The Future of Moral Science

[Kevin_Lowe]

“You cannot do moral reasoning based on facts”? Really! So what do you do moral reasoning based on?

I've snipped the rest of your argument as being snide misrepresentations.

Is that really your idea of participating honestly in a discussion?

I said that you cannot do moral reasoning purely using facts. You fabricate a quotation, in quotation marks and all, which you attribute to me, saying “You cannot do moral reasoning based on facts”. Did you really think that nobody would notice this deeply dishonest move? This is a new low.

It's the difference between saying "you cannot make an aeroplane out of glass" and "you cannot make an aeroplane with any glass in it".

Also, I've corrected you on this before but you are repeating the error: Hume's demonstration that you cannot derive a moral "ought" from an "is" is not an argument from incredulity, and it applies in exactly the same way to inductive or probabilistic reasoning as it does to deductive reasoning.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Hi Tassman

One corner-stone of science is observation, not understood as deduction, induction or anything otherwise. Observation as through sight/the ability to see. The problem is that you can neither establish a right/good nor a wrong/bad through observation; i.e you can't see neither a right/good nor a wrong/bad.

Tassman, that is the core of the is-ought problem; you can't establish an ought based on observation understood as case of is as a fact. I.e. neither it is right/good nor it is wrong/bad are not based on objective facts, but subjective thinking/feeling or if you like a personal opinion.
Now in practice because thinking and feeling are subjective, you can subjectively deny the is-ought problem, but it will not alter the fact, that is something you do subjectively. This is the end-game, you will deny as something you do, that you deny the is-ought problem And that you fail to give observations for a right/good or a wrong/bad. You see, Tassman, you only have to explain how you see as observe a right/good or a wrong/bad, but that is what you can't do.
Right/good or a wrong/bad is personal, subjective and based on thinking/feeling. These are not universal nor objective as independent of individual thinking/feeling.

 

[Tassman]

Is that really your idea of participating honestly in a discussion?

I said that you cannot do moral reasoning purely using facts. You fabricate a quotation, in quotation marks and all,

I stand corrected. I should not have used quotation marks - it was careless. Nevertheless, your manufactured outrage is pathetic.

Again: Your assertion that “you cannot do moral reasoning based purely on factual statements” is nonsense. If one does not base moral reasoning based purely on factual statements what DO you base moral reasoning on – non-factual statements?

which you attribute to me, saying “You cannot do moral reasoning based on facts”. Did you really think that nobody would notice this deeply dishonest move? This is a new low.

Get a grip, Kevin.

Also, I've corrected you on this before but you are repeating the error: Hume's demonstration that you cannot derive a moral "ought" from an "is" is not an argument from incredulity, and it applies in exactly the same way to inductive or probabilistic reasoning as it does to deductive reasoning.

So funny! You think your personal opinion counts as “correction”.

What do you think humanity has been doing over the eons, if it has not been basing its concepts of right and wrong upon what it feels it ought to do, given its understanding of the world around it? In short deriving its moral “oughts” from its experience of the world as it “is” or perceived to be?

More to the point, where do YOU think we derive our “ought’s” from?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...

More to the point, where do YOU think we derive our “ought’s” from?

I know that we as humans derive our oughts from how we individually think/feel and in some cases combine that inter-subjectively into shared subjective oughts.

ETA: Morality and ethics are created in the brain and not discovered through observation.

 

[angrysoba]

No, I asked how YOU arrive at moral axioms. I did not ask for a smorgasbord of how moral axioms can be arrived at. Interesting that there are so many from which to choose. So, on what basis do you make your selection?

We've been over this Tassman. I have explained how we do this. We work backwards from specific normative claims until we arrive at first principles. These first principles are what we have been calling moral axioms, in this discussion. I've already given you an example; that of Bentham's utilitarianism. However, if you are asking ME how I arrive at MY moral axioms, I have already told you that...

…and I’m asking you for the umpteenth time what did you mean by: “science can inform us of how to proceed in all kinds of moral issues, once we have decided our moral axioms”. So, how do you arrive at the moral axioms you consider essential to have been decided before, to quote you: “science can inform us of how to proceed in all kinds of moral issues”?

