Why is it a Bad Idea to Have Science Answering Moral Questions

[lemurien]

fls: choosing not to conceive vs. choosing to abort is perceived as different

Strange, isn't it.
Like not eating or eating and then vomiting.
Or not stabbing and stabbing and then stitching.

There is such a thing as a human nature and it is very powerful in the questions that concern the life and death of one's offspring. I do not think that any woman would choose an abortion if the alternative would be having used contraception when it was needed.

That is a silly dichotomy if I ever seen one.
But once you have goofed and you have to make a choice between having the baby and either bringing it up all alone for the next two decades or giving it up for adoption and feeling as a lousy lowlife for the rest or your life...well, should we add to her burden?

I think no, we should not. It is HER life, and it is her decision within the accepted limits of law. Who needs illegal abortions? Ever seen what a perforated uterus can do?

 

[I Ratant]

I Ratant: Who guards the guardians.. is the problem.

Time.
Democracy.
Free speech.
Peer reviewed literature.
I do. You do. The very idea of this forum is exactly that.

.
Yes, but listens to us?
Misapplied social theories take time to make themselves known as such.
Anyone can spout out how "they" should behave differently... and sometimes those guys can make "them" behave differently...usually terminally.

 

[I Ratant]

Yes.
Every situation for life termination is and has to be considered as unique.

 

[lemurien]

Ivor the Engineer: I am therefore not convinced by the idea that human values are intuiting some underlying truth, but are rather just expressions of individual biases.


And why do you feel that one excludes the other?
In the course of all biological development, you have an intimate interplay of structure and function, genotype and environment, inborn and acquired.

I personally do not share your opinion at all.
There is such a thing as the human nature, the blank slate has been discarded as a hypothesis quite a while ago. Sure it would be nice if all people were born equal but not even the Germans in the GDR (R.I.P.) could make it true.

 

[lemurien]

Yes, but listens to us?


yeah, look at wikileaks, look at the human rights movements all over the world
look at people facing court for crimes against humanity
rich people facing the law like a couple of sex maniacs on the top of the world

things move
you cannot make people unsee the things they've seen

 

[Wowbagger]

Good science can simultaneously give you the tools to achieve opposite goals. As an elementary example, the same good science can teach you both how to spread a disease to a population and how to prevent that disease within the same population.
Good science can also tell you why human beings might want to take either of those actions -- killing or healing -- or even a combination of the two.

Okay.

Good science doesn't have any basis upon which to make a judgment as to which of the two you should perform.

In the context of optimizing human health and well-being, I argue that it largely can.

The "optimizing human health and well-being" is the basis off of which science, in this direction, can work.

Military technology can be researched, perfected, and used to devastating effect while remaining good science the whole time.

Good science can also tell us how to build cars with square wheels.

Good science will tell us why that is not an efficient idea, even if that knowledge comes from a different branch.

I guess we can modify the title of the thread by asking "Why is it a Bad Idea to Develop a Branch of Science that Can Answer Moral Questions?"
This would be a branch that works independently of the branches that actually build the technologies you are talking about. The arguments you raised become a non-issue.

 

[lemurien]

Also, why is it a bad idea to discuss with people who are stuck.
They insist, persist and iterate without looking at any new material from let's say 50 last years. anything more recent might force the to reconsider and only losers do.

It is a good idea to move along, try to find out what is going on instead of sticking to the "cannot be known because I cannot understand how it could be known".

Yeah, one could make a thread about "Why didn't they ask me when they started this thing about neuroethics?" Or "why doesn't anybody ask me anything any longer?"

time moves, some people don't

 

[Earthborn]

Our methods of measuring them, empirically, are not perfect nor precise, yet. But, that does not mean it is going to remain impossible to do so.

The concepts themselves are not perfect nor precise, and are likely to remain so. They are personal, subjective, subject to change, dependent on circumstances and relative to one's culture. And they are not even empirically verifiable facts.

But, I think in almost all cases, those who say "science can determine moral values" are really adding a silent "help us" to the sentence: "science can help us determine moral values".

Except of course Sam Harris, who wants to develop a "scientific morality" because he as an anti-religionist he can't claim God is the source of morality, but at the same time he disapproves of anyone who claims that an absolute source of morality does not exist.

"Scientists, using the scientific method, can help us deduce what the best moral values would be, under the circumstances faced by the particulars of the society".

Saying that "some moral values are best" implies a moral judgement and requires moral values to exist to make that judgement, even before you have determined which moral values are best. You get into a strange circular argument where you need moral values to determine moral values.

There could, in fact, be a moral landscape: A variety of peaks that are as good as each other, and the optimal peak for you would depend on the particulars in the environment of your society.)

