| |
|
»
»
|
|
| |
Re: Why science has something to say on morality.
|
|
|
|
| 28 Oct 2014 07:13 PM |
People say all the time that science tells us what _is_ true, but not what we _ought_ to do. It doesn't give us moral enlightenment.
Well, I'd disagree. And here's why.
All "ought"s, or "should"s, have an implied "because" to them.
For example, if I were to say, "you ought not eat at McDonald's for every meal". Most of you'd agree. But why? _Because_ you value your health, and science can show us that eating McDonald's every day is bad for your health.
So, first of all, science can answer these questions. Once you have a value, science can be shown to guide you to achieving that value. If you value your health, then science can guide you to what is the most healthy decision.
You may then ask, "but where do these values come from in the first place?"
As human beings, we have some values built-in to us. It's no coincidence that across tens of thousands or more cultures, we all tend to have moral similarities. It's because we're not born with a "blank slate", so to speak. We're all born with a "rough draft", which includes our moralities.
A prime example of a value we're all born with, and which is the most important, is that we do not want to suffer, and that we want to prosper.
Therefore, we can use science to determine what will eliminate the most suffering and promote the most prosperity.
Some may say, "but why help others and not just help yourself"? Well, easy. We can look at history and see that every society that does not try to promote _everyone's_ welfare always ends up reducing everyone's welfare. We can also run tests today of having groups where people are encouraged to cooperate and groups where people are encouraged to fend for themselves, and we always find that the groups that cooperate end up more successful overall.
But, you know, it's not all about selfishness. Empathy is also a natural human emotion, that's why we have a name for those who lack it (psychopaths). We have a natural tendency to care for others, therefore we all value, at least to some degree, the welfare of others.
Empathy and selfishness both work together to provide and already-existing set of values. These are not somehow philosophical ideas, or religious ideas, they're just facts. The fact most humans desire their own well being, that most humans have empathy for others, these are both just as true as the fact that most humans have the ability to see. It's not something you need a philosophical basis for, because it's just true.
The reason we act as if morals are somehow supernatural and not able to be studied is for the very fact that we all intrinsically have a sense of morality without ever learning about one, and it almost feels mystical. But the very fact of this is why it's not mystical and why we can study it.
Jonathan Haidt proposed that on this "rough draft", your major innate values are harm, fairness, authority, "ingroup", and purity. A quick summer of these goes like this...
Harm - The value that harm should be minimized.
Fairness - The value that punishment and rewards should be equal.
Authority - The value that authority should be respected always.
Ingroup - The value that one should support others within their group.
Purity - The value that we should not do certain acts that violate social constructs.
Now, obviously, you will say that you probably don't hold many of these. But these are all extremes, but we all hold them to some degree. Such as, if you're liberal, you may not find purity to be a very important value. But even if you _say_ that, you still act as if you do. If someone does something incredibly embarrassing, you feel bad for them. If you know someone's going to do something incredibly embarrassing, you'd recommend they not do it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Zech9005
|
  |
| Joined: 03 Jul 2011 |
| Total Posts: 3417 |
|
|
| 28 Oct 2014 07:14 PM |
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIO-bTIdJEI |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
zadfad
|
  |
| Joined: 28 Apr 2011 |
| Total Posts: 7953 |
|
| |
|
|
| 28 Oct 2014 07:31 PM |
I don't get purity, also, look at the empiricists versus the whatever Descartes was, Descartes believed that all things would be revealed through reasoning, but reasoning only does so much. What's the point of being gracious through reason? I mean, you could take it sociopathologically, and say that they may help you in the future, but it is not a scientific reason, what's he point of being empathetic? There's empathy, but why?
-A man with a plan to do the can-can |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Oct 2014 07:58 PM |
| Pretty much all my morals are based on science. For example, I will treat any being with self-awareness well. Children under eighteen months and non-self-aware species do not have my compassion. Everyone else is really valuable to me. I also am really against drugs because of science. I'm celibate because of science mostly. So on and so on. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
0Z0NE
|
  |
| Joined: 25 May 2010 |
| Total Posts: 7951 |
|
|
| 28 Oct 2014 08:59 PM |
"hur dur because science"
Their are no universal truths in the universe, and the universe doesn't care what living beings do. We may make things up to do what pleases us most, but these things are entirely just that; made-up. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 28 Oct 2014 09:03 PM |
For example, I will treat any being with self-awareness well.
