The Future of Moral Science

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Which is a pointless phrase. The only killings seen as murder are those that are seen as wrong.

Yes. Which is what you actually need to be looking at: the definition of "wrong".

What is the difference between wrong and "wrong"?

 

[Nonpareil]

What is the difference between wrong and "wrong"?

There isn't one. They are the same word denoted two different ways depending on context.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

There isn't one. They are the same word denoted two different ways depending on context.

Okay. Thanks.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

When I think of "Moral Science", two things come to mind

1) A more scientific, in other words non-emotionally biased, criteria for finding moral "rules". Using common sense, logic and evidence to better determine why a certain thing should or shouldn't be done, as opposed to "because God says so in the Bible", or "because I personally find it disgusting"

2) An attempt to measure morality so that it can be encoded in a universal, Fixated Moral Code

Number 1 is very good and I think society should lean toward it.

Number 2 is unrealistic and just, not healthy.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

When I think of "Moral Science", two things come to mind

1) A more scientific, in other words non-emotionally biased, criteria for finding moral "rules". Using common sense, logic and evidence to better determine why a certain thing should or shouldn't be done, as opposed to "because God says so in the Bible", or "because I personally find it disgusting"

2) An attempt to measure morality so that it can be encoded in a universal, Fixated Moral Code

Number 1 is very good and I think society should lean toward it.

Number 2 is unrealistic and just, not healthy.

I don't think even number 1 is possible, but I might have overlooked something. The hard part as I see it is to avoid emotions at all and as far as I can tell all emotions are biased, so what would in practice be a non-emotional and non-biased morality other than using the words? What is a non-emotional and non-biased morality?

 

[angrysoba]

When I think of "Moral Science", two things come to mind

1) A more scientific, in other words non-emotionally biased, criteria for finding moral "rules". Using common sense, logic and evidence to better determine why a certain thing should or shouldn't be done, as opposed to "because God says so in the Bible", or "because I personally find it disgusting"

2) An attempt to measure morality so that it can be encoded in a universal, Fixated Moral Code

Number 1 is very good and I think society should lean toward it.

Number 2 is unrealistic and just, not healthy.

Number 1 is largely what moral philosophy does; identifying good arguments for why X is good or bad and disposing of bad arguments such as "x is good because of religion/culture/society says so/natural selection/instincts/pop psychology/pop neuroscience/pseudoscience". I'm not sure how a normative judgment can be demonstrated by evidence though.

I don't really know what you mean by Number 2 unless you are talking about something like strict utilitarianism leading to conclusions which clash with our emotions such as "you ought to push the fat man off the bridge because one person for five is moral regardless of how you feel about it or the blameless of the fat man."

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I don't think even number 1 is possible, but I might have overlooked something.

Of course it's possible. It's been happening already. Logic and science is been used more and more when dealing with moral issues. Why, just a few seconds before coming to the forum, I was going through this article

The hard part as I see it is to avoid emotions at all and as far as I can tell all emotions are biased, so what would in practice be a non-emotional and non-biased morality other than using the words? What is a non-emotional and non-biased morality?

No one said it was easy. Of course it's hard. And rationality-based morality isn't always implemented. But it has become more commonplace in my opinion.

 

[angrysoba]

Of course it's possible. It's been happening already. Logic and science is been used more and more when dealing with moral issues. Why, just a few seconds before coming to the forum, I was going through this article

That article refers to the "science of spanking", not to the ethics of spanking.

If you are of the opinion that spanking would be acceptable if it improved children's behaviour or school grades, then you are beginning with an axiom that suggests the ends justify the means - this is an ethical position compatible with utilitarianism. On the other hand, if you are of the opinion that spanking is never acceptable, regardless of the outcomes, because it is an affront to the rights of a child and unjust then you are also beginning with an ethical position, in this case a deontological one. Or you may believe that spanking is not compatible with a good character, in which case you begin with some kind of virtue ethics. But the brute scientific facts about spanking do not actually tell us whether it is good or bad.

 

[angrysoba]

There seem to be some common confusions going on from those who assert a science of morality. They tend to either:

A) be a confusion between descriptive and normative ethics, with the moral science advocate essentially trying to explain where moral sentiments come from. This is interesting enough, but not relevant.

B) assume a moral axiom, usually a utilitarian one in which something is considered moral depending upon whether it maximizes happiness or minimizes pain. But this is not a position arrived at by science; it is one that has been arrived at, in various ways, through philosophy. That science can be used to maximize this happiness is not news to anyone.

 

[Tassman]

Tassman,

We still have a few outstanding questions. Top on the list has to do with the nature of morality and the difference between deriving a descriptive claim, such as

Doing Y will bring about X.​

and a prescriptive claim, such as

One should do Y.​

Or, perhaps more to your point, the difference between predictive descriptive claims like

I will do Y.
​

and the above prescriptive claim. You refer to the difference as "merely semantic" but I quite literally do not know what you mean when you say this.

