The Future of Moral Science

[mijopaalmc]

You do realize that you have merely replaced "because my religion says so" with "because the science says so", right?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

You do realize that you have merely replaced "because my religion says so" with "because the science says so", right?

You do realize I'm not advocating that any moral discussion should try to enforce the argument that "this is what definitely has to be done, and there shall be no further discussion about that, because X source says so", right?

Maybe you should go back to reading my post again.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Then you are not actually proposing what you claim to propose when you say:

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"

(emphasis added)

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

The should or shouldn't is still open to criticism. That's the way things work in science after all: Nothing is 100% absolute. Everything is subject to criticism and change, provided there's new compelling scientific evidence.

Now, are you saying that between an article that presents compelling scientific evidence why a certain action shouldn't be considered moral, and an article that simply uses the Bible to support why a certain action shouldn't be considered moral, that there is absolutely no difference between the two? You would go with either one of them? Or you would go with none? What's your position, in other words? Is there no such thing as a more reliable method to find moral guidelines for society?

 

[mijopaalmc]

And the dispute is whether science can find what you claim it can find: "moral 'rules'".

Yes, science can tell us what is or isn't effective in achieving a given goal and what the consequences of achieving a goal by a given efficient method are, but, as has been stated many times in this thread, the missing vital step that needs to be provided before it is possible to to begin building even a preliminary, provisional, self-contained "scientific morality" is how science provides us worth those initial goals.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

And the dispute is whether science can find what you claim it can find: "moral 'rules'".

Yes, science can tell us what is or isn't effective in achieving a given goal and what the consequences of achieving a goal by a given efficient method are, but, as has been stated many times in this thread, the missing vital step that needs to be provided before it is possible to to begin building even a preliminary, provisional, self-contained "scientific morality" is how science provides us worth those initial goals.

Scientific or not, morality isn't something you can impose on everyone (unless you're the Big Brother from 1984) Again, I'm not advocating the idea of fixated, unchangeable moral rules. My only point is that if I were to listen to a discussion about why such and such thing should be moral or immoral, I'm more likely to be persuaded by it if it has some rational, non-emotional-biased arguments supporting it, preferably with some science and/or experimental evidence behind it. I think a moral based on personal emotional bias, religious belief or cultural bias is more likely to not be compatible with human needs. Either way, morality is by definition, relative. We made it up. There is no Universal Moral Code found in nature (and it is actually science the one that shows this to us). I am not a believer of any form of Objective, Universal morality.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Scientific or not, morality isn't something you can impose on everyone (unless you're the Big Brother from 1984) Again, I'm not advocating the idea of fixated, unchangeable moral rules. My only point is that if I were to listen to a discussion about why such and such thing should be moral or immoral, I'm more likely to be persuaded by it if it has some rational, non-emotional-biased arguments supporting it, preferably with some science and/or experimental evidence behind it. I think a moral based on personal emotional bias, religious belief or cultural bias is more likely to not be compatible with human needs. Either way, morality is by definition, relative. We made it up. There is no Universal Moral Code found in nature (and it is actually science the one that shows this to us). I am not a believer of any form of Objective, Universal morality.

Your first item was not about the imposition of a moral code. The determination of moral behavior is all that I'm addressing in the post that you quoted.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Your first item was not about the imposition of a moral code. The determination of moral behavior is all that I'm addressing in the post that you quoted.

So again, I wanna know about your position. What does determine moral behavior in your opinion?

 

[mijopaalmc]

So again, I wanna know about your position. What does determine moral behavior in your opinion?

And again what does determine moral behavior is irrelevant to the fact that science may not be able to.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

And again what does determine moral behavior is irrelevant to the fact that science may not be able to.

Saying science may not be able to determine moral behavior seems as pointless as saying science may not be able to find the answers to insert-any-gap-in-our-current-science-knowledge. Is that it, though? You already determine that science may not determine moral behavior and that's the end of the discussion? Do you at least recognize that science can give us some better clues to at least certain moral behaviors? Or do you just attest that science is completely out of the question when dealing with morality? And if so, why? Could you elaborate?

 

[mijopaalmc]

You seem to be missing the point that science is not necessarily suited–in its conceptual framework–to answer questions of to answer questions of morality.

 

[angrysoba]

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



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.

There's a difference between informing and determining morality. Nobody, as far as I know, on this thread has argued that science cannot provide data which will inform moral discussion. So apart from arguing against some religious straw men what are you bringing to the discussion?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

You seem to be missing the point that science is not necessarily suited–in its conceptual framework–to answer questions of to answer questions of morality.

You seem to keep avoiding every single request I have made to you to provide what your personal opinion/take is on the subject, so I think I'm done with you.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

There's a difference between informing and determining morality. Nobody, as far as I know, on this thread has argued that science cannot provide data which will inform moral discussion. So apart from arguing against some religious straw men what are you bringing to the discussion?