Sam Harris loves to talk about this "moral landscape" and its peaks and valleys. But how do we even determine what constitutes a peak, and what does it mean to have more than one peak? And when considering the environmental damage caused by modern civilisation, long should we consider something that looks like a peak to be a peak if it inevitably will collapse into a valley?

This is an incredibly short-sighted, short-termed view of the situation. Clearly, their well-being would be improved, massively, if the demands to wear them were lifted entirely.

It seems like you are agreeing with me. I don't understand understand why you are calling that view "incredibly short-sighted, short-termed".

The waiting list.

Explain what is so scientific about the waiting list.

It cuts through the whole "who is more worthy of life saving technology" question that other less-than-scientific attempts had tried, and failed, to answer.

Really? Can you name some of those other attempts and explain how they failed? I don't understand what you are referring to.

 

[Wowbagger]

Here's a question I'd like to see some of you answer:

If Science should not answer moral questions, then what should?

Religion? Do you think religion is going to be better at this, considering the current state of societies?

Perhaps Morality should be independent of anything else? Moral questions should only be answered by moral systems? If you think that way: What would be the basis for that?

What are some viable alternatives?
Any alternatives that have no problems, what-so-ever, like the ones we are discussing here?

The concepts themselves are not perfect nor precise, and are likely to remain so. They are personal, subjective, subject to change, dependent on circumstances and relative to one's culture. And they are not even empirically verifiable facts.

When you go to the doctor for a visit, they have various ways to diagnostically measure various aspects of your health.

You have to be naive to assume they will not improve over time.

We also have various ways to measure wealth and (perhaps less accurately) happiness. Even they can improve, over time, as well.

These things do not even need to be perfectly defined for science to say something about them. The word "species" isn't even perfectly, universally defined, and yet we can still scientifically demonstrate their likely origins.

Except of course Sam Harris, who wants to develop a "scientific morality" because he as an anti-religionist he can't claim God is the source of morality, but at the same time he disapproves of anyone who claims that an absolute source of morality does not exist.

Science would not be an "absolute source". Science, if anything, would be more provisional than any claims of God being the source.

But, despite its provisional nature, it might even be more useful: because its foundation is more realistic and reliable.

Sam Harris loves to talk about this "moral landscape" and its peaks and valleys. But how do we even determine what constitutes a peak, and what does it mean to have more than one peak?

If you read his book, you would know that the measure of health and well-being of conscious creatures would determine what constitutes a peak.

And when considering the environmental damage caused by modern civilisation, long should we consider something that looks like a peak to be a peak if it inevitably will collapse into a valley?

If you cared to read his book, you will find out that environmental damage should be a factor in considering moral decisions, especially if there is a risk that such damage would ultimately result in the collapse of our peaks, in the long run.

Saying that "some moral values are best" implies a moral judgement and requires moral values to exist to make that judgement, even before you have determined which moral values are best. You get into a strange circular argument where you need moral values to determine moral values.

This concern does not prevent science from answering moral questions effectively.

It seems like you are agreeing with me. I don't understand understand why you are calling that view "incredibly short-sighted, short-termed".

It sounded like you were defending the concept of burqas. I said that the requirement to wear them was detrimental. You seemed to counter that as a survival necessity. But, perhaps we agreed with each other on that, more than I thought.

Explain what is so scientific about the waiting list.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot: The Lord Thy God hath come down from the Heavens to Command us to build a waiting list for life saving technologies, Himself, in all of his glory. Yeah, science had absolutely nothing to do with that one.

Really? Can you name some of those other attempts and explain how they failed? I don't understand what you are referring to.

There were attempts to figure out which people were "more worthy" of being saved, based on the perceived importance of their existence. But, such ideals proved problematic. If you still do not know what I am talking about, I will try to find some resources on this.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

If you read his book, you would know that the measure of health and well-being of conscious creatures would determine what constitutes a peak.

<snip>

What I find bizarre is why Harris' more intelligent fans don't complain how wooly "health and well-being of conscious creatures" are as optimisation criteria. For example, it isn't hard to imagine many situations where it would be possible to argue for various different courses of action to be taken which would result two (or more) mutually exclusive outcomes in which the "health and well-being of conscious creatures" was optimised, depending on the particular measures used and weighting given to each of them.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Here's a question I'd like to see some of you answer:

If Science should not answer moral questions, then what should?

<snip>

The people who vote for Pop Idol.

 

[AlBell]

That would have broader appeal and might have a better chance of successful implementation.

 

[Earthborn]

When you go to the doctor for a visit, they have various ways to diagnostically measure various aspects of your health.

