The Future of Moral Science

[Tassman]

And that's a false dichtomy.




I sense a regress coming on.



Why not?



But you have simply created a new problem: why is it moral in and of itself to create a more equitable society?

Nothing is “moral in and of itself”. This is the absolutist viewpoint usually associated with theists and their view that true morality is immutable and derives ultimately from God.

Morality is merely a code of behaviour devised by society to enable the better functioning of said society. IOW: it is conformity to the rules of right conduct as decided by society. Human history clearly demonstrates the non-immutable nature of morality, e.g. we no longer accept the subjugation of women or slavery as "right". We did once.

Research shows that it makes us richer, but so what? Why is it moral in and of itself to be richer?

See above.

What if research showed that society would be more prosperous if we simply euthanized the poor and that it was in our mutual interest to kill them off? It is in our mutual interests to have a prosperous society...

Because, for our species, cooperative social behaviour is a survival mechanism. We are genetically predisposed to conform to the evolved natural instincts of 'survival' which, in the case of a social species like us, predisposes us toward cooperative behaviour within the entire group.

*I now tap my magic sciency wand*

And hey presto: Hence, the consequences of such conduct are right!


On the other hand, I could say that intentions matter regarding whether or not an action is moral.

If for example, I decided that feeding starving people was an end in and of itself (because after all sciency research has shown that if you feed starving people then they aren't starving any more) maybe that would be more moral than your idea of feeding starving people in order to make us all richer because of some dappy Rube-Goldberg extemporations built in.

Nonsense, 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. The sooner we recognize this then the sooner we can dispense with the fanciful revealed morality of the theistic holy books.

 

[angrysoba]

Nothing is “moral in and of itself”. This is the absolutist viewpoint usually associated with theists and their view that true morality is immutable and derives ultimately from God.

Morality is merely a code of behaviour devised by society to enable the better functioning of said society. IOW: it is conformity to the rules of right conduct as decided by society. Human history clearly demonstrates the non-immutable nature of morality, e.g. we no longer accept the subjugation of women or slavery as "right". We did once.



See above.



Because, for our species, cooperative social behaviour is a survival mechanism. We are genetically predisposed to conform to the evolved natural instincts of 'survival' which, in the case of a social species like us, predisposes us toward cooperative behaviour within the entire group.



Nonsense, 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. The sooner we recognize this then the sooner we can dispense with the fanciful revealed morality of the theistic holy books.

Nobody's talking about "theistic holy books" except you through your well-poisoning antics.

As for the rest, I've heard this tedious routine from you before.

You have simply made the "survival of the species" crap the moral in and of itself even though you deny it for other things. There is no moral imperative for the survival of the species.

 

[angrysoba]

Morality is merely a code of behaviour devised by society to enable the better functioning of said society. IOW: it is conformity to the rules of right conduct as decided by society. Human history clearly demonstrates the non-immutable nature of morality, e.g. we no longer accept the subjugation of women or slavery as "right". We did once.

...

Nonsense, 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.

That looks like a contradiction to me.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

To some people our species is an iron-clad category, for which they forget that the 4 F's also play a role with a species.

 

[Pup]

What if research showed that society would be more prosperous if we simply euthanized the poor and that it was in our mutual interest to kill them off? It is in our mutual interests to have a prosperous society...

I think the issue is that not just one trait has been selected for. Compassion and empathy help us survive too, so to the extent that those traits are expressed, people in general won't agree that killing the poor is good, because there are other inborn traits besides making society prosperous.

*I now tap my magic sciency wand*

And hey presto: Hence, the consequences of such conduct are right!

And that's the problem. In some society, surely, killing the poor has been considered moral. It seems circular to say, well, in that society other things outweighed empathy and that was their path to survival, based on a combination of exterior factors and a little luck of what they chose.

We need (and maybe someone has already developed) a better way to analyze why some societies choose certain practices and call them moral, while other societies consider the same things immoral, before we could have a field of hard moral science. But we run into the same problem with physical traits too. One could ask the same types of questions to show that peacocks should never have developed ridiculous tails.

 

[angrysoba]

I think the issue is that not just one trait has been selected for. Compassion and empathy help us survive too, so to the extent that those traits are expressed, people in general won't agree that killing the poor is good, because there are other inborn traits besides making society prosperous.

No doubt that is true and from a descriptive ethics point of view it makes perfect sense. Of course a lot of evolutionary biology gives us good evidence for suggesting that the "circle of empathy" (maybe there is a more precise term) only really extends to kin (or perhaps close groups in which reciprocation can be fairly well relied upon). And as has been pointed out and which I can easily concur with similar types of kin and reciprocal altruism is found across a number of other animals such as other primates etc...