The difference is important, because you concede that science does not derive normative claims (and hence does not derive prescriptive claims), but this is what morality is. Morality is not about what means are sufficient (though, of course, such information is used in deducing what we ought to do) and it is not about predicting what one will do (though, again, this can be useful in deducing what we ought to do). It is about what we should do. If science cannot tell us what we should do, then science cannot draw moral conclusions.

But you have said that, nonetheless, "What science does discover are testable premises upon which rules of behaviour (i.e. moral theories) can be reasonably inferred." (Bolding mine.) I'm not sure what you mean. Rules of behavior are obviously normative in nature, and science does not derive norms, but (from what you've written) one can make a "reasonable inference" from the descriptive claims of science to the normative claims of a moral theory.

I have responded to this issue several times. If you are not happy with my examples of semantic differences or the other arguments, I’m not inclined to regurgitate them yet again; this thread’s been getting ridiculously repetitive. The gist of my position is that it’s too simplistic to claim science is unconcerned with morality and, at least potentially, that morality could be encompassed within naturalism. If you disagree you need to specificity why.

At another point, you claimed that moral theories aren't really normative, except for those "deductive philosophy theories", but this was the very same post in which you referred to "rules of behavior", a clearly normative concept, so I am left puzzled by whether you think that "non-normative moral theory" is really a sensible concept and, if so, how.

Thanks for your reply.

“Rules of behaviour” are dictated by society and vary according to the social norms a given society requires to maintain its social cohesion. So I am left puzzled by your implication that they cannot be inferred from the knowledge science imparts about the natural universe how we as natural creatures function within it. Are you assuming that moral rules are absolute, eternal and unchangeable and merely await discovery by a clever philosopher?

Thanks for your reply.

 

[Tassman]

Given that what killing is considered "murder" varies tremendously, I highly doubt there is instinctual knowledge here.

Given that our overriding instinct, as a social species, is the preservation of a cohesive society and that our instincts predispose us to conform to the rules of such a society – as well as participate in the deciding of these rules - it is reasonable to argue that our evolved instincts are the driving force of all our notions of right and wrong behaviour.

Which is a pointless phrase. The only killings seen as murder are those that are seen as wrong.

Yes. Which is what you actually need to be looking at: the definition of "wrong".

No, what we should be looking at is WHY we define certain behaviour as “wrong”. Unlike the “pumpkin pies” of your previous example, behaviours such as murder contain an implicit value judgement, e.g. “murder” is wrong because…….

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...

“Rules of behaviour” are dictated by society and vary according to the social norms a given society requires to maintain its social cohesion. So I am left puzzled by your implication that they cannot be inferred from the knowledge science imparts about the natural universe how we as natural creatures function within it. Are you assuming that moral rules are absolute, eternal and unchangeable and merely await discovery by a clever philosopher?

That is cultural moral relativism and properly anti-realism. BTW already discovered by a philosopher, namely Protagoras.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

That article refers to the "science of spanking", not to the ethics of spanking.

Umm... Yeah. It refers to the science of spanking, and with the clear intent of giving the reader a better clue as to what the ethics of spanking should be. So yeah: both.

If you are of the opinion that spanking would be acceptable if it improved children's behaviour or school grades, then you are beginning with an axiom that suggests the ends justify the means - this is an ethical position compatible with utilitarianism. On the other hand, if you are of the opinion that spanking is never acceptable, regardless of the outcomes, because it is an affront to the rights of a child and unjust then you are also beginning with an ethical position, in this case a deontological one. Or you may believe that spanking is not compatible with a good character, in which case you begin with some kind of virtue ethics. But the brute scientific facts about spanking do not actually tell us whether it is good or bad.

Seriously, did you even bother to read the article at all? Here's a quote from the third paragraph:

The biggest takeaway for me? Even if you spank with control, discipline, and good intent, your kids are more likely to have depression and engage in aggressive behavior in adulthood.

It's pretty clear that the article is using the scientific data with the express purpose of suggesting that we shouldn't spank our children.

 

[angrysoba]

Umm... Yeah. It refers to the science of spanking, and with the clear intent of giving the reader a better clue as to what the ethics of spanking should be. So yeah: both.



Seriously, did you even bother to read the article at all? Here's a quote from the third paragraph:



It's pretty clear that the article is using the scientific data with the express purpose of suggesting that we shouldn't spank our children.

So what?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Of course it's possible. It's been happening already. Logic and science is been used more and more when dealing with moral issues. Why, just a few seconds before coming to the forum, I was going through this article

So spanking is not productive! Okay, but if you unfold "not productive" that is as far as I can tell an emotion. I am not saying that there are not better ways to manage life, I am say that better is a biased and emotional evaluation. I.e. there is no non-biased and non-emotional measurement standard for good/better.

No one said it was easy. Of course it's hard. And rationality-based morality isn't always implemented. But it has become more commonplace in my opinion.