How is that scientific? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Oct 2014 03:45 PM |
>"I don't get purity,"
Like, if you're guy, and you come to school in a dress, it will arose a lot of controversy.
>"also, look at the empiricists versus the whatever Descartes was, Descartes believed that all things would be revealed through reasoning, but reasoning only does so much. What's the point of being gracious through reason? I mean, you could take it sociopathologically, and say that they may help you in the future, but it is not a scientific reason, what's he point of being empathetic? There's empathy, but why?"
First of all, empathy is an emotion. The point of being empathetic is that you were born as a creature with empathy. It's like asking "what's the point of seeing?" If you have eyes, you see, whether you like it or not. If you can empathize, you empathize, whether you like it or not. Everyone (except for psychopaths) has a sense of empathy.
Secondly, there's many reasons to be gracious. First of all, humans are empathetic creatures, so being gracious helps with empathy. Second of all, having a society where everyone is kind to each other is much better than a society where everyone is selfish. Just think of it, which would you rather live in? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Oct 2014 03:53 PM |
| Eating at McDonald's for health reasons isn't a moral issue. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Oct 2014 04:52 PM |
"First of all, humans are empathetic creatures, so being gracious helps with empathy. Second of all, having a society where everyone is kind to each other is much better than a society where everyone is selfish. Just think of it, which would you rather live in? " I get the empathetic emotion, but saying "rather" is not a scientific thing. It's an emotional, physical thing. You can bake a cake for survival, and that's scientific, or you can bake a cake because you would "rather" have a cake than brussels sprouts. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Oct 2014 04:58 PM |
>"I get the empathetic emotion, but saying "rather" is not a scientific thing. It's an emotional, physical thing."
No, it is very scientific. The word "rather" may not be very specific, but I'd assumed you understood what I was implying.
I was implying a claim that
Society A where everyone is kind to each other would produce greater happiness and flourishing rather than Society B where everyone was selfish.
Whether something produces greater human happiness can be tested. You could do polls testing happiness, you could even take brain scans and tell if someone's happy (although polling would probably be more cost-effective at the moment). By "flourishing" I mean humans can easily increase in number without having to worry about their children or themselves lacking resources and possibly dying.
>"You can bake a cake for survival, and that's scientific, or you can bake a cake because you would "rather" have a cake than brussels sprouts."
That's not at all what I meant by it. But, yes, you are completely right. Morals are mathematics, there is not a single answer to a moral question. It's a landscape, with many hills and valleys. You and I could both propose completely different moral solutions to a problem that could both produce just as good results. It's not like a math problem where there's a single answer. There's many answers, but some may work better than others. And some obviously work better than others.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 29 Oct 2014 05:01 PM |
"Their are no universal truths in the universe"
"biology is always black and white" |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Oct 2014 05:03 PM |
morals aren't mathematics*
Typo.
>"Eating at McDonald's for health reasons isn't a moral issue."
Well no dip. But it's still the exact same concept. If I say you "ought not to eat babies", there's just as much of an implied "because" as if I were to say "you ought not to eat McDonalds".
If you want to say it's immoral to eat babies, you have to give this "because". And once you can give a "because", then we can use that "because" and apply it to other things.
Such as, you "ought not to eat babies because humans are empathetic towards them. I can feel pain and emotion, and we know babies can too. Plus, we're depriving the baby of the life ahead of it, and I value my life, and because I am empathetic towards the baby, I value its life as well."
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
bobos22
|
  |
| Joined: 07 Aug 2008 |
| Total Posts: 4063 |
|
|
| 29 Oct 2014 05:04 PM |
tlllll drrrrr
dont waste my time |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Oct 2014 05:05 PM |
"How is that scientific?"