As far as I know, it's the other way around: I never came in here arguing that science was determining morality. I was just giving my two cents on why I considered science to be the best source to inform morality. Then, people started piling on me asking me why I thought science was determining morality, which was the strawman. So I will leave you guys to continue engaging in your war against those who are actually claiming that.

 

[mijopaalmc]

You seem to keep avoiding every single request I have made to you to provide what your personal opinion/take is on the subject, so I think I'm done with you.

Ask questions irrelevant to the topic at hand, be prepared to be told that they are irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

[Dani]

With all due respect Dani, you’re all over the place. What is being argued is the science of morality as put forward by Sam Harris et al. You would know this if you had actually been following the whole thread.

So you're dismissing my whole post with the audacious assumption that I don't know what this thread is about? Aren't you even going to clarify some of your assertions? Like what do you mean when you say that deriving inferences from a descriptive claim can often serve the purpose just as well or better than doing so from a normative claim? That's from your previous post in our exchange, and I asked you to clarify that. So... no because I don't know what this thread is about?

Or perhaps will you answer Phiwum, who is still waiting for you to clarify what do you mean when you say that the difference between normative and descriptive arguments is merely semantic. That claim seems connected with the one I'm asking you to clarify, but we don't know what you're talking about yet. On the face of it, it looks incoherent. Can you give us an example of what you mean? I'm interested, and I can assure you that I've been following this thread with great interest, believe it or not.

But I’m not inclined to regurgitate the argument yet again, this thread’s been getting ridiculously repetitive.

I agree that it's getting repetitive, but we would make progress if you didn't retreat to vague and trivial claims each time someone tries to pin you down about something specific and potentially controversial that could advance the debate.

The gist is that it’s too simplistic to claim that science is unconcerned with morality and, at least potentially, morality could be encompassed within naturalism.

See? That's exactly the type of response I'm describing. How do you expect the thread not to go around in circles?

If you are really interested I suggest you go back and read it all for yourself.

Thanks, but I don't think I need that any more than you do. In fact, I seem to remember better than you some of the things you said in this thread. Let me remind you again:

Where have I argued that science can answer normative questions? Answer: I haven't. Yet more misrepresentations on your part!

Yet, earlier, to this question:

So, again, do you think science can answer normative moral questions?

You answered:

Potentially yes.

How do you explain this incoherence?

 

[phiwum]

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.

Well, I am sorry that you feel I'm asking questions you've already repeatedly answered. That certainly would be unreasonable, if it's true. Let's see if it's true.

I have asked what you mean by "semantic differences". I want you to explain. Giving examples is not helpful, since examples have not conveyed the meaning adequately, so let's see whether you have indeed explained your use of the term. I begin on page 12, right before I entered the conversation and began asking you to tell me what you mean when you say "semantic differences" or "merely semantic". Here is every occurence of "semantic" that you've written since then.

Harris specifically argues that the ‘is-ought distinction’ is fundamentally unhelpful and that “normative” as opposed to “descriptive” morality is merely semantics -- as I've noted several times. For Harris science is to be broadly interpreted to the extent that it incorporates reason and logic and proper justification for beliefs. Obviously it does. So, when evaluating Harris’s scientific arguments, this encompassing view of science must be kept in mind.

You assert that the normative/descriptive distinction is merely semantic.

My position is that normative moral questions are irrelevant. The ‘is/ought distinction’ is fundamentally unhelpful in that “normative” morality, as opposed to “descriptive” morality, is basically a semantic argument - as I’ve said several times.

You assert that the normative/descriptive distinction is merely semantic.

Again, as per Harris, it is merely a semantic difference between: “One ought to be cooperative so as to maintain social harmony” (prescriptive) and “Cooperation is a demonstrably effective means of maintaining social harmony” (descriptive). From the latter one can infer that it is best to remain cooperative. The end result is the same.

You assert that an ought statement differs from a means-end statement only semantically.

This is the very point Harris is making, i.e. the difference between a prescriptive argument and a descriptive argument is merely semantics as I’ve repeatedly stated.

You assert that the prescriptive/descriptive distinction is merely semantic.

It does. It provides an example of the difference between a prescriptive argument and a descriptive argument and demonstrates that the only substantive difference is a semantic one.

You assert that the prescriptive/descriptive distinction is merely semantic.

Correct,the first is a deductive 'is/ought' argument. The second is an inductive argument based upon inference which, in case you missed it, is what I am arguing for. Thus the difference between the conclusions of a prescriptive argument and a descriptive is one of semantics, which is my point.

You assert that the difference between the conclusion of a prescriptive and a descriptive argument is merely semantic.