I have not made any axiomatic claims.

Scientists, such as Sam Harris, argue from hypotheses which, unlike the axioms of philosophical argument, have the potential for empirical verification. It is YOU who is arguing for “moral axioms” and it is YOU who need explain how YOU arrive at moral axioms YOU consider correct?

ETA:Let me also repeat in response to your question, "what are these “moral axioms” of yours and how have you arrived at them?":

"I have not made any axiomatic claims."

 

[Tassman]

Hi Tassman

One corner-stone of science is observation, not understood as deduction, induction or anything otherwise. Observation as through sight/the ability to see. The problem is that you can neither establish a right/good nor a wrong/bad through observation; i.e you can't see neither a right/good nor a wrong/bad.
Tassman, that is the core of the is-ought problem; you can't establish an ought based on observation understood as case of is as a fact. I.e. neither it is right/good nor it is wrong/bad are not based on objective facts, but subjective thinking/feeling or if you like a personal opinion.
Now in practice because thinking and feeling are subjective, you can subjectively deny the is-ought problem, but it will not alter the fact, that is something you do subjectively. This is the end-game, you will deny as something you do, that you deny the is-ought problem And that you fail to give observations for a right/good or a wrong/bad. You see, Tassman, you only have to explain how you see as observe a right/good or a wrong/bad, but that is what you can't do.
Right/good or a wrong/bad is personal, subjective and based on thinking/feeling. These are not universal nor objective as independent of individual thinking/feeling.

I disagree. One can establish right and wrong behaviour through observation of how an evolved social species like us functions and relates to the world around us and how to optimize our role in the natural world of which we are a part. Humanity has always had its rules of behaviour long before Hume and his so-called “is/ought” problem. Our concepts of right and wrong, fair and unfair behaviour are demonstrably instinctive and can even be observed to a lesser degree among our simian cousins. The difference between them and us is that we are capable of codifying such behaviour via formalized rules, whereas our chimpanzee relatives aren't.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I disagree. One can establish right and wrong behaviour through observation of how an evolved social species like us functions and relates to the world around us and how to optimize our role in the natural world of which we are a part. Humanity has always had its rules of behaviour long before Hume and his so-called “is/ought” problem. Our concepts of right and wrong, fair and unfair behaviour are demonstrably instinctive and can even be observed to a lesser degree among our simian cousins. The difference between them and us is that we are capable of codifying such behaviour via formalized rules, whereas our chimpanzee relatives aren't.

Yes, you are right. Morality is based on how we think/feel and not what we can see. An ought is derived from how a brain works and is not observed. You got that right, morality/ethics is subjective and based on thinking/feeling.

 

[angrysoba]

Did you not rely on Google for you extensive list of definitions – all off the top of your head was it?

Yes, of course it was. Why is this so astonishing to you? I was simply explaining elementary moral philosophy.

He does in fact. Have you actually read him?

Yes, I have read The Moral Landscape. I have quoted from it in this discussion; have you forgotten already?

He argues that conscious states are not randomly determined but depend upon the “states and capacities” of brains and the physical dynamics of such within bodies, societies, the world, and the universe; i.e., “human well-being entirely depends on events in the world and of states in the human brain”. And that these things are susceptible, at least in principle to scientific investigation.

Who said anything about "randomly determined" whatever that is supposed to mean? I have already explained that the physiological process of thinking is obviously a matter of scientific enquiry. I pointed out that it is irrelevant to determining first principles (moral axioms) from propositions which is what normative morals are grounded in.

In this case, I am not asking whether a thought came from Sam Harris's brain, it obviously bloody did! I'm asking how he determined that "maximizing the well-being of conscious creatures" forms the evaluative premise, the moral axiom, in his so-called science of morality. I argue, and many others do too, that he has simply taken welfare utilitarianism to be equal to morality, which is okay, but which is a philosophical position. It is NOT a scientific position.

See above. I repeat: No branch of science can derive its judgements solely from scientific descriptions of the world. No scientific theory can exist in isolation and none do. Do you therefore dismiss scientific methodology because it doesn’t conform to what YOU think science should be?

