The Future of Moral Science

[Tommy Jeppesen]

You seem to be getting confused. The argument is really very simple. Neither philosophy nor science can establish foundationally true premises or hypothesis upon which to arrive at a true conclusion - whether that conclusion be a normative moral claim or anything else. This has consistently been my position all along.

But, that said, science is in a far better position than philosophy to establish reliable premises because, unlike philosophy, it can test them and thus eliminate such fanciful notions as say, Aristotle’s “four elements” upon which the constitution and fundamental powers of everything were supposedly based.

Therefore, on this basis, whilst recognizing the importance of philosophy in science to ensure self-consistency, and help prevent errors of false inference, philosophy alone cannot generate new, testable truths about nature whereas science can. Hence, science is the senior discipline whilst philosophy is its, albeit important, handmaiden.

Okay, first things first - nobody in this thread is claiming that philosophy can be used to produce objective truth in regards to moral claims.
But neither can science. Science can't produce objective truth in regards to moral claims.

That is it. There are no objective truths possible in regards to moral claims and no methodology including philosophy or science has been found, which can produce objective truths in regards to moral claims.

So Tassman, you are attacking a straw man of your own making when you insist that it is claimed that philosophy can be used to produce objective truth in regards to moral claims.
Further you take for granted everybody are moral and ethical objectivists. It seems as though you can't understand that some people are moral and ethical subjectivists and relativists. And finally you can't see your own assumption, namely that it is objectively and universally better to cooperate as a species, because you don't understand that evolution also takes place within a species.

In the end you make the following claim for which there is no objective truth or evidence and for which science can't be used give evidence for:
The human species ought to cooperate for the common good of all humans.

 

[angrysoba]

Obviously equating mere ‘survival’ with ‘morality’ is incorrect. I agree. This was a, typically, distorted misrepresentation of the argument – not the argument itself.

That's confusing when you say:

His argument (as is Shermer’s AFAICT), is that morality arises out of a concern for the well-being of conscious creatures. And this claim is based upon the facts of how we evolved (as explained by science) and how we as conscious beings can flourish. By “flourish” he seems to mean having all the essentials for survival such as sufficient food, shelter and positive, interactive community living. Given that ALL organisms arose via natural selection it goes without saying that ALL organisms have the natural instinct to survive and flourish. And their behaviour (and rules of behaviour in the case of the higher primates like us) has been based upon these instincts since the dawn of history. If they hadn't been they would not have lived long enough to reproduce.

You are here equating "well-being" with "flourishing" and "flourishing" with "survival", and then go on to say "survive and flourish" which is confusing.

And you think philosophy can?

Whether it can or not is irrelevant to your claim that science gives us normative answers to moral questions.

Our capacity to make moral judgements evolved certainly and so did our capacity to determine “good and bad behaviour” (i.e. morality) in the context of what best enables the survival of the species. Where else would our moral code come from - thin air? Some Platonic heaven of perfect abstract forms??

Heeee heeee heeee hooooo hoooo hoooo! Platonic heaven! Ha ha!

It is science, not philosophy, tells us what’s required to survive and the survival instinct is the foundation from which our morality arises. Why else would we have rules of behaviour if not to enhance the social cohesion required by us as a social species?

This is not remotely interesting Tassman, and does not get us closer to answering moral questions.

As for the “descriptive” and “prescriptive” argument this is really a semantic issue deriving from the days of gods laying down rules about right and wrong. As per Harris’ example: To say we “should” follow some of these paths and avoid others is just a way of saying that some lead to happiness and others to misery. “You shouldn't lie” (prescriptive) is synonymous with “Lying needlessly complicates people’s lives, destroys reputations, and undermines trust” (descriptive).

Ah, so you have finally made an argument in which you have spelled out what is and is not moral.

If you argue, as you do now, that you and Harris say that that which is moral leads to happiness and that which is not moral is that which leads to misery then, for all your huffing and puffing earlier, you have now come to a conclusion about what is moral in and of itself - that which leads to the greatest happiness (of the greatest number perhaps?)

This is a moral axiom upon which to begin, indeed, and it is a value claim as well. This is certainly worth discussing, if you like, although be aware please that your statement here: " To say we “should” follow some of these paths and avoid others is just a way of saying that some lead to happiness and others to misery." was expressed by Jeremy Bentham in 1773: "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong" and in his principle of utility:

Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think: every effort we can make to throw off our subjection, will serve but to demonstrate and confirm it. In words a man may pretend to abjure their empire: but in reality he will remain subject to it all the while. The principle of utility recognizes this subjection, and assumes it for the foundation of that system, the object of which is to rear the fabric of felicity by the hands of reason and of law. Systems which attempt to question it, deal in sounds instead of sense, in caprice instead of reason, in darkness instead of light.

In other words Bentham is saying the same thing, that happiness and misery are the only things that can reasonably be considered to conform to what we call morality. But moreover, notice that he agrees it is an assumption. In other places he also writes that it is an axiom. In other words, this is not a hypothesis that can be tested empirically. So what exactly is it that you and Sam Harris and Michael Shermer think you are adding to the discussion?