No, they have various ways to measure various aspects of my biological functions. Whether the measured values constitute "health" or "sickness" is not something that is measured. It is a moral judgement; and one that is relativistic: what counts as relatively healthy for one person may count as relatively sick for another.

These things do not even need to be perfectly defined for science to say something about them. The word "species" isn't even perfectly, universally defined, and yet we can still scientifically demonstrate their likely origins.

Species are not empirically measureable quantities, but categories used in classification. Scientists usually understand the difference.

Science would not be an "absolute source". Science, if anything, would be more provisional than any claims of God being the source.

I agree. I think that makes it a problematic basis for morality. Sam Harris likes to use the Taliban as an example of what is "obviously" a low point in the "moral landscape", but if we were to use a "scientific morality" we would always need to be skeptical of what seems obvious and be prepared to accept evidence that might prove the Taliban actually has a better morality than anyone else.

But, despite its provisional nature, it might even be more useful: because its foundation is more realistic and reliable.

Realistic, yes. I am not convinced though that it can be both more realistic and more reliable at the same time. Reality is filled with random events and full of surprises; it is not really that reliable.

If you read his book, you would know that the measure of health and well-being of conscious creatures would determine what constitutes a peak.

As long as health and well-being remain relative and subjective, and we can't even agree what consciousness is, this is basically the same as saying "we haven't the foggiest".

If you cared to read his book, you will find out that environmental damage should be a factor in considering moral decisions, especially if there is a risk that such damage would ultimately result in the collapse of our peaks, in the long run.

The risk always there, and the chance of it happening "in the long run" is 1. Nothing lasts forever. If moral decisions must be made considering the consequences in the long run, nothing can be considered moral because given enough time everytime is going to bite you in the end.

We also can't use time it takes for the collapse of the peak to occur as a reliable consideration in our moral decision making. We may not know how long it takes. It may very well be that building the peak higher hastens its collapse. Complex technological civilisations don't really have a good track record when it comes to duration, while patriarchal sexually repressive tribal societies that eschew all forms of fun (and therefore keep a low environmental impact) have existed for millions of years; if you consider the long run it suddenly isn't as obvious anymore that something like the Taliban constitutes a low point.

This concern does not prevent science from answering moral questions effectively.

It will prevent science from effectively justifying its answers, because all the answers to moral questions it finds will ultimately depend on answers to moral questions that were not derived from science.

It sounded like you were defending the concept of burqas.

I was defending the freedom (within reason) to wear what you like. Singling out burqas as a problem is what I object to. Burqas are not a problem in themselves.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot: The Lord Thy God hath come down from the Heavens to Command us to build a waiting list for life saving technologies, Himself, in all of his glory. Yeah, science had absolutely nothing to do with that one.

I am sure you realise that you are erecting a strawman here. I asked you to explain how science was involved, but you haven't answered that question. I don't think the alternative to assuming that science did it is that God must have done it; rather I imagine it is more likely that it was a bureaucrat saying "okay, so let's just make a list then." I don't see a lot of science involved in that.

If you still do not know what I am talking about, I will try to find some resources on this.

Please do.

 

[Beth]

The people who vote for Pop Idol.

Actually, I think that as far as moral decisions go, there are some very good arguments for letting the majority of people who care enough to vote deciding such things.

No, they have various ways to measure various aspects of my biological functions. Whether the measured values constitute "health" or "sickness" is not something that is measured. It is a moral judgement; and one that is relativistic: what counts as relatively healthy for one person may count as relatively sick for another.

While it's true that such assessments are relative and subjective, I think it's reasonable to argue that there is a broad gradient that slopes continuously from 'heathy' to 'dead'. Those biological functions have a solid correlation with the vague 'healthy/dead' slope. However, I agree, by themselves they are insufficient to make that judgment.

I agree. I think that makes it a problematic basis for morality. Sam Harris likes to use the Taliban as an example of what is "obviously" a low point in the "moral landscape", but if we were to use a "scientific morality" we would always need to be skeptical of what seems obvious and be prepared to accept evidence that might prove the Taliban actually has a better morality than anyone else.

I was all set to give a similar example of different peaks on the moral landscape. Now all I can say is I agree.

Realistic, yes. I am not convinced though that it can be both more realistic and more reliable at the same time. Reality is filled with random events and full of surprises; it is not really that reliable.

I agree with this too.

I am sure you realise that you are erecting a strawman here. I asked you to explain how science was involved, but you haven't answered that question. I don't think the alternative to assuming that science did it is that God must have done it; rather I imagine it is more likely that it was a bureaucrat saying "okay, so let's just make a list then." I don't see a lot of science involved in that.
Please do.

