The Future of Moral Science

[Dani]

It is clear from this post and the following one that you have no idea where I’m coming from in this discussion, hence it’s likely that we will continue to talk pointlessly past each other. I’ll leave you with a paraphrase of Wittgenstein, with whom I’m in agreement, about the absurdly overblown, and ultimately impotent claims of traditional philosophy as presented by many in this thread:

This is a red herring. Since someone else asked, I'm sure you'll provide the evidence to support this particular claim, but I'm more interested in the evidence to support the claim "science can answer normative moral questions" (or, if you like, the more redundant "science can potentially answer normative moral questions").

Since most of what you have put forth so far is a mix of vague and trivial assertions, and since you even gave up trying to support your initial claim on the basis that normative moral questions are irrelevant (without a justification for such dismissal) I guess Phiwum was trying to identify what is it that you so vehemently oppose. It's not so easy to identify for the rest of us when you constantly assert trivialities that don't tackle the point of contention at all.

 

[angrysoba]

I am interested in studying morality, using science. That is, I want to know how morality functions in a human brain.

...

I also maintain that this could be one of the things that the term "moral science" refers to. I even maintain that it could be one aspect of the future of moral science (which is the title of this thread). That is, in the future, using science, we might be able to understand more about how morality works. It might take some time before we get as good at is as Cognitive Science is with language, but that is what interests me.

I agree.

I think there are three things that moral science could refer to. The first one is...

1) Using science to achieve moral ends.

2) Using science to understand how humans make moral decisions.

3) Using science to discover what are morally good actions and morally bad actions.

(1) is, as far as I know, pretty much uncontroversial if we are talking about things such as spanking and whether or not it is effective. But the moral axioms are to do with whether or not means justify ends or whether spanking is unjust.

(2) is something that is interesting if we are looking at evolutionary psychology or cognitive science or game theory etc... and may help us understand why people do not behave according to stated principles etc... I think this is useful and interesting.

(3) is what I think the OP is driving at and which Sam Harris, Michael Shermer and a few others are advocating, and which is surely downright false.

 

[Dani]

And then we will have to decide whether Greek or German philosophy is better. If you remember the Greeks scored a goal against Germany which was disputed by the Germans:

I remember that perfectly! Classic sketch!

Ignoring that the formalization of induction and deduction are both party of the completely useless branch of philosophy called "logic".

Not only that, but both are absolutely necessary to do science. Can you imagine people gathering data and ignoring deduction? But I think you're missing some context.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Not only that, but both are absolutely necessary to do science. Can you imagine people gathering data and ignoring deduction? But I think you're missing some context.

Nah...Not really. Just being flippant.

 

[Dani]

I agree.

I think there are three things that moral science could refer to. The first one is...

1) Using science to achieve moral ends.

2) Using science to understand how humans make moral decisions.

3) Using science to discover what are morally good actions and morally bad actions.

(1) is, as far as I know, pretty much uncontroversial if we are talking about things such as spanking and whether or not it is effective. But the moral axioms are to do with whether or not means justify ends or whether spanking is unjust.

(2) is something that is interesting if we are looking at evolutionary psychology or cognitive science or game theory etc... and may help us understand why people do not behave according to stated principles etc... I think this is useful and interesting.

(3) is what I think the OP is driving at and which Sam Harris, Michael Shermer and a few others are advocating, and which is surely downright false.

I agree. And maybe we should move on and focus a little more on 1 and 2. But first let me unfold 3 into 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3:

3.1. Actually trying to do that. That, of course, makes no logical sense.
3.2. Redefining science through the insertion of a moral axiom. That's epistemologically trivial and counterproductive.
3.3. Redefining morality in a way that "morally good" is reduced to something testable. That's epistemologically trivial and doesn't solve our intuitive differences on what we currently think is moral and inmoral.

My inductive conclusion is that anyone who defends 3, given enough time, will go through 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. Each approach is irrelevant to one another, but when you have a conclusion in mind, you have to try it all!

 

[Dragoonster]

I am interested in studying morality, using science. That is, I want to know how morality functions in a human brain.

That's nice but nothing to do with whether science can determine morality.

Here's an analogy. Let's say the subject is language. There are a lot of things you can do with language. You can speak it, read it, write it, listen to it, understand it, and so on. Nearly everybody does it. There's also a field called "linguistics," which is something else entirely. Actually, there are several fields called "linguistics." There's structural linguistics, historical linguistics, anthropological linguistics, and what is now called Cognitive Science.