Furthermore, you make a rather startling claim:

“You shouldn't lie” (prescriptive) is synonymous with “Lying needlessly complicates people’s lives, destroys reputations, and undermines trust” (descriptive).

Is this empirical science Tassman??????

Let's say you are in Nazi Germany, and being the good man that you are, you are hiding a Jewish family in your cellar, and a member of the Einsatzgruppen comes to your door and casually enquires if you have noticed any Jewish people in the area. At this point do you, Tassman, say, "Sure, there is a family of Jews hiding in my cellar!" or do you tell a lie which is, according to you synonymous with "needlessly complicates people’s lives, destroys reputations, and undermines trust".

Are you beginning to see how fatuous this is?

Furthermore, please notice that Bentham not only wrote about the principle of utility a couple of hundred years ago,

Bentham became a leading theorist in Anglo-American philosophy of law, and a political radical whose ideas influenced the development of welfarism. He advocated individual and economic freedom, the separation of church and state, freedom of expression, equal rights for women, the right to divorce, and the decriminalising of homosexual acts.[1] He called for the abolition of slavery, the abolition of the death penalty, and the abolition of physical punishment, including that of children.[2] He has also become known in recent years as an early advocate of animal rights.[3] Though strongly in favour of the extension of individual legal rights, he opposed the idea of natural law and natural rights, calling them "nonsense upon stilts".

How is it that he did all of these things without the aid of fMRI scanners? And how is it, on the other hand, that Sam Harris, sitting on the shoulders of giants takes the apparently retrograde step of favouring torture? And Michael Shermer has apparently never had to take a difficult moral position in his life?

The “why” it is valuable can only be properly answered by science. See above.

The only real alternatives are religious prescriptions based upon divine revelation – many erroneously believe this is the only basis of true morality. Whereas others cite Natural Law, namely the use of reason to analyse human nature and arrive at universal moral truths. But without a true premise, which is only obtainable via science, no amount of pure reasoning can arrive at a certain true conclusion.

I've just shown you now Tassman, an example of Jeremy Bentham who came to the conclusion of utilitarianism, and as an opponent of "Natural Law" and all the other strawmen you keep throwing out like some desperate charlatan trying to make claims for his pseudoscience, that the fundamental axiom, or assumption, was first articulated long before any of Sam Harris's and Michael Shermer's crap was written. So drop the tired and juvenile and extremely lame attempts at smear.

 

[angrysoba]

Therefore, on this basis, whilst recognizing the importance of philosophy in science to ensure self-consistency, and help prevent errors of false inference, philosophy alone cannot generate new, testable truths about nature whereas science can. Hence, science is the senior discipline whilst philosophy is its, albeit important, handmaiden.

But moral axioms - i.e the evaluative premises in a moral argument, are not testable are they?

If they are then you will lay out a method by which you could test an evaluative premise in a moral argument. You don't have to actually perform the experiment itself but you have to be able to explain how it is, in principle, testable.

First of all, Sam Harris's moral axiom:

That which is moral is that which maximizes the well-being of conscious creatures.

Now how do you test this?

 

[angrysoba]

Dear Wowbagger,

Re: Michael Shermer's book, as I have already read Matt Ridley's Rational Optimist and Sam Harris's Moral Landscape, and am currently reading Steven Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature, is there anything in this Shermer book that I can get there that hasn't been written elsewhere?

I will admit that I have something of a prejudice against Michael Shermer. I find him a sloppy thinker and disingenuous at the best of times. I also think he has a habit of constructing strawmen to argue against, sometimes because he simply shows no understanding of the arguments he is supposed to be addressing. Even worse is when I agree with him but I find his way of debating to be so awful that he makes my own position look bad.

I have watched videos him where he tries to smarm up to his audience such as when he tells the same joke to two different audiences about "Lucy" - when he does it in the UK, he says, "In the US they don't get that joke!" and in liberal states in the US he says, "In the south they don't get that joke!", and just trying to pick my way through even the positive reviews of his book I find the same kind of thing that always puts me off him. For example:

First, Shermer — defining moral progress as “improvement in the survival and flourishing of sentient beings” — needs to make a case that we humans are, in fact, moving toward such an improvement despite terrorist attacks on cartoonists, Islamic State beheadings, Taliban massacres of schoolchildren and police shootings of innocent civilians, among other seemingly daily atrocities. As he notes in the preface, when they heard he was working on a book about moral progress, “most people thought I was hallucinatory. A quick rundown of the week’s bad news would seem to confirm the diagnosis.”

Of course, that is exactly the kind of thing I consider to be disingenuous. My bet is that if he talked to most of his colleagues they would have said something along the lines of "Oh, you mean like Pinker's book?" (or Ridley's book) and, if they were cynical like me, "so why are you going to write a book on the fashionable topic that has already proven to be such a cash cow for the likes of Pinker, Harris and others?" The only people who probably thought he was hallucinating were people driving his taxi or unsuspecting bar staff he decided to talk to about his new book.