It's based off of science. There are scientific experiments used to find out if a being is self-aware. It's a part of neurobiology.
"There are no universal truths. Everything in biology is black and white." - 0Z0NE |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Oct 2014 05:05 PM |
"Whether something produces greater human happiness can be tested. You could do polls testing happiness, you could even take brain scans and tell if someone's happy (although polling would probably be more cost-effective at the moment). By "flourishing" I mean humans can easily increase in number without having to worry about their children or themselves lacking resources and possibly dying." Let's just say the purpose of life is to reproduce and survive. None of those things would help you with that, unless you're trying to control others.
Now here's a few qualities. Respect would fall under your authority. Loyalty would not make any sense. Discipline would be under harm. Honesty would not make any sense. Please give me a reason to be honest or loyal in a scientific way. Once again, being a sociopath and trying to control people would work, but a majority of us are not sociopaths. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Oct 2014 05:06 PM |
"It's based off of science. There are scientific experiments used to find out if a being is self-aware. It's a part of neurobiology." I mean why would only being nice to sentient beings be scientific, not that there are sentient beings... |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Oct 2014 05:09 PM |
| It's not that, Julian. It's just something I refer to before treating someone some way. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Oct 2014 05:26 PM |
>"Let's just say the purpose of life is to reproduce and survive. None of those things would help you with that, unless you're trying to control others."
Well, no, that doesn't work. Go ask what people desire all around the world. Nearly everyone will tell you that simply surviving long to reproduce isn't what they want.
What we want is to not only survive, not only to thrive, but to be happy while doing so. Therefore it only makes sense that we should not just strive to build a society where humans survive, but one where humans exceed this, a society where humans are both happy and capable of achieving their full potential.
It's no coincidence that the Industrial Revolution and the Digital Revolution both occurred mainly in the first major democratic country in the world (the USA). With freedoms, happiness, and prosperity, human flourishing naturally follows. Technology excels at a rate so fast these days because humans are more satisfied than they've ever been. We don't have slaves, people being murdered in the streets, constant dying of diseases and fighting for your life, etc, etc, etc.
>"Now here's a few qualities. Respect would fall under your authority. Loyalty would not make any sense."
Loyalty falls under "ingroup". We seem to have a moral tendency to find it moral to provide for the group you are in, hence being loyal.
But, I mean, there's rational reason to be loyal as well. If I was in love, not being loyal would make my partner leave me, causing me despair. By being loyal, I can assure I would not be left to the best of my abilities.
>"Discipline would be under harm."
No, not all discipline is harm. Discipline has both negative and positive reinforcement (negative means removing something the subject likes as reinforcement, while positive means adding something the subject dislikes as reinforcement). Punishment, which causes harm, would be positive reinforcement. And all scientific studies we have repeatedly tell us that punishment has overall negative impacts on a child, and that negative forms of reinforcement work better. Children disciplined through negative reinforcement are more likely to be successful, have good relationships with their family, and be of a healthy mental state.
So, if you value your child's success, your relationship with your child, and their mental state, then science can tell you quite a lot about how you should raise them.
>"Honesty would not make any sense. Please give me a reason to be honest or loyal in a scientific way."
I already wrote a pretty reasonable reason behind why you should be loyal. And this falls under what I said even farther back. Would you rather a society where everyone is loyal, or where everyone is not? Or, would you rather something in between?
The reason why we feel good when we do things is because we like social acceptance. So, if society views honesty as good, then we would feel good when being honest. However, there's a reason society views honesty as good most of the time. It's not just because of some mystical reason. It's specifically because honest people make for a good society, while constant liars hinder society. Therefore, it is good for society to be honest.
But, not completely honest. I'd argue that there are plenty of times where lying could be better for everyone. But, overall, it's usually better to be honest.
Nothing is absolute in morality, you need to assess all situations in context. For example, if a Nazi officer asked if I knew were some Jews were to kill, and I lied and said I didn't, my decision would be, by what I'm saying, moral, because it minimized harm and maximized human flourishing and happiness, at least compared to the other answer.
>"Once again, being a sociopath and trying to control people would work, but a majority of us are not sociopaths."
