually a third known as meta-ethics, but I think two is enough for now.

In descriptive ethics, we simply look at the phenomenon from the outside, as it were, in a non-judgemental manner such as noticing that there are a lot of different ideas about what is good and bad and how different societies and cultures arrange their ideas about morality, perhaps whether emotions or rationality are the biggest driving forces in morality etc... and also where these ideas of right and wrong came from, whether or not divine command, culture or evolution have been important in shaping human moral sentiments etc...

In normative ethics, this is where people make claims about what is actually right or wrong. In order to do this you have to argue why it is good to do X and what stems from this. This is where you are best putting your arguments into premises in order to show the conclusions. If you do this, however, then please be prepared for people to look at the argument for signs of logical inconsistency. People will grab hold of the premises and give them a shove in order to test whether they wobble or not. Similarly, if the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, this will be pointed out as well. And of course, the argument may be incomplete. The conclusion may be baldly asserted without being properly argued for. It might be a non sequitur. It may be incoherent.

Here are some tips if you want to demonstrate your argument in a convincing manner.

Try to make each premise easy to read. Each premise should really be reduced to a single line. Try to avoid too many clauses. Can the premise be accepted or rejected in its entirety?

Well who’d have thought to Google “morality” on a Philosophy Website? Clever!

So tell me, on the basis of the above how you might construct your argument for moral behaviour and in particular how you obtain the premise from which to deductively arrive at your conclusion.

Here's how I might reconstruct your argument, as I see it, although please feel free to correct me and replace it with your actual argument. Also, I will leave a blank space for where I think you have to place a premise but have refused to assent to what I think is the most logical premise so far:

1. certain behaviour is optimum for enabling the survival of the species
2. science can tell us what that optimum behaviour is.
3. ?????

4. therefore science can tell us what is moral.

Now, Tassman, do you agree that that is a fair representation of your argument?
If so, what is premise 3? (I have put some words in italics as a hint )

If not, then you will post your actual argument and end this game of whack-a-mole.

It is not a fair representation of my argument as I’m sure you’re aware; the argument has been presented many times.

If you wish to end "this game of whack-a-mole" then you need only to answer how, throughout their 200,000 year history, Homo sapiens have arrived at what we call right and wrong behaviour and whether or not the process is different today than it was in pre-historic times and if so why. I believe it to be the same in principle albeit more sophisticated. Do you disagree?

Furthermore, given that this moral code is grounded in our natural instincts, which are increasingly being understood by cogitative scientists, science may well have an important future role to play in the social discourse that determines our moral code. Certainly it doesn't warrant being dismissed out of hand as you seem to be doing. To quote Arthur C Clark: “When a distinguished scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong”.

I see you want to not only argue both sides of the case but also referee the match.

This has then the problem all the way through.

 

[angrysoba]

No, what you tend to quote are shortened forms of what I post resulting in a (deliberate?) distorted version of the argument.



Unless you are attempting to argue that “morality exists in and of itself” in some self-contained ivory tower and serves no practical purpose, then it is obvious that it consists of a set of rules, grounded in our evolved instincts and arrived at via community discourse, which enable us as social animals to modify individual selfishness and thus facilitate the group living essential for survival.

If you have a different understanding of what morality is then please enlighten us.



See above.



So please present what, in your personal view, morality is and how one is able to arrive at a moral position so I can give it the scrutiny it deserves.



Well who’d have thought to Google “morality” on a Philosophy Website? Clever!

So tell me, on the basis of the above how you might construct your argument for moral behaviour and in particular how you obtain the premise from which to deductively arrive at your conclusion.



It is not a fair representation of my argument as I’m sure you’re aware; the argument has been presented many times.
If you wish to end "this game of whack-a-mole" then you need only to answer how, throughout their 200,000 year history, Homo sapiens have arrived at what we call right and wrong behaviour and whether or not the process is different today than it was in pre-historic times and if so why. I believe it to be the same in principle albeit more sophisticated. Do you disagree?

Furthermore, given that this moral code is grounded in our natural instincts, which are increasingly being understood by cogitative scientists, science may well have an important future role to play in the social discourse that determines our moral code. Certainly it doesn't warrant being dismissed out of hand as you seem to be doing. To quote Arthur C Clark: “When a distinguished scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong”.



This has then the problem all the way through.

What you have presented before has been word salad; not a coherent argument.

So why not present the argument with joined up premises and conclusions so that it can be properly assessed?

 

[angrysoba]

I see you want to not only argue both sides of the case but also referee the match.