Fortunately he has lots of pals who will probably give him the cover quotes he needs so that other gullible people can say, "Oh look Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate for Physics says it's a lovely read! Steven Pinker, acclaimed Linguist and Cognitive Scientist says this book is a worthy sequel to his, and Sam Harris, Totally a Brain Scientist, says it's great stuff and Richard Dawkins, Evolutionary Biologist and Atheism Activist and Oxford-educated says it is astounding!" and buy the book on the strength of all the positive blurb comments.

But bear in mind that his argument seems to have shifted, or at least the focus appears more on demonstrating what we already know about, that violence has declined, that rights have changed, that freedom is greater now than it was a long time ago. This is different from the claim that science has answered moral questions.

 

[angrysoba]

But, yet again, Harris does not make this absolute claim. His argument (as is Shermer’s AFAICT), is that morality arises out of a concern for the well-being of conscious creatures. And this claim is based upon the facts of how we evolved (as explained by science) and how we as conscious beings can flourish.

Hilarious!

Here's a new interview between Sam Harris and Michael Shermer:

Harris: You appear to believe, as I do, that morality can (and should) arise out of a concern for the well-being of conscious creatures. But this normative claim is distinct from an evolutionary account of how we came to have moral emotions and preferences in the first place. It seems to me that there are two worthy, but distinct, scientific projects: (1) understanding how we got here and (2) understanding how to maximize our well-being going forward. Both projects are based on facts—facts about how we evolved, and facts about how conscious minds like our own can flourish in this universe. I’m wondering if you agree with this distinction and whether you have any further thoughts about the role science can play in deciding questions of right and wrong and good and evil.

Sam Harris has pointed out the distinction that you, Tassman, are apparently incapable of seeing.

 

[angrysoba]

By “flourish” he seems to mean having all the essentials for survival such as sufficient food, shelter and positive, interactive community living. Given that ALL organisms arose via natural selection it goes without saying that ALL organisms have the natural instinct to survive and flourish. And their behaviour (and rules of behaviour in the case of the higher primates like us) has been based upon these instincts since the dawn of history. If they hadn't been they would not have lived long enough to reproduce.

Tassman, do you assume the rest of us don't have Google?

This makes your earlier snide insinuation pretty hilarious as you seem to cut and paste without attribution:

Shermer: The criterion I use—inspired by your starting point in The Moral Landscape of “the well-being of conscious creatures”—is “the survival and flourishing of sentient beings.” By survival I mean the instinct to live, and by flourishing I mean having adequate sustenance, safety, shelter, bonding, and social relations for physical and mental health. I am trying to make an evolutionary/biological case for starting here by arguing that any organism subject to natural selection—which includes all organisms on this planet and most likely on any other planet as well—will by necessity have this drive to survive and flourish. If it didn’t, it would not live long enough to reproduce and would therefore not be subject to natural selection.

 

[angrysoba]

Tassman! Look at this!

When I talk about a moral arc of progress, I mean an improvement in the survival and flourishing of individual sentient beings. I emphasize the individual for four reasons: (1) Natural selection operates on individual organisms, not groups (see Steven Pinker’s dismantling of group selection arguments here.). (2) It is the individual who is the primary moral agent—not the group, tribe, race, gender, state, nation, empire, society, or any other collective—because it is the individual who survives and flourishes, or who suffers and dies. It is individual sentient beings who perceive, emote, respond, love, feel, and suffer—not populations, races, genders, groups, or nations. (3) Historically, immoral abuses have been most rampant, and body counts have run the highest, when the individual is sacrificed for the good of the group. It happens when people are judged by the color of their skin—or by their X/Y chromosomes, or by whom they prefer to sleep with, or by what accent they speak with, or by which political or religious group they belong to, or by any other trait our species has chosen to differentiate among members—instead of by the content of their individual character. (4) The rights revolutions of the past two centuries have focused almost entirely on the freedom and autonomy of individuals, not collectives—on the rights of persons, not groups. Individuals vote, not races or genders. Individuals want to be treated equally, not races. Rights protect individuals, not groups; in fact, most rights (such as those enumerated in the Bill of Rights) protect individuals from being discriminated against as members of a group, such as by race, creed, color, gender, or—soon—sexual orientation and gender preference.

In this sense, my argument is one for natural rights. I know that Bentham called “rights” nonsense and “natural rights” nonsense on stilts, but he came before Darwin and all the rights revolutions.

So it seems that Shermer is opposed to your form of utilitarianism which promotes the group, and he replaces it with a concern for individuals. He does that with some hokey pseudoscientific reasoning, of course, but then that's because pretty much all of the so-called science of morality proponents are just incapable of seeing that what they are trying to do, very badly, is philosophy, in order to lay down their fundamental axioms, and then say that science can do the rest towards those aims.