But as far as I know the evidence says little about how far it extends across the species (I would be happy to hear more on this, however, if you have any useful sources). In fact, I believe that some evidence might even suggest a tendency towards hostility among other members of the species (and this too has its analogues in other primates where there is often hostility and infanticide within the species).

And of course human societies throughout history have simply not always expressed empathy on a species-wide basis. This is clear with ethnic extermination, and also with the killing off of the old, the infirm or excessive children. These things we would consider horrifying by today's standards were commonplace once.

We have also changed our attitudes towards other animals over time as well for the most part.

Instead our attitudes by which we recognize people's interests and that of other animals, and can do things on a species-wide level if we try are through an exercise of reason. There is nothing automatic about the normative ethics that we can choose to act upon.

And that's the problem. In some society, surely, killing the poor has been considered moral. It seems circular to say, well, in that society other things outweighed empathy and that was their path to survival, based on a combination of exterior factors and a little luck of what they chose.

We need (and maybe someone has already developed) a better way to analyze why some societies choose certain practices and call them moral, while other societies consider the same things immoral, before we could have a field of hard moral science. But we run into the same problem with physical traits too. One could ask the same types of questions to show that peacocks should never have developed ridiculous tails.

I guess comparative anthropology will have several descriptive accounts.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

But it is reasonable to choose "consequentialism", which is class of normative ethics, as a basis for morality because, unless one is arguing for a non-existent absolute morality, consequentialism argues that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate guide for a judgment about the rightness or wrongness of an action. But such decisions must be qualified by a conditional conjunction - they cannot be classified as ‘moral’ in and of themselves.

Thus, one cannot simply say it is immoral to let poor people starve, because this is based solely upon subjective opinion whether or not it is wrong to let poor people starve. But we can say: "IF we want a more equitable society then it is moral to feed starving people, because research has shown that an equitable society is a more prosperous society. And it is in our mutual interests to have a prosperous society. Hence, the consequences of such conduct are right!" In short, the conduct is moral.

Believe it or not, there are people out there in the world with moral ideas other than utilitarianism on one hand, and theistic absolute rule-following morality on the other.

For example some people think that following fair processes for exchanging goods and services is more important than maximising utility. They think that it's a greater evil to use force to take away someone's money than it is to allow a suboptimal-utility outcome. No science experiment you can make up is going to prove that they are wrong and you are right.

Other people think that things they call "fundamental human rights" are more important than utility. You could show them that a police state using torture to quell dissent yielded more net utility than a liberal democracy, and they'd still prefer human rights. No science experiment you can make up is going to prove that they are wrong or right either.

Nobody thinks that the best way to become minimally competent at, say, chemistry, is to post random and uninformed opinions about first year chemistry on a message board, then argue with anyone who disagrees with you because you can't admit to being wrong. Some might even say that would be a waste of time. The funny thing about moral philosophy as a topic is that quite a few people think that the strategy described above is an excellent way to learn it.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Those are nothing but manifestations of the BIOLOGY of the organisms that display or think about them.

Thus it applies that they can be studied and researched by the same tools that have so far been extremely successfully (as judged by their results) utilized to study other BIOLOGIES of things.

I am highly certain that this is nonsense.

Modern morality is a very new and weird thing that has only existed for a very brief time. Morality in the sixties was very different, as was morality in the twenties, as was morality six thousand years ago. Seeking answers in biology is just asinine, because there simply has not been time for our biology to change fast enough to explain the changes in our moral ideas.

Yes there is something biological going on when modern people have moral ideas, just as there is something biological going on when a modern person browses the internet on a mobile phone. How much do you think you could possibly learn about human internet browsing behaviour by examining human DNA? You're looking in the wrong place.

An example I have used before which got through to a few people was that of the spear. Every culture invented the spear, but to understand that you can't just look at the human brain or genome. There is no "spear organ" in the brain, nor "spear genes" in the genome, nor "spear proteins" in the proteome. Spears are what happens when a powerful, general-purpose intelligence encounters a universe where spears are useful and can be made with available materials.

Morality is like a spear, or like aerodynamics. It's not hiding in our DNA, it's something we figure out based on our interactions with a complex universe. Looking inside our brains to seek "true morality" is as daft as looking inside our brains to find the best way to build a passenger jet.

 

[Tassman]

Nobody's talking about "theistic holy books" except you through your well-poisoning antics.