I don't dismiss scientific methodology at all. To paraphrase Daniel Dennett when he remarked of another of Sam Harris's arguments, you are fighting a strawman and the strawman's winning.

Are you really arguing that our instinctive behaviour to maintain social cohesion, which you accept, is not relevant in how we formulate our rules of behaviour? Come now. What is relevant to this end in your view – divine revelation? Academic metaphysical argument – what?

No. That flurry of idiotic questions is not based on what I asked. I asked you:

do you believe Sam Harris is arguing for an evolutionary account of morality and for conforming to the dictates of evolution?

Yes or no Tassman, old chum.

Of course it does. Are you seriously arguing that our empirically verified knowledge of how and why we behave the way we do, has no bearing on the rules of behaviour we formulate? So what DOES have a bearing on how we arrive at normative morality? This is what you consistently refuse to answer.

This sounds like the type of argumentative rhetoric William Lane Craig indulges in ("Are you seriously arguing...?")

I keep telling you what has a bearing. We need to begin from first principles. Moral axioms. This is what Sam Harris does, then he pretends he derives them from science. Or as Michael Shermer might say, "And that's science!"

I would have thought it obvious.

The only thing obvious is that you are unable to explain what the problem is.

 

[angrysoba]

I disagree. One can establish right and wrong behaviour through observation of how an evolved social species like us functions and relates to the world around us and how to optimize our role in the natural world of which we are a part.

Okay, let's say we make these observations whilst wearing white coats and carrying clipboards. How do we identify what is right and what is wrong?

 

[Tassman]

We've been over this Tassman. I have explained how we do this. We work backwards from specific normative claims until we arrive at first principles. These first principles are what we have been calling moral axioms, in this discussion. I've already given you an example; that of Bentham's utilitarianism.

I see. So in the smorgasbord of moral axioms, which you so helpfully listed previously, one selects the axiomatic morsel which is best in tune with one’s personal presuppositions. E.g. I favour the Utilitarian approach myself, with a dash of propositionalism on the side. Yummy!

No wonder we have such universal agreement about right and wrong in the world.

However, if you are asking ME how I arrive at MY moral axioms, I have already told you that...

Certainly you haven’t made any axiomatic claims yourself. I’m suggesting that you do so and thus claim a personal stake in the discussion, rather than remain locked in your fortress in the role of the all-knowing inquisitor. That’s what a discussion is all about after all, an exchange of ideas.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Okay, let's say we make these observations whilst wearing white coats and carrying clipboards. How do we identify what is right and what is wrong?

Answer this, Tassman! How do you, Tassman, identify what is right and what is wrong?
How do you get from you to we?

 

[Tassman]

Who said anything about "randomly determined" whatever that is supposed to mean? I have already explained that the physiological process of thinking is obviously a matter of scientific enquiry. I pointed out that it is irrelevant to determining first principles (moral axioms) from propositions which is what normative morals are grounded in.

Sam Harris did, which is why I asked whether you’d read him. He argues that conscious states are dependent upon the “states and capacities” of brains and the physical dynamics of such within bodies, societies, the world, and the universe; i.e., “human well-being entirely depends on events in the world and of states in the human brain”. And that these things are susceptible, at least in principle to scientific investigation.

Thus he disagrees with your assertion that the physiological process of thinking is irrelevant to determining first principles. I suggest that your notion of “first principles” is a relatively modern concept and too narrow. It assumes that human beings are somehow different in kind to other social animals.

In this case, I am not asking whether a thought came from Sam Harris's brain, it obviously bloody did! I'm asking how he determined that "maximizing the well-being of conscious creatures" forms the evaluative premise, the moral axiom, in his so-called science of morality. I argue, and many others do too, that he has simply taken welfare utilitarianism to be equal to morality, which is okay, but which is a philosophical position. It is NOT a scientific position.

Harris freely acknowledges his concept of “the unity of knowledge” and considers that the boundaries between disciplines are merely conventions. It is you who is trying to artificially compartmentalize knowledge into separate, unconnected boxes.

I don't dismiss scientific methodology at all. To paraphrase Daniel Dennett when he remarked of another of Sam Harris's arguments, you are fighting a strawman and the strawman's winning.