I think we can see that what you've done is repeatedly use the term "semantic difference", but you have nowhere explained it. I don't believe that my repeated requests for a definition or some elucidation of what you mean is out of order. I honestly still do not know what you mean when you say that the difference between prescriptions and descriptions is merely semantic, so why not tell me what you mean? Is that so unreasonable?

You do, after all, have some meaning in mind, yes?

“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.

I assume nothing about the objectivity of moral rules here.

Let's talk about this assertion here.

“Rules of behaviour” are dictated by society and vary according to the social norms a given society requires to maintain its social cohesion.
​

Now, I'm sure you will agree that we are in an imperfect world, one in which, at any given time, the rules of behavior adopted by a given society are suboptimal in terms of "maintaining social cohesion". That is, at any given time, it is likely that at least some of the rules could be amended to better maintain social cohesion.

To put it differently, for a fixed society, we can distinguish a good set of rules of behavior from a bad set, in terms of the degree to which each set maintains social cohesion. The rules of behavior[1] in the U.S. before the civil rights era were not, arguably, as good as the rules of behavior generally accepted now, since segregation caused great amounts of social unrest, feelings of injustice, and so on.

Thus, per your characterization, we see that a set of rules of behavior is good insofar as it promotes social cohesion, and otherwise bad.

This is, of course, a normative claim, and hence (per your own previous statements) a claim which cannot itself be supported by any scientific argument. And so we are back at the original problem: science does not tell us that the aim of morality is social cohesion, and so this presumption must come from something other than science. Your starting point (social cohesion is good and should be encouraged) is without any scientific foundation.

Alternative analysis: Let us suppose that scientific research actually shows that, over time, the rules of behavior selected by a society tends to be those that promote "social cohesion" (for now, I will assume that this is a meaningful term). Let us further suppose that science shows that rule X is better at promoting social cohesion than rule Y, which is currently what a given society has adopted.

Would this analysis give the society any reason to adopt rule X? Well, science has shown that societies tend to adopt rules that are better in this sense, but science has not shown that societies ought to do so. The fact that societies tend to choose social-cohesive-promoting rules does not give the persons in the society any reason to promote such rules. It is merely a fact of the matter that, generally speaking, this has been how they have tended.

In exactly the same way, for instance, it is likely that as societies develop, their energy usage increases. Would this give us a reason to start using more energy? Certainly not. A description of the changes that a society tends to undergo is not a reason to aim for those changes.


[1] Of course, there is the usual problem of cultural relativism that a given person is a member of many different cultures simultaneously, and each such culture has a different set of accepted rules of behavior. I will ignore that issue presently.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Ron_Tomkins, this is what you said:

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"

[...]

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

(emphases added)

Are you really having trouble understanding why people are addressing you as if you "came in here arguing that science was determining morality" (emphasis added)?

 

[angrysoba]

As far as I know, it's the other way around: I never came in here arguing that science was determining morality. I was just giving my two cents on why I considered science to be the best source to inform morality. Then, people started piling on me asking me why I thought science was determining morality, which was the strawman. So I will leave you guys to continue engaging in your war against those who are actually claiming that.

But Ron, who are you arguing against here? I made some pertinent points, I thought, about the article you posted, and you made these comments:

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.

and:

Seriously, did you even bother to read the article at all?

If you're going to be so sarcastic and pugnacious, then it looks rather silly of you to slink away now claiming that you were never arguing with anyone from the start.

The idea that science can inform morality is hardly new. Jeremy Bentham, as an example, quite explicitly talked about scientific methods of realizing the greater good for the greater number, but he is recognized not for that insight but rather that pleasure and pain should be the arbiter of all moral rules. And the point is that morality is concerned with first principles. Once you have worked out what you want to do, then the science is applied to overcome the engineering problem of how best to achieve it.

 

[Tassman]

You seem to keep avoiding every single request I have made to you to provide what your personal opinion/take is on the subject, so I think I'm done with you.

You won’t get a response to what answers questions of morality from this lot Ron. Their primary concern is to convince you that you can’t get the answers from science; a position they promote with evangelical zeal. And their reticence to explain their own position is understandable given that the alternatives are pretty hopeless, namely:

1. Divine revelation of what’s right and wrong. This has obvious drawbacks, notably the non-existence of deities.

2. Philosophical deductive argumentation which, if valid, can arrive at normative ethical conclusions. This has the drawback that one cannot say for sure whether the premise (and therefore the conclusion) of such an argument is true, because it is based on an assumption (a so-called self-evident truth). In short, it’s no more than an empty academic exercise – pure but ultimately useless.

As can be seen, for argument’s sake, in this example: Although science can tell you that a volcano IS about to blow it can’t tell you that those at risk of death OUGHT to flee the danger zone. Of course sensible people will INFER that it’s perhaps advisable to skedaddle.