[first, I didn't know cognitive science is now a subfield or overfield of linguistics. Is this correct?]

Second. Let's say the subject is love. Or hate. There are a lot of things you can do with this. They are all sociological/anthropological. Remaining within the confines of humanity, homo sapiens, whether as a construct of genetic preference or social preference. What none of that is is science claiming "Love" or "Hate" is objectively right or wrong. BEYOND humans. Objective to the Universe. This is what Sam Harris (granted you're no fan, but he's the elephant) claims.

These things are interesting to me, and there's a lot of science involved in figuring them out. Similarly, I think it would be possible to do this about morality. There are cognitive processes involved in morality, and figuring them out is of interest to me.

It's interesting for many anthropologists and such over the years. None of what they find could or should ever be considered as a scientific decision about which morality is objectively right or wrong. To think that is to be ridiculous (IMO).

I also maintain that this could be one of the things that the term "moral science" refers to. I even maintain that it could be one aspect of the future of moral science (which is the title of this thread). That is, in the future, using science, we might be able to understand more about how morality works. It might take some time before we get as good at is as Cognitive Science is with language, but that is what interests me.

If cognitive science eventually defines every single human brain's morality--where it came from, evolutionarily why, etc., that would still have nothing to do with whether science can DECIDE morality.

Nor am I going to ask you to stop. If it makes you happy to engage in the sort of exercise you like, then great. I am not trying to interfere with your bliss. Please feel free to ignore everything I say. But it is certainly not an irrational thing for me to be interested in it.

The irrationality is about thinking that the interest in it might some day translate into an objective, scientific, all-time, forever, right-wrong Morality. This is a category error. Trying to merge one thing into another.

Yes, I quite like anthropology and sociology, though I'd like to see it grow into something more, like Cognitive Science. You may note that that the word "future" is in the title. I'm not sure why you are so quick to dismiss it. Would it make everything all better for you if the thread title said, "Anthropology"?

As I've said before in the thread, it's easy for any advocate of anything to "punt" proof to the future, so they don't have to defend it now (The Singularity for another example, or flying cars). Would it be easier if the thread title included the word "Magical"?

Now you are dismissing me to the point of getting what I am saying completely the opposite of what I am. Again, if it makes you happy to think this way, I'm not going to do any more than to declare that you would be much happier just pulling stuff out of your butt. You do not require my participation, which is one of the reasons I only sporadically come back to that thread.

Sorry if I did that. The participation I'd like to see is anyone actually explaining Why/How Science Can Determine Morality. You're so far just another wisher that it could, with no a) protocol for how it could, and b) no apparent recognition that it simple can't, due to category error (or participation in explaining how it isn't a category error). I find this an utterly silly claim so people who defend it to me are also silly. I'm sorry if I unfairly categorized you as something. Maybe you'll be content with sporadically coming back to this thread in a few hundred more years when science still hasn't determined morality?

I don't even know if I have a personal morality. I sometimes feel good when I do things. Is that morality? It seems to me an internal experience of morality, but it doesn't tell me what morality is. It doesn't tell me how it works, how it can be re-programmed, etc. and so on and so forth. I'd like to understand that better. I think it's possible that science might be a good tool in doing this.

Do you murder your neighbor for milk? Do you need something to tell you not to? (and if you do murder your neighbor for milk, you still do have that morality, and science can't tell you it's so wrong that you suddenly don't have it. Science can't determine whether murdering a neighbor for milk is Moral or Immoral).

I can think of a lot of ways of trying. For example, we could find out how parts of the brain light up when people are 1) engaging in moral reasoning, versus 2) making decisions that we would consider moral. I suspect that the results would be interesting and perhaps even counterintuitive. Whenever I see someone claiming to do or be interested in moral science, I always hope that they are thinking along those lines. Inevitably I am disappointed, as with Sam Harris, who is as far as I can tell a complete idiot about such matters.

We can at least agree on that last point. And sure, there are a lot of ways of determining the morals that each human has. We could theoretically determine all of them for every human. That still wouldn't be science DETERMINING morality. It would just be science determining what % of people valued moral-x. It wouldn't say that a statistical aberrant like Dahmer who valued killing and eating people (to promote his well-being) was morally wrong. It would just say that most of the other human brains studied disagree. Big whup. Sociology/anthropology.

So far, however, you appear to have absolutely no idea what I am saying.

In this thread, where absolutely no one has offered anything serious to refute Is-Ought Problem, or offered any reason why science can actually determine what morality is? Guess not.