Yes you are. When you refer to behaviour being “moral in and of itself”, as you did twice in your previous post, you are adopting the absolutist viewpoint, usually associated with theists and their holy books. Namely, that true morality is immutable and derives ultimately from God.

As for the rest, I've heard this tedious routine from you before.

You have simply made the "survival of the species" crap the moral in and of itself even though you deny it for other things. There is no moral imperative for the survival of the species.

Typically dishonest crap from you! No-one is saying that the “survival of the species" “is moral in and of itself”. That’s not the argument.

The “survival of the species" is the driving force of evolution which, in the case of a social species such as us, results in a genetic predisposition toward cooperative behaviour within the group. How this innate predisposition is realised varies from era to era - as has been evident throughout history. In short: The basis of our moral code is our naturally selected capacity for cooperation, empathy, reciprocity, altruism and awareness of the rules of the group. Without these evolved qualities there could be no morality as we know it today.

That looks like a contradiction to me.

This is not a contradiction.

 

[Tassman]

Believe it or not, there are people out there in the world with moral ideas other than utilitarianism on one hand, and theistic absolute rule-following morality on the other.

For example some people think that following fair processes for exchanging goods and services is more important than maximising utility. They think that it's a greater evil to use force to take away someone's money than it is to allow a suboptimal-utility outcome. No science experiment you can make up is going to prove that they are wrong and you are right.

Other people think that things they call "fundamental human rights" are more important than utility. You could show them that a police state using torture to quell dissent yielded more net utility than a liberal democracy, and they'd still prefer human rights. No science experiment you can make up is going to prove that they are wrong or right either.

Nobody thinks that the best way to become minimally competent at, say, chemistry, is to post random and uninformed opinions about first year chemistry on a message board, then argue with anyone who disagrees with you because you can't admit to being wrong. Some might even say that would be a waste of time. The funny thing about moral philosophy as a topic is that quite a few people think that the strategy described above is an excellent way to learn it.

Very profound!

Next you'll be wittering on about metaphysics.

 

[Pup]

But as far as I know the evidence says little about how far it extends across the species (I would be happy to hear more on this, however, if you have any useful sources).

This is not my field at all, so speaking from a purely amateur (and probably wrong) point of view, the first thing that occurs to me is animals. It seems that humans can treat some animals with about as much empathy as they treat other humans, and with that barrier broken, it seems that empathy is pretty mutable depending on circumstances, peer pressure, and so forth.

And of course human societies throughout history have simply not always expressed empathy on a species-wide basis. This is clear with ethnic extermination, and also with the killing off of the old, the infirm or excessive children. These things we would consider horrifying by today's standards were commonplace once.

That's true, and I think it shows the complexity of how humans interact, with their different urges, for lack of a better word, changing strength and becoming more or less influential in different societies.

Obviously we aren't evolving physically that fast, so what we're seeing is a different expression of urges that people have already evolved. And how can the scientific method predict what urges will take precedent in a fast-changing society? I think that would be the biggest issue, in predicting what would be considered moral at any given time.

If one doesn't limit it to a particular time and place, and instead seeks out a scientific morality for all times and places, similar to the god-ordained morality of theists, well, I think that's like trying to declare what's the most fit species of all time. Depends on its environment and the niche it's trying to exploit, and that's going to change year by year, like the beaks on Darwin's finches.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Very profound!

Next you'll be wittering on about metaphysics.

Do you mean meta-ethics?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Do you mean meta-ethics?

No, not necessarily, yet without commenting to the actual answer you got - when dealing with skeptics, there is in practice a divine among us as to how we deal with cognitive relativism.

With regards

 

[Dani]

I meant: Are you saying that science can find out what people's moral preferences are, or that you can scientifically declare what someone's moral preferences ought to be? The latter is nonsensical as far as I can tell, so I assume wowbagger meant the former. Even the former is surprisingly contentious, however, since many moral relativists insist that you can just pick and choose your own moral preferences at will.

I'm afraid when Wowbagger talks about the normative aspects of his propositions, he's talking about what ought to be. That's what "normative" means in this context.

Science can in principle describe what people's moral preferences are, but we already know that there are differences. It can in principle also explain what causes these differences, but the best way to first know what a person's moral preferences are is to ask that person. That is, in fact, what Joanathan Haidt does at his website, and that seems like a very reasonable descriptive approach. Any reductionist approach is fine in its own framework, but simply doesn't address the correct conceptual framework when we talk about morality. That's why "I want equality for A and B" is much more relevant than "but the MRI and your evolutionary heritage shows X" if we want to describe someone's morality.