This has then the problem all the way through.

tsig seems unable to answer questions I have put to him, so perhaps you can answer what he means by arguing "both sides of the case".

As for refereeing the match, I have simply given you some tips on how to make a coherent case. Right now, it is you who seem to want to referee the match by asking me what my case is, when it is not me putting forward a thesis, unlike you.

If you want to argue a thesis then you really ought to welcome defending it even if that means what you call interrogating.

 

[epepke]

Peter Singer, not Pete Seeger.

OK. Singer, Seeger, what's the difference? OK, "in" versus "ee."

Well, what is interesting is itself a value judgement and what is not interesting to you may be interesting, or even - dare I say it - instructive to others.

Yep, it's itself a value judgment.

But looky heah...

I'm not the one trying to make a career out of telling people that science backs up my morality.

I am not even sure what you are talking about at this point. It's vague to the point of useless.

I believe you. But it isn't because I'm being vague; it's because is isn't inside a predefined moral framework.

 

[epepke]

But I will say this. Nietzsche, who was hardly a scientific thinker (but I find him interesting) started his investigations of morality by his work as a philologist. He noticed that the old words (but not the newer ones) in several languages for moral good bore a close relationship to the words for aristocracy.

Of course, I suppose that nowadays people would interpret that as meaning that, well, of course the aristocracy thought they were good, and they made up the words. He went in a different direction. He thought that maybe the old words for good meant a particular thing for aristocrats, and the new words for good meant an entirely different thing, and in the mean time, culture had shifted to a different sense of morality.

So why does "good" now mean both "morally good" and "sound" or "accurate" or "valid"? I don't know, but my pre-hypothetical idea is this:

There is a sense of "goodness," which serves a function in the brain and essentially is the opposite of what is called "cognitive dissonance." Maybe call it "cognitive consonance." It's a pleasant feeling, and people go for it.

It can be activated by a variety of means, such as, say, finding the solution to a problem, or getting paid, or having a nice meal, or getting drunk. Or by morality.

It's the same kind of squirt. And so, "good" can mean "morally good" or "logically valid" or "pleasant" or a variety of meanings, because it describes what, underneath all the hoo hah, is the basic internal experience.

Which is why people conflate the senses, because the feeling is the same, and the word describes a radial category based on that feeling.

We could probably hammer this into a hypothesis and study it by various means. For example, see if the same areas of the brain light up when one is feeling righteous versus when one has solved a math problem. To my knowledge, nobody has ever tried this.

If you find this vague, please don't hesitate to continue to find it vague and go back to calling someone names.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

But I will say this. Nietzsche, who was hardly a scientific thinker (but I find him interesting) started his investigations of morality by his work as a philologist. He noticed that the old words (but not the newer ones) in several languages for moral good bore a close relationship to the words for aristocracy.

Of course, I suppose that nowadays people would interpret that as meaning that, well, of course the aristocracy thought they were good, and they made up the words. He went in a different direction. He thought that maybe the old words for good meant a particular thing for aristocrats, and the new words for good meant an entirely different thing, and in the mean time, culture had shifted to a different sense of morality.

So why does "good" now mean both "morally good" and "sound" or "accurate" or "valid"? I don't know, but my pre-hypothetical idea is this:

There is a sense of "goodness," which serves a function in the brain and essentially is the opposite of what is called "cognitive dissonance." Maybe call it "cognitive consonance." It's a pleasant feeling, and people go for it.

It can be activated by a variety of means, such as, say, finding the solution to a problem, or getting paid, or having a nice meal, or getting drunk. Or by morality.

It's the same kind of squirt. And so, "good" can mean "morally good" or "logically valid" or "pleasant" or a variety of meanings, because it describes what, underneath all the hoo hah, is the basic internal experience.

Which is why people conflate the senses, because the feeling is the same, and the word describes a radial category based on that feeling.

We could probably hammer this into a hypothesis and study it by various means. For example, see if the same areas of the brain light up when one is feeling righteous versus when one has solved a math problem. To my knowledge, nobody has ever tried this.

If you find this vague, please don't hesitate to continue to find it vague and go back to calling someone names.

No, to me it makes sense. Just look at the phrase - it makes sense. I could have used - it feels right, but I think you got something.
Right and wrong and those other pairs of words all end up with in part involving value judgment. You can see it here - objectivity is better than subjectivity. Better is a subjective value judgment.

With regards

 

[Pup]

No, to me it makes sense. Just look at the phrase - it makes sense. I could have used - it feels right, but I think you got something.
Right and wrong and those other pairs of words all end up with in part involving value judgment. You can see it here - objectivity is better than subjectivity. Better is a subjective value judgment.