Imagine away! Enjoy yourself! Pat yourself on the back a lot! Hooray for you! You are right-thinking! You know all the questions that can be asked! Huzzah, hurray!

In the mean time, having found nobody with whom to discuss ideas about how science might inform our understanding of morality, I shall have to be content with seeking to understand the brain for the purpose of building an army of steampunk robots to take over the world. And then I'll go after Google. Then you'll be sorry.

Science can inform our understanding of an infinite amount of things; for Science it informs what good Science is, as determined what Science is/should do by culture/government. For social things, it informs how best to do things that we've already decided from non-science to do or not to do, as decided by our current culture's general morals, or our culture's current warlord's morals. If that's what you want to discuss you're in the wrong thread, since that is incredibly obvious. But Science can not determine Morality. I await my death in Hellboy 2.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

[first, I didn't know cognitive science is now a subfield or overfield of linguistics. Is this correct?]

I'd say linguistics is a field within cognitive science. Early arrival, and a bit uppity for that reason, but now calming down. Also an ambulance chaser for brain lesions. Almost as bad as lawyers.

 

[angrysoba]

I'd say linguistics is a field within cognitive science. Early arrival, and a bit uppity for that reason, but now calming down. Also an ambulance chaser for brain lesions. Almost as bad as lawyers.

In fact, cognitive science is probably best thought of as an interdisciplinary field or a generic term for some combination of linguistics, philosophy, psychology, neuroscience and computing. With a dash of evolutionary biology in there as well.

 

[angrysoba]

Your concerns are in line with mine. I sincerely doubt there is a moral grammar engine. I think empathy and so on is composed more likely of a variety of subfunctions and is the result, not a direct motive.

I remember hearing about this in a recent Rationally Speaking podcast which Julia Galef recommended on empathy. I can't remember if I read the whole thing, but the writer brings up some of the pitfalls of a morality based purely on empathy. It has a nice "hook":

When asked what I am working on, I often say I am writing a book about empathy. People tend to smile and nod, and then I add, “I’m against it.” This usually gets an uncomfortable laugh.

 

[Wowbagger]

Questions for Critics

I am preparing a fresh batch of responses, to be posted soon. In the meantime, I figured I would probe some of my detractors a bit.

These questions are primarily targeted towards AngrySoba. But, any of my critics can feel free to answer them, if they wish.

Do you think it is possible for moral values to become homogenized over time? Not necessarily by force, but through everyone, collectively, learning more about the world they live in? A slow, voluntary form of homogenization?

If not, what forces make that impossible?

If so, do you think the methods of science can predict what values people will likely homogenize towards?

If you don't think science can do that, what makes it impossible?

If you do think science could do that, do you have any predictions on the direction values might go?

(Notice that I am NOT suggesting, in this specific post, that "science can determine values". Nor am I pushing "consequentialism" here. Those, I understand, are separate claims, for other posts to deal with. The questions, above, are only to clarify your position on the sorts of issues that are supposed to be the root of this thread I started (that is: The Future!), and to see if we might have some common ground anywhere. Thank you.)

 

[angrysoba]

I am preparing a fresh batch of responses, to be posted soon. In the meantime, I figured I would probe some of my detractors a bit.

These questions are primarily targeted towards AngrySoba. But, any of my critics can feel free to answer them, if they wish.

Do you think it is possible for moral values to become homogenized over time? Not necessarily by force, but through everyone, collectively, learning more about the world they live in? A slow, voluntary form of homogenization?

If not, what forces make that impossible?

If so, do you think the methods of science can predict what values people will likely homogenize towards?

If you don't think science can do that, what makes it impossible?

If you do think science could do that, do you have any predictions on the direction values might go?

(Notice that I am NOT suggesting, in this specific post, that "science can determine values". Nor am I pushing "consequentialism" here. Those, I understand, are separate claims, for other posts to deal with. The questions, above, are only to clarify your position on the sorts of issues that are supposed to be the root of this thread I started (that is: The Future!), and to see if we might have some common ground anywhere. Thank you.)

I am not sure what you mean by homogenized. If you are asking me, do I think people will all end up agreeing on the same moral values, then the answer is "I don't know!".

Why do you ask?

 

[Navigator]

I am not so sure that anyone can predict with any certainty the likelihood of moral science achieving the things you have predicted Wowbagger.

Prediction #1: Academia will transform morality almost entirely into a science.