 

[angrysoba]

Yes you are. When you refer to behaviour being “moral in and of itself”, as you did twice in your previous post, you are adopting the absolutist viewpoint, usually associated with theists and their holy books. Namely, that true morality is immutable and derives ultimately from God.

Nope. That's well-poisoning again. I get no morality from religion any more than you do. Unless of course you do, which you might do.

Typically dishonest crap from you! No-one is saying that the “survival of the species" “is moral in and of itself”. That’s not the argument.

So what relevance does the survival of the species have for morality? It is neither morally good nor bad for the species to continue to survive.

The “survival of the species" is the driving force of evolution which, in the case of a social species such as us, results in a genetic predisposition toward cooperative behaviour within the group. How this innate predisposition is realised varies from era to era - as has been evident throughout history. In short: The basis of our moral code is our naturally selected capacity for cooperation, empathy, reciprocity, altruism and awareness of the rules of the group. Without these evolved qualities there could be no morality as we know it today

That's not at issue, but that is a descriptive claim. It does not give us any idea about what we ought to do.

ETA: And seriously, where do you get stuff like this from "The “survival of the species" is the driving force of evolution"? That's highly dubious if you ask me.

This is not a contradiction.

Are moral ideas natural or invented? You seem to be trying to have it both ways.

 

[Reivax]

As some of you might know, I happen to be a purveyor of the idea that science can answer moral questions. However, I recognize (quite brutally) that it is really difficult to convince most other intellectual types of that idea. Not merely that science can help us answer such questions, after values are established. My claim is that values, themselves, can be determined by science, as well. And, here, I make the bold claim that this will, eventually, be a much more accepted notion. But, it will not happen right away. It is going to take a couple of generations of turnover before it goes more mainstream.

This is my thinking as well. Cognitive science can naturalise value by acknowledging that all affective experiences are either positively or negatively valenced - that is - affective conscious experiences are valuable in and of themselves. You simply do not need to appeal to anything more to ground morality - it is the bedrock. So then it becomes an entirely empirical question as to how valuable particular experiences are. This where hedonic psychology is required.

My predictions take the following, more specific, form:

Prediction #1: Academia will transform morality almost entirely into a science. Perhaps a "soft" form of it. But, the role of philosophy will become diminished to that of pure systematics: taxonomy, nomenclature, etc. It might take 1 or 2 generations (of roughly 20 years each), before progress will be noticeable.

Prediction #2 is about how morality will change. It has three sub-predictions, that more-or-less follow from each other: (In a previous draft these were numbered separately.)

2A: Morality will take on more of a consequentialist type of angle, in a greater number of people. This will also take a couple of generations to notice. And, some parts of the world will transform slower than others. This is NOT classical utilitarianism, in the Jeremy Bentham sense. This is a "new" form that more fully encompasses the six foundations of morality, that folks like Johnathan Haidt have documented. (Though, Haidt might not agree that they can be unified in this way.)

It is extremely difficult determining what ethical theory Haidt identifies himself with; he calls himself an ethical pluralist in The Righteous Mind, but also a Durkheimian utilitarian with respect to social policy. Yet, to confuse things even further, he also presents a position which is distinctively relativistic in another paper! I think Haidt's work has simply described morality, but he has not offered a compelling normative theory. But as you have alluded to, I think the 'moral modules' that he has identified are going to help determine what makes us flourish. As Cordelia Fine has pointed out, there are certainly many problems with his downplay of rationality in his account.

2B: The average "well being" of all human lives will continue to improve at an accelerated rate. Our measurements of "well being" might be primitive today. But, they will improve over time, across various components: health, wealth, "happiness", etc.
I used the word "continue" because this seems to be happening, anyway. The real key word is "accelerated rate". And, this would be as a result of #2A happening, of course.

This is what Steven Pinker has been arguing in his recent book The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.

I really hope this approach that you are putting forward here becomes widely endorsed. I think it's the only way morality can ever be given a proper treatment. Ultimately I think this entire approach is utilitarian, but it asks us to maximise a utility that's a lot more specific than merely well-being or happiness.

 

[epepke]

I haven't seen a single proponent of normative moral science against descriptive morality. Could you name one or two?

Sure. Sam Harris.

The whole basis of his argument for science to support normative morality would go to hell in a hat under scientific investigation, in a descriptive way, against his morality.

Now, I do not know if he is intelligent enough to figure it out. So it might not be completely accurate to say that he is against descriptive morality in a de facto sense. I did try to address this in my previous post.