But you do. You overtly dismiss scientific methodology when it comes to establishing notions of right and wrong.

No. That flurry of idiotic questions is not based on what I asked. I asked you:



Yes or no Tassman, old chum.

I’m stating by way of answer that our instinctive behaviour in maintaining social cohesion is relevant in how we formulate our rules of behaviour (despite your opposition) and that Harris is arguing that such instinctive behaviour forms a component of our moral code. How could it not, are we divorced from our natural instincts in your view?

This sounds like the type of argumentative rhetoric William Lane Craig indulges in ("Are you seriously arguing...?")

I keep telling you what has a bearing. We need to begin from first principles. Moral axioms. This is what Sam Harris does, then he pretends he derives them from science. Or as Michael Shermer might say, "And that's science!"

No he doesn't. He argues that empirically verified knowledge of how and why we behave the way we do is a component in formulating our rules of behaviour. Where else would our behavioural impulses come from? Where, for example, do the precursors of human morality that we see in chimpanzees and other hominids come from? What about prehistoric man or Neanderthal man? Why, in principle, would modern humans be different? Do you think we are somehow special? Why would you think this?

The only thing obvious is that you are unable to explain what the problem is.

Sigh!

Answer this, Tassman! How do you, Tassman, identify what is right and what is wrong?
How do you get from you to we?

Our notions of right and wrong are a result of our natural instincts, social acculturation and our evolved predisposition to conform to the rules of the group. That is my position and that of everyone else. If your position differs please explain why.

 

[angrysoba]

I see. So in the smorgasbord of moral axioms, which you so helpfully listed previously, one selects the axiomatic morsel which is best in tune with one’s personal presuppositions. E.g. I favour the Utilitarian approach myself, with a dash of propositionalism on the side. Yummy!

I didn't list a "smorgasbord of moral axioms". If you want to participate in this discussion it is necessary for you to understand what is going on. Your failure to do so is making this whole thing extremely tiresome. I am beginning to wonder if your tactic is to talk so much garbage that people give up trying to engage you.

Let's try another tack, shall we?

Is rape wrong?

No wonder we have such universal agreement about right and wrong in the world.

Who is talking about universal agreement? Not me.

Certainly you haven’t made any axiomatic claims yourself. I’m suggesting that you do so and thus claim a personal stake in the discussion, rather than remain locked in your fortress in the role of the all-knowing inquisitor. That’s what a discussion is all about after all, an exchange of ideas.

Hallelujah! No, I have not made any axiomatic claims. And why should I? What is up for discussion here is whether or not a science of normative morality is possible. I say it isn't.

Sam Harris, on the other hand, being a moral realist, believes that science tells us what is right or wrong.

That all sounds interesting enough, but then, before even doing the science he presupposes that normative morality is based on "maximizing the well-being of conscious creatures." That is, the very conclusion he is supposed to determine by science has been smuggled into the premises.ine

 

[angrysoba]

Sam Harris did, which is why I asked whether you’d read him.

So you have got him to beat up another strawman, I see. How thoroughly uninteresting.

He argues that conscious states are dependent upon the “states and capacities” of brains and the physical dynamics of such within bodies, societies, the world, and the universe; i.e., “human well-being entirely depends on events in the world and of states in the human brain”. And that these things are susceptible, at least in principle to scientific investigation.

Fascinating.

Thus he disagrees with your assertion that the physiological process of thinking is irrelevant to determining first principles.

This is such a bizarre misunderstanding of yours.

I suggest that your notion of “first principles” is a relatively modern concept and too narrow. It assumes that human beings are somehow different in kind to other social animals.

No, that's also a weird interpretation.

Harris freely acknowledges his concept of “the unity of knowledge” and considers that the boundaries between disciplines are merely conventions. It is you who is trying to artificially compartmentalize knowledge into separate, unconnected boxes.

Really? Is it a scientific fact that vixens are female foxes? Could I do an empirical study capable of falsification in which I may discover that some vixens are male gorillas?

But you do. You overtly dismiss scientific methodology when it comes to establishing notions of right and wrong.

Ah! When it comes to normative morality, yes I do. That is not the same as dismissing the scientific method. What I dismiss is pseudoscience (i.e pretending that science will tell us The One True Way.)