Of course, as everybody knows, philosophers do not doubt that science is the way to promote individual or social or species well-being. The crucial importance is on how you set your axioms in the first place. Shermer sounds like he is being typically wrong-headed in his approach.

 

[angrysoba]

My word, Shermer's a total idiot!

Harris: What role has religion played in our moral progress?

Shermer: I like to paraphrase Winston Churchill in his description of Americans: You can always count on religions to do the right thing…after they’ve tried everything else.

Really? Religions always do the right thing in the end? How for bloody love of bloody Hell is that an empirically objective fact?

Are religions currently doing the right thing?

God, this man is a total prat!

 

[angrysoba]

I can't resist another stab at this pompous blowhard. This is a review of Shermer's book that Shermer himself is good enough to reprint on his blog (kudos for that, at least):

But how? Science can’t determine values. The desire to enhance human flourishing, Mr. Shermer’s mission, itself reflects a value—a Bentham-like utilitarianism—that he assumed prior to his examination of how science might advance it. Science can give us only more efficient ways of bringing about desired outcomes, not tell us which outcomes to desire. Even the definition of “flourishing” depends on philosophical questions beyond the reach of the laboratory or algorithm.

What can we do to push humanity along the moral arc? Mr. Shermer lists 10 precepts that are largely variants of the Golden Rule. “If by fiat I had to reduce these ten principles to just one it would be this: Try to expand the moral sphere and to push the arc of the moral universe just a bit farther toward truth, justice, and freedom for more sentient beings in more places more of the time.”

The thought is lovely but mainly aimed at low-hanging fruit. In the West, most citizens enjoy basic freedoms and a decent quality of life, although there is obviously room for improvement. The interesting debates today are about how to manage the clash of competing values within a liberal, multiethnic society, a topic about which Mr. Shermer has little to say.

Indeed, if Shermer has written a book telling us that science tells us that "slavery's bad hmmmkay!" then it's pretty worthless.

As for his one moral principle, why push the arc "just a bit farther"? Surely his one moral principle could be, "push the arc as far as you possibly can". It seems he has, for some reason, accepted that only "a bit farther" is sufficient. Is that because he also argues that people should have their own leisure time as well when they can switch off from fighting for social justice. Because that itself is a moral judgment and I don't see how science resolves it. How is it nobler to be slacktivist, for example, than a person who risks life and limb for others? How is it that he gets to chomp down on beef steaks, just because he likes the taste, even though he is aware that cows feel pain (something we knew about prior to fMRI scans, I should point out).

By the way, I am interested in the book written by the author of this review.

SALLY SATEL, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is co-author, with Scott Lilienfeld, of Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience.

 

[Tassman]

Okay, first things first - nobody in this thread is claiming that philosophy can be used to produce objective truth in regards to moral claims.

But neither can science. Science can't produce objective truth in regards to moral claims.

I didn’t say it could. I said that “science is in a better position than philosophy to establish reliable premises because, unlike philosophy, it can test them”. See the difference?

That is it. There are no objective truths possible in regards to moral claims and no methodology including philosophy or science has been found, which can produce objective truths in regards to moral claims.

Indeed which is why I said that nevertheless “science is in a far better position than philosophy to establish reliable premises and thus arrive at more dependable conclusions, because, unlike philosophy, it can test them”.

So Tassman, you are attacking a straw man of your own making when you insist that it is claimed that philosophy can be used to produce objective truth in regards to moral claims.

Philosophy claims to be able to investigate and arrive at conclusions regarding how one ought to act, morally speaking. I’m saying that science is better placed to do this in that it can test its premises whereas philosophy can’t.

Further you take for granted everybody are moral and ethical objectivists. It seems as though you can't understand that some people are moral and ethical subjectivists and relativists.

How have you arrived at this conclusion?

And finally you can't see your own assumption, namely that it is objectively and universally better to cooperate as a species, because you don't understand that evolution also takes place within a species.

Really! The Genus Homo has been around c 2,500,000 years, Modern humans have been around c. 500,000 years and fully anatomically modern humans’ for c. 200,000 years.

ALL have been social species requiring universal cooperation for the maintenance of social cohesion in order for the species to survive. So what’s your point about evolution taking place “within a species” again? You know not of which you speak.

In the end you make the following claim for which there is no objective truth or evidence and for which science can't be used give evidence for:

The human species ought to cooperate for the common good of all humans.

I’ve specifically avoided the prescriptive assertion “ought”, although you apparently haven’t noticed. There is no certain way to establish an "ought" - certainly not from a philosophical deductive argument because the premise for such as argument can only be assumed, not tested. I’m following the Harris line that the 'is/ought issue is just a semantic one:

“To say we “should” follow some of these paths and avoid others is just a way of saying that some lead to happiness and others to misery. “You shouldn’t lie” (prescriptive) is synonymous with “Lying needlessly complicates people’s lives, destroys reputations, and undermines trust” (descriptive). “We should defend democracy from totalitarianism” (prescriptive) is another way of saying “Democracy is far more conducive to human flourishing than the alternatives are” (descriptive). In my view, moralizing notions like “should” and “ought” are just ways of indicating that certain experiences and states of being are better than others.” - Response to Ryan Born.