I also tried to say how, but some things need repetition. I'll do that now.

Scientific investigation into descriptive morality would challenge the assumption that morality is about well-being.

That's a weak claim, but i think it's obvious. I would also make a stronger claim that scientific investigation into descriptive morality would show that assumption that morality is about well-being is a load of dingoes kidneys.

I think that I can support this, but it's only after we can start to do a study of descriptive morality in a sensible way.

In any event, Harris' statements about science and normative morality all requires the assumption that it's about well-being. Furthermore, they require the assumption that it's about actual well-being, not simply supposed well-being. Study of descriptive morality is a threat to that, and so de facto his ideas of normative morality are against doing it. (That I go further and say it's a slam-dunk is true, but it is not needed for this argument.)

Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but what I've seen so far is that proponents of "science can answer moral questions" tend to conflate descriptive and normative morality. Most of them explicitly acknowledge they're different beasts, but end up conflating both in their arguments anyway. Sam Harris did that, among many other things (the MRI bit made me chuckle, by the way).

They do, of course, and it's stupid. They may be too stupid to realize that they are in conflict. I think they are, and I am willing to argue that point, but not when a moron like Harris is showing pictures of disfigured women in the belief that it proves his point (though I think I can analyze his behavior, too.)

Now, I cannot rule out the possibility that there may be an assertion that science can say something significant about normative reality without making assumptions that would be challenged by scientific investigation into descriptive morality. I cannot prove that or show it with evidence. It is simply an intuition, or a guess. However, it has not been challenged by anybody's trying to do it, or at least I am not aware of any.

Also, I admit I'm not sure about Dennett's position on this. I'm skeptical of your characterization, because he strikes me as a sophisticated enough intellectual to not make that mistake. Where have you seen him claim something along those lines?

As I've said, he may not be bright enough, and your being impressed with him doesn't really sway me. However, he did put out that rather bogus challenge to his ideas. He carefully stated them, and I find it mind-bogglingly obvious. Yes, his assertions about science helping with well-being are true, but no, it has nothing to do with morality, because morality isn't about well-being.

He might not be a sophisticated enough thinker to address this, as all I have seen is hand-waving. The fact that he hasn't already addressed (to my knowledge) what I see is a blindingly obvious objection to his central idea indicates something to me.

It may be like creationists who make bogus arguments against evolution on the grounds of thermodynamics. I am not aware of any who actually said, "I'm too stupid to understand thermodynamics," so I cannot show you where they claimed it.

 

[epepke]

But you have simply created a new problem: why is it moral in and of itself to create a more equitable society?

Nice concise point.

"I think it's good to create a more equitable society" is in and of itself a moral statement. Scientific study into descriptive morality would ask questions such as, "how do you come to believe that it is good to create a more equitable society?" of "why do you think it is moral to create a more equitable society?"

 

[Tassman]

Nope. That's well-poisoning again. I get no morality from religion any more than you do. Unless of course you do, which you might do.

You referred to behaviour being “moral in and of itself”, which is an absolutist viewpoint, usually associated with theists. If this is not your position you must explain what you mean by “moral in and of itself” and how one determines such morality.

So what relevance does the survival of the species have for morality? It is neither morally good nor bad for the species to continue to survive.

It is correct that it is neither morally good nor bad for the species to continue to survive. I didn't say it was. This is a typical misrepresentation of the argument by you

That's not at issue, but that is a descriptive claim. It does not give us any idea about what we ought to do.

Yes it does. It gives us a very good “idea about what we ought to do”. It describes how and why people behave the way they do. And this provides the framework for a moral code based upon our natural predisposition, as a social species, for a cohesive society governed by rules towards this end.

ETA: And seriously, where do you get stuff like this from "The “survival of the species" is the driving force of evolution"? That's highly dubious if you ask me.

Favourable mutations enhance the species’ ability to survive and unfavourable mutations result in less survival capacity or extinction. This is not in doubt. Therefore it is reasonable to refer “survival” as the basic fact of Evolution – your typically gratuitous snide comments notwithstanding.

Are moral ideas natural or invented? You seem to be trying to have it both ways.

Historically "moral ideas” have arisen according to the demonstrably changing social mores of the day. This as opposed to behaviour being “moral in and of itself” (your words) presumably existing in some sort of eternal metaphysical or divine realm awaiting discovery by clever philosophers or theologians.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Tassman, who or what gave you objective authority over we for all of humanity. I would like objective evidence for that and not just "I think that we ought to...". You are not a we and neither am I or anybody else.