I’m stating by way of answer that our instinctive behaviour in maintaining social cohesion is relevant in how we formulate our rules of behaviour (despite your opposition) and that Harris is arguing that such instinctive behaviour forms a component of our moral code. How could it not, are we divorced from our natural instincts in your view?

Is it your instinctive behaviour to type out badly argued pseudobabble on the internet? What kind of Darwinian advantage do you think your genes are gaining right now? The answer is "who cares?" Unless you are a Social Darwinist who believes the over-riding moral imperative is social cohesion and the survival of the species, then it is irrelevant.

No he doesn't. He argues that empirically verified knowledge of how and why we behave the way we do is a component in formulating our rules of behaviour. Where else would our behavioural impulses come from? Where, for example, do the precursors of human morality that we see in chimpanzees and other hominids come from? What about prehistoric man or Neanderthal man? Why, in principle, would modern humans be different? Do you think we are somehow special? Why would you think this?

Not relevant!

Our notions of right and wrong are a result of our natural instincts, social acculturation and our evolved predisposition to conform to the rules of the group. That is my position and that of everyone else. If your position differs please explain why.

"Everyone else" agrees with you? Errrr...no.

 

[angrysoba]

And Tassman, instead of constantly writing "Harris argues..." why not quote him, as I have done, from the book I have read of his called The Moral Landscape?

Whenever you write "Harris argues..." you follow on with the kind of crap that you argue, not what he argues. I will no longer accept claims to know his argument from you unless you can back it up with quotes and page numbers.

 

[Pup]

All of which demonstrate our natural instinct, as a social species, to live in community. This is not in doubt as you yourself indicate. All that’s in doubt is how rules of behaviour to best maintain this cohesion are best formulated. To date we have not been very successful at this as you have argued.

Actually, I argued just the opposite. As I said, "Each has been successful in its own way, and while no group has lasted since the dawn of humankind, many have lasted for centuries. Yet what was morally right in one would be considered morally wrong in another."

If a community based on slavery and subservience of women lasted for centuries, and the members felt that their community was morally right, there's no arguing with either success or with what those humans felt. There's no scientific way to say their morality was "wrong."

So in your view what should we, as a planet-wide community, do to best achieve this goal? Philosophy does not have the capacity to establish empirically verifiable facts upon which to base or rules of behaviour or do think otherwise?

If the goal is to live in community, one could potentially work out how best to do that scientifically. But what if it turns out that some morally odious (to you or me) behavior is the best way to do so? We might be basing our morality on minimizing suffering on average for all humans, for example, which is not the same goal as living in community, and therefore a scientifically derived "best" way to live in comunity might not seem moral to us.

That's why I don't think morality can be determined scientifically. We each have different ideas about what's moral or not, and while living in community is a fair enough conclusion of humans' evolved behavior, it's not the only one. We may have a broad sense that things which encourage living in communty seem moral, but it apears we also have an evolved sense of xenophobia, so we might feel it's moral to protect "our community" from "their community," and all kinds of other urges that affect our sense of what's moral.

There isn't one simple pathway in everyone's mind that calls certain things moral and other things immoral. That's why one needs to declare moral axioms, like living in community, but such an axiom isn't based on the totality of humans' evolved attributes.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I disagree. One can establish right and wrong behaviour through observation of how an evolved social species like us functions and relates to the world around us and how to optimize our role in the natural world of which we are a part. Humanity has always had its rules of behaviour long before Hume and his so-called “is/ought” problem. Our concepts of right and wrong, fair and unfair behaviour are demonstrably instinctive and can even be observed to a lesser degree among our simian cousins. The difference between them and us is that we are capable of codifying such behaviour via formalized rules, whereas our chimpanzee relatives aren't.

So moral philosophy is useless, because the Scientifically Correct way to determine what is morally right is just to look at what people actually do, and declare it to be The One True Morality? I see a problem, because what people actually do, sometimes, is use moral philosophy. Hence in some cases it's moral philosophy doing the work and I am just not clear in such cases what you think science brings to the party.