 

[Tassman]

That's confusing when you say:



You are here equating "well-being" with "flourishing" and "flourishing" with "survival", and then go on to say "survive and flourish" which is confusing.

Nonsense! ‘Survival’ is being defined here as ‘flourishing’ – meaning sufficient food, shelter and positive, interactive community living.

Whether it can or not is irrelevant to your claim that science gives us normative answers to moral questions.

I haven’t made that claim. I’m arguing, as does Harris, that the "is-ought problem" is fundamentally mistaken for reasons already explained.

Heeee heeee heeee hooooo hoooo hoooo! Platonic heaven! Ha ha!

Oh, you have a sense of humour – Who'd have thunk it?

Now answer the question: science can tell us about “our capacity to determine “good and bad behaviour” (i.e. morality) in the context of what best enables the survival of the species. Where else would our moral code come from if not from our evolved instincts - thin air? God?? I’m waiting.

This is not remotely interesting Tassman, and does not get us closer to answering moral questions.

Oh but it does. It is science, not philosophy that tells us what’s required to survive. And the survival instinct is the foundation from which our morality arises. Why else would we have rules of behaviour if not to enhance the social cohesion required by us as a social species for survival? Please answer the question.

Ah, so you have finally made an argument in which you have spelled out what is and is not moral.

If you argue, as you do now, that you and Harris say that that which is moral leads to happiness and that which is not moral is that which leads to misery then, for all your huffing and puffing earlier, you have now come to a conclusion about what is moral in and of itself - that which leads to the greatest happiness (of the greatest number perhaps?)

This is a moral axiom upon which to begin, indeed, and it is a value claim as well. This is certainly worth discussing, if you like, although be aware please that your statement here: " To say we “should” follow some of these paths and avoid others is just a way of saying that some lead to happiness and others to misery." was expressed by Jeremy Bentham in 1773: "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong" and in his principle of utility:



In other words Bentham is saying the same thing, that happiness and misery are the only things that can reasonably be considered to conform to what we call morality. But moreover, notice that he agrees it is an assumption. In other places he also writes that it is an axiom. In other words, this is not a hypothesis that can be tested empirically. So what exactly is it that you and Sam Harris and Michael Shermer think you are adding to the discussion?

Are you not aware that Harris’ arguments are self acknowledged to be a form of neo-Utilitarianism? And the claim is not that all hypotheses can be tested empirically (this is just your straw-man) - but that science is in a better position test hypotheses than philosophy, which has no mechanism to do so.

Furthermore, you make a rather startling claim:



Is this empirical science Tassman??????

Let's say you are in Nazi Germany, and being the good man that you are, you are hiding a Jewish family in your cellar, and a member of the Einsatzgruppen comes to your door and casually enquires if you have noticed any Jewish people in the area. At this point do you, Tassman, say, "Sure, there is a family of Jews hiding in my cellar!" or do you tell a lie which is, according to you synonymous with "needlessly complicates people’s lives, destroys reputations, and undermines trust".

Are you beginning to see how fatuous this is?

Outline to me ANY moral system that provides easy solutions to such moral dilemmas as the one you've outlined or the famous trolley problem thought experiment in ethics et al. See how fatuously useless such extreme examples are in testing the limits of moral codes – ANY moral code?

Furthermore, please notice that Bentham not only wrote about the principle of utility a couple of hundred years ago,



How is it that he did all of these things without the aid of fMRI scanners? And how is it, on the other hand, that Sam Harris, sitting on the shoulders of giants takes the apparently retrograde step of favouring torture? And Michael Shermer has apparently never had to take a difficult moral position in his life?

Yeah, and Edwin Hubble who played a crucial role in establishing the field of extragalactic astronomy was sitting on the shoulders of Copernicus and Galileo. What a cheat!!!

Harris actually freely admits that his approach is a form of neo-Unitarianism so what’s the problem?

And you claim that Sam Harris is in favour of torture – no qualifications, no nuances. Just that he’s in favour of torture. Wow. You’re sure out to get him aren’t you? And Shermer has “never had to take a difficult moral position in his life”. You know this do you? What BAD people they are. How can one accept anything they say? <sarcasm>

I've just shown you now Tassman, an example of Jeremy Bentham who came to the conclusion of utilitarianism, and as an opponent of "Natural Law" and all the other strawmen you keep throwing out like some desperate charlatan trying to make claims for his pseudoscience, that the fundamental axiom, or assumption, was first articulated long before any of Sam Harris's and Michael Shermer's crap was written. So drop the tired and juvenile and extremely lame attempts at smear.

Pots and kettles!