Same here. It fits with what I've been saying, that morality is our attempt to explain certain feelings that have been bred into us, rewarding us for behaving in "right" ways (ways that have been evolutionarilly successful in past generations).

Whether we feel "good" after eating a nice meal or "good" because we did something "good" (moral), it's the same kind of mental reward, because there aren't too many different ways of rewarding people mentally that could evolve, other than making them feel "good."

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think I can sum up the Tassman argument now.

1. Throughout history people have had moral opinions. (Tassman seems to think this is news to somebody. I'm not clear who though).
2. Humans evolved to have some kind of apparatus for having moral opinions with. (Tassman seems to think this is news to somebody. I'm not clear who though).
3. Therefore this evolved apparatus is the sole possible source for moral ideas.
4. Therefore there must be The One True Morality, or something very close to it, which is the most perfect possible reflection of these evolved moral ideas.
5. Therefore to learn more about The One True Morality the way only forward is to investigate this evolved apparatus.

Parts one and two are trivial and are not contested. Points three through five just do not follow. Whenever Tassman is getting smacked about on points three through five, they retreat back to repeating points one and two over and over again like a mantra, and then just assert that points three through five must be right because nobody else has presented a better idea. (I think people have suggested a number of much better ideas to Tassman already, actually, but possibly Tassman missed it).

To demonstrate the sheer vacuity of this argument-form:

1. Throughout history people have thrown rocks and spears.
2. Humans evolved to have some kind of apparatus for modelling how objects fly through the air.
3. Therefore this evolved apparatus is the sole possible source for ideas about aerodynamics.
4. Therefore there must be one true theory of aerodynamics or something very close to it, which is the most perfect possible reflection of these evolved moral ideas.
5. Therefore to learn more about aerodynamics the way only forward is to investigate this evolved apparatus.

I don't think our planes would fly very well if we thought like that.

 

[tsig]

I think I can sum up the Tassman argument now.

1. Throughout history people have had moral opinions. (Tassman seems to think this is news to somebody. I'm not clear who though).
2. Humans evolved to have some kind of apparatus for having moral opinions with. (Tassman seems to think this is news to somebody. I'm not clear who though).
3. Therefore this evolved apparatus is the sole possible source for moral ideas.
4. Therefore there must be The One True Morality, or something very close to it, which is the most perfect possible reflection of these evolved moral ideas.
5. Therefore to learn more about The One True Morality the way only forward is to investigate this evolved apparatus.

Parts one and two are trivial and are not contested. Points three through five just do not follow. Whenever Tassman is getting smacked about on points three through five, they retreat back to repeating points one and two over and over again like a mantra, and then just assert that points three through five must be right because nobody else has presented a better idea. (I think people have suggested a number of much better ideas to Tassman already, actually, but possibly Tassman missed it).

To demonstrate the sheer vacuity of this argument-form:

1. Throughout history people have thrown rocks and spears.
2. Humans evolved to have some kind of apparatus for modelling how objects fly through the air.
3. Therefore this evolved apparatus is the sole possible source for ideas about aerodynamics.
4. Therefore there must be one true theory of aerodynamics or something very close to it, which is the most perfect possible reflection of these evolved moral ideas.
5. Therefore to learn more about aerodynamics the way only forward is to investigate this evolved apparatus.

I don't think our planes would fly very well if we thought like that.

I think I can sum up the KL argument now.


1. I am right

2. there is no 2

 

[Tassman]

I think I can sum up the KL argument now.


1. I am right

2. there is no 2

Yes, what a farce! This is a standard, but typically invalid, KL attempt at reductio ad absurdum addressed to the unseen masses.

 

[Tassman]

tsig seems unable to answer questions I have put to him, so perhaps you can answer what he means by arguing "both sides of the case".

As for refereeing the match, I have simply given you some tips on how to make a coherent case. Right now, it is you who seem to want to referee the match by asking me what my case is, when it is not me putting forward a thesis, unlike you.

If you want to argue a thesis then you really ought to welcome defending it even if that means what you call interrogating.

Again: Unless you are attempting to argue that “morality exists in and of itself” in some self-contained ivory tower and serves no practical purpose, then it is obvious that it consists of a set of rules, grounded in our evolved instincts and arrived at via community discourse, which enable us as social animals to modify individual selfishness and thus facilitate the group living essential for survival. Now answer the question I've asked: If you have a different understanding of what morality is then please enlighten us.