"So you think abortion is morally tolerable, eh Mister Philosopher? Ha! You cannot make such prescriptions because you base your conclusions on scientifically unsupported axioms! Watch now as a real scientist handles this! Abortion is morally tolerable because we have evolved and because moral philosophers say it is morally tolerable! Bam! Real Scientist in charge here."

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I stand corrected. I should not have used quotation marks - it was careless. Nevertheless, your manufactured outrage is pathetic.

It's interesting that you think that calling out dishonest behaviour is "manufactured outrage".

Again: Your assertion that “you cannot do moral reasoning based purely on factual statements” is nonsense. If one does not base moral reasoning based purely on factual statements what DO you base moral reasoning on – non-factual statements?

This has been explained to you very patiently over and over again. You do it with a combination of "non-factual statements" or "moral axioms" or whatever you prefer to call them today, and factual statements.

So funny! You think your personal opinion counts as “correction”.

The problem is more that you are unable to distinguish between something being logically impossible, and it merely being my personal opinion that something is logically impossible.

Yet again you have snipped all the awkward points you cannot respond to intelligently and tried to reboot the argument. Henceforth I am just going to assume that when you do this you are admitting that you are wrong, as this will save a lot of time and is almost certainly correct.

 

[Lithrael]

Actually, I argued just the opposite. As I said, "Each has been successful in its own way, and while no group has lasted since the dawn of humankind, many have lasted for centuries. Yet what was morally right in one would be considered morally wrong in another."

If a community based on slavery and subservience of women lasted for centuries, and the members felt that their community was morally right, there's no arguing with either success or with what those humans felt. There's no scientific way to say their morality was "wrong"

Sorry to jump in on page seven, but, agreed. The idea that you can derive ought from is, as far as observing all the members of a successful (as in lasting) community and seeing what they feel is moral, falls down extremely quickly due to the astonishingly wide variety of ways to do community with practically all members seeing it as moral.

It seems obvious from the beginning that this is a non-starter as it's trivially easy to find successful communities where everyone including the lowest castes, slaves, beaten women, etc, largely consider their place in their community to be correct, moral and just.

The entire, and common, sentiment of 'this is my lot in life, all is as it should be' among many groups that the modern west would consider to be needlessly, unjustly suffering, looks to me as though it flies in the face of the idea that one can arrive at scientifically correct morality by observing what successful communities consider to be moral.

You (not you, Pup) really need to give your idea some more legs in order for it to be evaluated any differently than this. Right now you've got 1) Observe. 2) ???? 3) Objective morality! Which is not enough to make sense. How are you evaluating these observations? How are you weighing them so as to avoid the apparently obvious conclusion that oppressive caste systems are morally right? How are you figuring these valuations and weights are the correct things to apply?

I don't see how one could attempt to apply this line of thought and not get out the other end: "Morality is whatever practically every member of any thriving community feels is unobjectionable." With loads of conflicting moralities, each for its own community.

 

[angrysoba]

Sorry to jump in on page seven, but, agreed. The idea that you can derive ought from is, as far as observing all the members of a successful (as in lasting) community and seeing what they feel is moral, falls down extremely quickly due to the astonishingly wide variety of ways to do community with practically all members seeing it as moral.

It seems obvious from the beginning that this is a non-starter as it's trivially easy to find successful communities where everyone including the lowest castes, slaves, beaten women, etc, largely consider their place in their community to be correct, moral and just.

The entire, and common, sentiment of 'this is my lot in life, all is as it should be' among many groups that the modern west would consider to be needlessly, unjustly suffering, looks to me as though it flies in the face of the idea that one can arrive at scientifically correct morality by observing what successful communities consider to be moral.

You really need to give your idea some more legs in order for it to be evaluated any differently than this. Right now you've got 1) Observe. 2) ???? 3) Objective morality! Which is not enough to make sense. How are you evaluating these observations? How are you weighing them so as to avoid the apparently obvious conclusion that oppressive caste systems, are morally right? How are you figuring these valuations and weights are the correct things to apply?

I don't see how one could attempt to apply this line of thought and not get out the other end: "Morality is whatever practically every member of any thriving community feels is unobjectionable." With loads of conflicting, moralities, each for its own community.

Nice post and a succinct summary of the problem.