And why the huge intellectual investment in the philosophical approach to morality as opposed to investigating a possible scientific one and the resultant apparent hatred for the likes of Shermer and Harris. I’ve only experienced such venom previously from Evangelical apologists feeling threatened by science undermining their supernatural belief system. Yet you claim to be atheist.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I didn’t say it could. I said that “science is in a better position than philosophy to establish reliable premises because, unlike philosophy, it can test them”. See the difference?

One last time.

Absolutely nobody at any stage whatsoever in this discussion has ever suggested that science is not able to test hypotheses.

Absolutely nobody at any stage whatsoever in this discussion has ever suggested that relevant factual knowledge is not necessary for ethical decision making.

These points are not and never have been contested in any way, shape or form by any participant so far as I am aware.

So is it too much to hope that you will stop chanting them over and over as if they represented an intelligent contribution to an ongoing discussion?

You are just stating the trivially obvious over and over again in the vain hope that someone will think that you are right about something if you do so.

 

[angrysoba]

Nonsense! ‘Survival’ is being defined here as ‘flourishing’ – meaning sufficient food, shelter and positive, interactive community living.

Then what do you mean by "survive and flourish"?

I haven’t made that claim. I’m arguing, as does Harris, that the "is-ought problem" is fundamentally mistaken for reasons already explained.

No, you argued that science tells us the answer to normative questions.

Now answer the question: science can tell us about “our capacity to determine “good and bad behaviour” (i.e. morality) in the context of what best enables the survival of the species. Where else would our moral code come from if not from our evolved instincts - thin air? God?? I’m waiting.

Nobody is disputing descriptive morality being discoverable by science. The question is about normative morality. You sometimes declare science can do it and sometimes not. You are confused and incapable of making a proper argument.

Oh but it does. It is science, not philosophy that tells us what’s required to survive. And the survival instinct is the foundation from which our morality arises. Why else would we have rules of behaviour if not to enhance the social cohesion required by us as a social species for survival? Please answer the question.

It's a stupid question. We have rules of behaviour but they are not derived from science. If you are equating survival with morality as you do now, and yet denied earlier then cockroaches and bacteria have morality, and if you argue that then your argument is stupid and pointless as you will have emptied any real meaning of morality other than survival. If that's what you think, you are welcome to your stupid beliefs, but I think you and you alone have that. Not even Harris or Shermer believe that.

Are you not aware that Harris’ arguments are self acknowledged to be a form of neo-Utilitarianism? And the claim is not that all hypotheses can be tested empirically (this is just your straw-man) - but that science is in a better position test hypotheses than philosophy, which has no mechanism to do so.

Where does Harris acknowledge that his arguments are Utilitarian? If he did that he is arguing a philosophical position, no ifs and buts. Quote him!

The science bit is superfluous in that case as science does not prove that utilitarianism is correct.

Outline to me ANY moral system that provides easy solutions to such moral dilemmas as the one you've outlined or the famous trolley problem thought experiment in ethics et al. See how fatuously useless such extreme examples are in testing the limits of moral codes – ANY moral code?

I don't have to do any such thing. You have to prove that science can answer normative moral questions. If you cannot do that or now pretend that was never your argument then we can forget the whole thing and agree that neither you, Wowbagger, Harris or Shermer have provided any illumination on the subject whatsoever. If you're willing to concede that, then fine.

Yeah, and Edwin Hubble who played a crucial role in establishing the field of extragalactic astronomy was sitting on the shoulders of Copernicus and Galileo. What a cheat!!!

Harris actually freely admits that his approach is a form of neo-Unitarianism so what’s the problem?

Quote him saying that!

And you claim that Sam Harris is in favour of torture – no qualifications, no nuances. Just that he’s in favour of torture. Wow. You’re sure out to get him aren’t you? And Shermer has “never had to take a difficult moral position in his life”. You know this do you? What BAD people they are. How can one accept anything they say? <sarcasm>

Yes or no, is Sam Harris in favour of torture?

And why the huge intellectual investment in the philosophical approach to morality as opposed to investigating a possible scientific one and the resultant apparent hatred for the likes of Shermer and Harris. I’ve only experienced such venom previously from Evangelical apologists feeling threatened by science undermining their supernatural belief system. Yet you claim to be atheist.

You still don't get it. The argument is not that philosophy can do what science cannot, but that science cannot answer normative moral questions. You have been all over the shop contradicting yourself trying to prove otherwise.

 

[angrysoba]

One more time, for the Lulz...

Harris does not make this absolute claim. His argument (as is Shermer’s AFAICT), is that morality arises out of a concern for the well-being of conscious creatures. And this claim is based upon the facts of how we evolved (as explained by science) and how we as conscious beings can flourish.

Harris: You appear to believe, as I do, that morality can (and should) arise out of a concern for the well-being of conscious creatures. But this normative claim is distinct from an evolutionary account of how we came to have moral emotions and preferences in the first place.