It seems hard to believe this will ever happen through Academia. Human beings are atrociously renown for taking advantage of the weaker, the less intelligent and justifying such things as 'natural and normal'. Even when I think about things which used to be made to last a life time, it seems that the whole idea of now making things which are practically scientifically designed to break after a certain period of time, so that consumers will have to get another - all designed to ensure that the money rolls.

I think that is immoral.

How will moral science change this type of thinking and acting over the course of a couple of generations?

Do you have any ideas on how just that first thing will be achieved?

(No I haven't read the whole thread. If you have already answered this, just point me to the post)

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Do you think it is possible for moral values to become homogenized over time? Not necessarily by force, but through everyone, collectively, learning more about the world they live in? A slow, voluntary form of homogenization?

Via social consensus.

If so, do you think the methods of science can predict what values people will likely homogenize towards?

Descriptively, once a given trend has been identified for study, such as rate of diffusion given means of communication and community size.

If you do think science could do that, do you have any predictions on the direction values might go?

Generally, either in greater recognition of a broader definition of 'other,' or the opposite direction. In-group and out-group definitions change over time, (dis)enfranchising and (de)humanizing. Perhaps these swings can be predicted given, say, funding levels of right or left wing political advertising (aka propaganda). Example: funding of means (candidates, parties, msgs) to disenfranchise black and latino voters in US via redistricting and voter registration barriers.

 

[Pup]

Do you think it is possible for moral values to become homogenized over time? Not necessarily by force, but through everyone, collectively, learning more about the world they live in? A slow, voluntary form of homogenization?

I'd say that's like asking if the behavior of any species will become more homogenized. To the extent their environment becomes increasingly similar, yes.
To the extent that subgroups find it effect to exploit specific niches, no. One can observe and predict some things--communication is making culture more homogenous, for example. But climate, wealth, and other things are still very disparate, leaving niches for exploitative rulers, lower class crime, promises of power or wealth through war, etc.

 

[Dani]

Do you think it is possible for moral values to become homogenized over time? Not necessarily by force, but through everyone, collectively, learning more about the world they live in? A slow, voluntary form of homogenization?

Depends on how you characterize homogenization. To understand what you mean, let's try to answer the following question: compared to those from the early 15th Century, are our current societies more or less homongeneous, morally speaking? Why? How would you respond to that question?

In addition to this, since moral decisions apply to the real world, getting the facts right are obviously essential. However, how access to knowledge affects moral homogeneity, I don't know. It's obvious that secular western societies have political differences. Some of these differences can be a consequence of scientific ignorance, but not all moral differences amount to just facts. Take abortion, for example: two people can agree on the exact same facts and still differ on what should be the right thing to do.

I'm not so sure that scientific knowledge tends to more moral homogeneity than, say, theocratic societies. I have no reason to conclude that. Do you see a pattern that supports that idea? I'd say it's cultural expansion in general what produces more homogeneity.

If not, what forces make that impossible?

I don't know. But first we need to figure out what are we exactly looking for when we compare moral homogeneity among different societies. It's not obvious.

If so, do you think the methods of science can predict what values people will likely homogenize towards?

If you don't think science can do that, what makes it impossible?

So far, social sciences have failed at being successfully predictive compared to the "hard" sciences. It's not the method, but the systems they explore what makes the difference. They are vastly more complex. It's much easier to predict the movement of a planet than your behavior next morning. Imagine that applied to a complex net made of millions of individuals like you.

I'm not sure we have reasons to be very optimistic. Progress can be made, but I don't know how far.

If you do think science could do that, do you have any predictions on the direction values might go?

No.

ETA: After re-reding it, this last question kept me thinking. Why is it relevant that we think science could do that in order to do that ourselves? Whatever prediction may appear in this discussion, I'm guessing it's not going to be scientifically grounded anyway. Or have I missed something groundbreaking?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Here's an intereating one: what about scientific experiments that are immoral themselves, but that are necessary to conduct in order to find an answer to a scientific hypothesis? For instance, scientific experiments on animals, where they are tortured and/or killed. Or experimenting on baby humans and testing what things scare them and how that may develop psychological traumas? These are examples of an obvious clash between what's moral, and what's factually necessary to advance science. How can we talk about moral science, when it must step over morality sometimes to advance scientific knowledge?

 

[Wowbagger]

So, it seems my mind is transforming, a bit, on this topic. I will have more to say, in a couple of days.

I wanted to post more responses last night, but I started rewriting too many of them.

 

[Wowbagger]

Perhaps it is time to revisit these issues on a new thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=291039