Remember the purpose behind the article is good parenthood. Okay, what is good? How do you know good? What do you "take for granted" when you use the word good?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

So what?

You seem to have gotten lost in the discussion. Go back to post 567, for a reminder of why I was using that article as an example in the first place

 

[angrysoba]

You seem to have gotten lost in the discussion. Go back to post 567, for a reminder of why I was using that article as an example in the first place

I'm not lost in the discussion at all. I asked you so what because I am trying to find out how it is you think science provides normative moral answers as opposed to what science has always done which is to provide data on how to achieve normative aims.

The idea that the science of spanking answers moral questions makes an assumption about the moral answer in the first place which is something that people like Sam Harris and Muchael Shermer do all the time without even understanding the fallacy they are committing.

We're assuming that parents want to give their children what's best in life and that if they desire to cause them as little pain as possible then they should refrain from spanking them. So you seem to be concluding that science tells us what is moral. But that's not a satisfactory answer because science is morally neutral. To demonstrate this all we have to do is imagine an abusive family, sadly not a wild hypothetical, who want to cause misery and suffering for their children who may read the science journals and discover exactly the same information and apply it to cause pain and suffering. So we can see that the science is only morally applicable if we have already made an assumption about how to apply it.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I'm not lost in the discussion at all. I asked you so what because I am trying to find out how it is you think science provides normative moral answers as opposed to what science has always done which is to provide data on how to achieve normative aims.

The idea that the science of spanking answers moral questions makes an assumption about the moral answer in the first place which is something that people like Sam Harris and Muchael Shermer do all the time without even understanding the fallacy they are committing.

We're assuming that parents want to give their children what's best in life and that if they desire to cause them as little pain as possible then they should refrain from spanking them. So you seem to be concluding that science tells us what is moral. But that's not a satisfactory answer because science is morally neutral. To demonstrate this all we have to do is imagine an abusive family, sadly not a wild hypothetical, who want to cause misery and suffering for their children who may read the science journals and discover exactly the same information and apply it to cause pain and suffering. So we can see that the science is only morally applicable if we have already made an assumption about how to apply it.

Yes, you can't use science to establish neither good nor bad. You can use science to find out what works depending on your goal, but you can't establish the goal using science.

 

[Pup]

I suppose that there are those that consider meat to be murder. We have, without doubt, evolved in such a way that we are adapted to eat meat, but this in itself does not mean that it is moral to eat meat. Indeed, it is an example, yet again, of where moral philosophers and others argue that evolutionary heritage cannot be relied upon for us to make moral decisions.

I'm getting caught up reading the thread so I'm posting late, but didn't see the above addressed with what I think is an important point. There's not just one overarching instinct in humans. The instinct that tells us that killing our offspring (usually) is wrong or that killing our own tribe members (usually) is wrong, or the ability to guess what another is feeling and therefore have sympathy for them, are all evolved values that, if stretched a bit, apply to those innocent, fuzzy critters that our society has raised or that have done us no harm. I do think a belief that it's moral not to eat animals can develop in societies where that's a practical way to live (not among the Inuit for example), based on evolutionary heritage.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I'm not lost in the discussion at all. I asked you so what because I am trying to find out how it is you think science provides normative moral answers as opposed to what science has always done which is to provide data on how to achieve normative aims.

The idea that the science of spanking answers moral questions makes an assumption about the moral answer in the first place which is something that people like Sam Harris and Muchael Shermer do all the time without even understanding the fallacy they are committing.

We're assuming that parents want to give their children what's best in life and that if they desire to cause them as little pain as possible then they should refrain from spanking them. So you seem to be concluding that science tells us what is moral. But that's not a satisfactory answer because science is morally neutral. To demonstrate this all we have to do is imagine an abusive family, sadly not a wild hypothetical, who want to cause misery and suffering for their children who may read the science journals and discover exactly the same information and apply it to cause pain and suffering. So we can see that the science is only morally applicable if we have already made an assumption about how to apply it.

You have not understood my point then. Please continue reading below:

So spanking is not productive! Okay, but if you unfold "not productive" that is as far as I can tell an emotion. I am not saying that there are not better ways to manage life, I am say that better is a biased and emotional evaluation. I.e. there is no non-biased and non-emotional measurement standard for good/better.



Remember the purpose behind the article is good parenthood. Okay, what is good? How do you know good? What do you "take for granted" when you use the word good?

I didn't post that article because I wanted to pursue a discussion of whether or not we should spank our kids. That's a subject for another forum. I posted it as an example of the type of moral discussions that I think will advance knowledge forward in some way. Those that are based on science and evidence. That still doesn't change the fact that a lot of people will disagree with the argument presented, and that there will have to be a lot of discussion. But at least the discussion is founded on principles of science, as opposed to "Because my Religion says so", or "Because that's the way it has been done according to Tradition all these years". And that's my whole point. Morality is relative, no matter what base you use to define it. But I, personally, find that science-based moral makes more sense than a moral based on personal taste, or religion, etc.