Care to deal with the fact that when you Googled Sam Harris and quoted him, you made a small change to what he said to make your paraphrase of him the reverse of what he actually said.

 

[angrysoba]

As for the “descriptive” and “prescriptive” argument this is really a semantic issue deriving from the days of gods laying down rules about right and wrong.

I think I should just go back to this for a second.

This claim is in fact empirically false. The time when morality was about gods laying down the law was in fact one in which there was no distinction between prescriptive and descriptive morality.

The distinction (the is-ought distinction) is one that is attributed to David Hume who gave every impression of being an atheist.

 

[Tassman]

One last time.

Absolutely nobody at any stage whatsoever in this discussion has ever suggested that science is not able to test hypotheses.

No one is suggesting they have. What’s being argued by some, not me, is that philosophy is better placed to arrive at moral decisions than science. But the problem is that philosophy has NO means to test its hypothesis in and of itself.

Absolutely nobody at any stage whatsoever in this discussion has ever suggested that relevant factual knowledge is not necessary for ethical decision making.

Good! Then you agree that science is better placed than philosophy to achieve this end.

These points are not and never have been contested in any way, shape or form by any participant so far as I am aware.

So is it too much to hope that you will stop chanting them over and over as if they represented an intelligent contribution to an ongoing discussion?

You are just stating the trivially obvious over and over again in the vain hope that someone will think that you are right about something if you do so.

See above. Oh, and drop the patronizing tone.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No one is suggesting they have. What’s being argued by some, not me, is that philosophy is better placed to arrive at moral decisions than science. But the problem is that philosophy has NO means to test its hypothesis in and of itself.

You keep saying these things as if they represent something other than the repetition of inane trivia.

Yes, science provides the testable, empirical premises of an ethical argument.

Philosophy provides the non-testable moral premises of an ethical argument.

You absolutely need both. You cannot do without either no matter how much you twist, turn, plagiarise, misquote Harris or bluster.

Good! Then you agree that science is better placed than philosophy to achieve this end.

No. That claim is nonsensical. It's like saying that the x axis is "better placed" to determine the position of a point in two-dimensional space than the y axis.
If you absolutely need both, trying to assert that one is somehow "preferable" to the other is just an inherently nonsensical claim.

 

[Tassman]

Then what do you mean by "survive and flourish"?

“Well-being”, as posited by Harris.

No, you argued that science tells us the answer to normative questions.

I don’t think so. If I appeared to do so at some point then it was a misunderstanding, or you misrepresenting my argument as you are won’t to do.

My argument is that the "is-ought” issue” is only a problem for a deductive argument and irrelevant regarding arguments based upon induction as per many well substantiated scientific theories.

Nobody is disputing descriptive morality being discoverable by science. The question is about normative morality. You sometimes declare science can do it and sometimes not.

Science can tell us about “our capacity to determine “good and bad behaviour” (i.e. morality) in the context of what best enables the survival of the species. Now answer the question: Where else would our moral code come from if not from our evolved instincts - thin air? God?? I’m still waiting.

You are confused and incapable of making a proper argument.

Unnecessary, and incorrect editorializing, but typical. Sigh!

It's a stupid question.

Can’t help yourself, can you?

We have rules of behaviour but they are not derived from science.

Our rules of behaviour are derived from who and what we are as social animals, which can only be properly understood in scientific terms; unless one is going down the theist road of deriving the rules of behaviour via Divine revelation.

Do you really think that our Paleothic ancestors argued the case for normative morality to determine their behavioural codes, or did they act instinctively? I suggest the latter. And, given that our basic biology is largely unchanged since that era, science is in a better position to understand instinctive requirements for survival than an academic philosophical argument based upon an assumed, untested premise.

If you are equating survival with morality as you do now, and yet denied earlier then cockroaches and bacteria have morality, and if you argue that then your argument is stupid and pointless as you will have emptied any real meaning of morality other than survival. If that's what you think, you are welcome to your stupid beliefs, but I think you and you alone have that. Not even Harris or Shermer believe that.

Yet again, this trivialization of the argument is your straw-man, not my argument. What's being equated with morality are the rules of behaviour (i.e. morality) and these codes of behaviour are derived from our instinctive needs as social animals. In short, morals are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every case and are a consequence of natural selection. They are naturally built into us, because those morals were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals.

Where does Harris acknowledge that his arguments are Utilitarian? If he did that he is arguing a philosophical position, no ifs and buts. Quote him!

The science bit is superfluous in that case as science does not prove that utilitarianism is correct.

Sam Harris’ entire argument in his ‘Moral Landscape’ is an exercise universal utilitarianism based upon inferences from science, namely, that conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness or well-being of the greatest number of persons. Do you deny this?

I don't have to do any such thing. You have to prove that science can answer normative moral questions. If you cannot do that or now pretend that was never your argument then we can forget the whole thing and agree that neither you, Wowbagger, Harris or Shermer have provided any illumination on the subject whatsoever. If you're willing to concede that, then fine.