It depends on how the list is assembled. It's certainly possible for a bureaucrat making a list to look at age, their relative health, prob. of survival, etc. in deciding which dying individual will get the opportunity to live a while longer. I lost a relative a few years ago to Hepatitis. I found out that an alcoholic needing a liver was at the bottom of the liver transplant list until he/she can quit drinking. It seems quite reasonable to me to have that as a criteria for dispensing such a limited resource.

How many different possible recipients are there for the administrator to sift through? Once the list gets to be bigger than one or two dozen, in order to be consistent and fair, the ranking criteria has to become standardized and any weighting system formally defined. At that point, I think we can say that science was applied. The way science 'answers moral questions' is through the creation of the ranking criteria and weighting system, which is an inherently subjective pursuit dependent on the moral values of the individuals who create it.

I don't think this is a bad thing. Quite the opposite, I think it's a good thing. But I also think it's important to remember that the ranking criteria and weighting system is, at it's core, based on subjective human moral judgments.

 

[fls]

I am sure you realise that you are erecting a strawman here. I asked you to explain how science was involved, but you haven't answered that question. I don't think the alternative to assuming that science did it is that God must have done it; rather I imagine it is more likely that it was a bureaucrat saying "okay, so let's just make a list then." I don't see a lot of science involved in that.

Transplant lists (i.e. those listed for the receipt of donated organs) are based on outcomes rather than subjective intuitions of bureaucrats (or anyone else for that matter). That is, the specific criteria and weights (for both donor and recipient) are based on empirically gathered data on how outcomes (firstly, survival) are affected. For example, the relative placement of an alcoholic on the list depends upon the outcomes of alcoholics who stop drinking who do not have a liver transplant and the outcomes of alcoholics who do not stop drinking who do have a transplant.

Linda

 

[lemurien]

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

a primer on bad science or 'quack'

 

[lemurien]

Beth: But I also think it's important to remember that the ranking criteria and weighting system is, at it's core, based on subjective human moral judgments.


Why would it not be a good idea to establish scientific methods for finding out how the subjective human moral judgements are formed, what their distribution in the normal population is and how predictable vs. context dependent they are?

Saying 'it is a subjective human moral judgement' is as informative as saying 'moo!'.
No content except who's talking.

 

[Earthborn]

Here's a question I'd like to see some of you answer:

If Science should not answer moral questions, then what should?

I think there are two complementary answers to that question:

1. Nothing and no one, because there are no real answers to moral questions.
2. Everyone and everything, through discussion and communication and the social constructs we build, because despite 1 we desperately want such answers anyway.

Religion? Do you think religion is going to be better at this, considering the current state of societies?

Considering the current state of societies, I see no reason to assume that religion is going to be worse at it than anything else. Note that I am not saying that it is particularly good.

Moral questions should only be answered by moral systems?

I don't know what this means.

What are some viable alternatives? Any alternatives that have no problems, what-so-ever, like the ones we are discussing here?

I think the only viable alternative -- though certainly not without its problems -- is moral relativism. In some reality show in which fighting couples were counselled, the presenter tried to discourage the spouses from trying to convince the other they were right and encourage them to try to look at the issues from the others point of view with the words: "There is no such thing as Right or Wrong. There is only The Conversation." Capitalisation mine. I firmly believe in those words when it comes to morality.

The societies we think of as functional and largely just haven't discovered some sort of "moral truth". They have largely abandonned the concept of moral truth in favour of The Conversation. There are still large disagreements and conflicts within these societies and often there is no hope that those are ever resolved, but in Conversation people can learn to live with them.

That's my alternative to Sam Harris' plan of creating yet another moral framework that's supposedly better than all the others, just like all the others. Accept that there are different opinions on morality, accept that none have a claim to moral truth, and keep The Conversation going.

 

[Earthborn]

Transplant lists (i.e. those listed for the receipt of donated organs) are based on outcomes rather than subjective intuitions of bureaucrats (or anyone else for that matter). That is, the specific criteria and weights (for both donor and recipient) are based on empirically gathered data on how outcomes (firstly, survival) are affected. For example, the relative placement of an alcoholic on the list depends upon the outcomes of alcoholics who stop drinking who do not have a liver transplant and the outcomes of alcoholics who do not stop drinking who do have a transplant.

I agree that there is science involved in the way waiting lists are sorted. Wowbagger however claimed that waiting lists themselves were developed by science. This suggests that before there were waiting lists for medical procedures no one had a clue that one could put names of people on a list and have some ordering criteria to decide who is treated before others, and then after extensive research scientists came up with the concept.

 

[corbin]

"You can't derive an "ought" from an 'is.'" -David Hume