I don't have to do any such thing. For the umpteenth time my view is, as per Harris’s argument, that moralizing notions like ‘should’ and ‘ought’ are just ways of indicating that certain experiences and states of being are better than others.

As for demanding normative moral solutions to moral dilemmas like the “trolley problem”, philosophy is just as unable to come up with ready solutions as scientific inferences are. No wonder you refuse to answer – you can’t.

Quote him saying that!

See above.

Yes or no, is Sam Harris in favour of torture?

Loaded question! YOU answer “yes or no”. IsSam Harris in favour of torture without any making any qualification or nuances in ALL circumstances regardless the context? Or are you, typically, misrepresenting his argument with such broad strokes as to render them distorted beyond recognition. I suggest the latter. Do you deny this?

You still don't get it. The argument is not that philosophy can do what science cannot, but that science cannot answer normative moral questions.

What you "don't get" angrysoba is that answering philosophical “normative moral questions” is of little value given that the premise of a philosophical argument is based upon an untested assumption (a so-called self-evident truth) and thus the deductively arrived at conclusion cannot be shown to be true.

You have been all over the shop contradicting yourself trying to prove otherwise.

Not really. Any perceived being “all over the shop” has been a consequence of chasing your misrepresentations and straw-men.

One more time, for the Lulz...
Care to deal with the fact that when you Googled Sam Harris and quoted him, you made a small change to what he said to make your paraphrase of him the reverse of what he actually said.

I paraphrased Harris, I didn't quote him (you can tell by the lack of quotation marks). I'm likely to do a lot of this given that I'm arguing Harris' case. And I don't see I've reversed what he said.

And surely you can do better than this in your ongoing attempts to catch people out rather than engage in the actual argument? You're slipping.

 

[angrysoba]

Much snipped.

Same old nonsense from you Tassman.

So, let's get this straight, you now concede that science cannot answer normative moral questions but can tell us about human instincts.

That's correct. Nobody has disputed that science can tell us about how humans have evolved. The mistake is when you think that what our Paleolithic ancestors did, as a product of evolution, necessarily translates as morality. Are you of the opinion that we cannot do any better than our Paleolithic ancestors when it comes to morality?

Do you really think that our Paleothic ancestors argued the case for normative morality to determine their behavioural codes,

No, of course I don't.

or did they act instinctively?

I expect they did. Are you arguing now that there has been no moral progress since Paleolithic times?

Sam Harris’ entire argument in his ‘Moral Landscape’ is an exercise universal utilitarianism based upon inferences from science, namely, that conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness or well-being of the greatest number of persons. Do you deny this?

I think it is Utilitarianism, yes. But not derived from science because there is no scientific evidence for the truth of Utilitarianism. It is an assumption that morality should be based on that which is for the greater good or happiness or welfare, and against that which causes misery. As I pointed out, Jeremy Bentham came up with this in the 18th Century, Sam Harris did not discover it by science! Ha ha if you believe that!

Also, don't just babble at me when I told you to prove an assertion you made and which I think is false, namely:

Are you not aware that Harris’ arguments are self acknowledged to be a form of neo-Utilitarianism?

No, I am not aware of this. I agree that it is Utilitarian and I have been saying this over and over again, just as Kevin_Lowe has been saying it. What I want from you is not your words, I want his words.

Where does he acknowledge this? Quote him!

Oh, and a yes, or no please. Is Sam Harris in favour of torture?

I ask this because I already showed you that Harris and Shermer have positions which Jeremy Bentham, founder of Utilitarianism, opposed. So what progress do Harris and Shermer bring with them?

As it happens, Utilitarianism has been improved on by philosophers down the ages, notably by J.S Mill, later by thinkers such as Derek Parfitt and Peter Singer. But Utilitarianism is not a position arrived at by science. So for Sam Harris to make it the evaluative premise in his theory of moral science means that he has smuggled in the very thing at issue without justifying it scientifically.

I keep trying to point this out to you. Sometimes you blithely agree, sometimes you pretend it is a scientific conclusion, sometimes you waffle on about irrelevant things such as evolution, or Aristotle's Four Elements (which seems to be a particular favourite topic of yours despite nobody else having any interest in it), or the morals of Paleolithic man, which only goes to show that whatever our survival instincts are they are pretty insufficient as a basis for morality.

 

[angrysoba]

I paraphrased Harris, I didn't quote him (you can tell by the lack of quotation marks). I'm likely to do a lot of this given that I'm arguing Harris' case. And I don't see I've reversed what he said.

And surely you can do better than this in your ongoing attempts to catch people out rather than engage in the actual argument? You're slipping.

And I demonstrated beyond any doubt that you misrepresent Sam Harris. Harris explicitly denies that his idea of normative morality is evolutionary ethics, and explicitly argues that while science can tell us about our evolutionary moral inheritance, which is something I completely agree with, this is distinct from what we ought to do. I agree with that too. Where I disagree with him is where he says science can do that too.