Sociopaths shouldn't make legislation, I'd agree, because most people aren't, as you said. This is the reason we have democracy. It gives the people representation so that the majority people can be represented the most, which maximizing human happiness much better than an unrepresentative society does. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Stonixx
|
  |
| Joined: 05 Jun 2010 |
| Total Posts: 2781 |
|
|
| 29 Oct 2014 05:47 PM |
Morality is relative to where you are and what your environment.
Really, a strict code of morality doesn't even exist. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Oct 2014 06:20 PM |
>"Morality is relative to where you are and what your environment."
This is just social norms. Such as, it's "immoral to marry the same gender". Plenty of societies would disagree with this, plenty would agree. That's a social norm.
Sure, you could say that's immoral, but it'd depend on your definition of morality.
If you just consider it an axiom that it's immoral to marry the same gender, then I'd ask you "why"? What is your purpose for contriving this axiom?
I would say that the best axiom to base morality on comes from the Humanist Manifesto III ¶6. This states the axiom that it is valuable to maximize human health, prosperity, and happiness.
You may ask, why this axiom? Why not any other axiom?
Well, simple. Look at logic. We all agree that A=A and A≠¬A. This is called the Law of Identity. It's... true. But why? Well, it's an axiom. Axioms are all tautologies. They're true simply because we accept them to be. All of logic is based on a list of axioms, and you cannot use logic without accepting these axioms.
So, we accept axioms because we want to have a system to understand the universe. We all agree on these axioms of logic.
Science is based on axioms as well. Such as, it's an axiom in science that the universe is consistent. If I drop a ball and it falls to the ground, and I drop it 10 more times and it always falls to the ground, I can predict that it will fall to the ground if I drop it again.
This is an axiom. It's not inherently true. What if you dropped the ball and it floated up? Well, we all agree it won't, because we all accept the axiom that the universe is consistent.
Thus, if logic is based on axioms, if science is based on axioms, why can't we have axioms for morality?
In fact, we already. Like I mentioned before, many religions already have axioms. But my problem with religious axioms is they're arbitrary. Such as, "don't marry the same gender" is essentially an axiom but is rather arbitrary. What is its purpose?
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Stonixx
|
  |
| Joined: 05 Jun 2010 |
| Total Posts: 2781 |
|
|
| 29 Oct 2014 07:45 PM |
Except that morality is a part of human psycology, whereas your example (dropping a ball) is physics, and proven numerous times through methematics.
As I said before, morality is relative, and it is up to the person to decide what is moral or not.
In some societies, killing is considered "moral."
Morality is not an axiom, because there is no hard base to what it really is. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Oct 2014 08:17 PM |
>"Except that morality is a part of human psycology, whereas your example (dropping a ball) is physics, and proven numerous times through methematics."
How is it proven? How do you know the ball will drop if you drop it again?
Tell me. How do you know it?
If you answer: Because it fell when I dropped it previously, then you have proven my point.
Science is based upon the axiom that the universe is consistent. You HAVE to admit to this axiom in order to believe that the ball will fall when dropped again. Physics, and all science in general, really on this self-evidence axiom.
It is assumed. All frameworks, including logic and science, rely on axioms. You cannot build any framework without them.
>"As I said before, morality is relative, and it is up to the person to decide what is moral or not."
That is logically contradictory. If one person says act X is moral, then another says X is not moral, now we have a case where X is both moral and not moral. This is a contradiction. It does not work.
Take legislation, for example. Is it immoral to murder someone? Yes, we all agree, so we've made it illegal. However, if we morals were truly subjective, then it must be based on a subject. Because laws cannot be contradictory, you cannot have it both legal and not legal to murder someone. Therefore, the law must regress to a single subject. And if all laws regress to a single subject, then what you end up with is not subjective morality, but objective morality, where all morals are defined at a single point and hold universally true.
Subjective morality is inherently contradictory and does not work. Saying that it is just as valid for you to say murder is moral for me to say it is not moral is logically inconsistent.
Subjective morality is inherently illogical.
This is why I advocate axiomatic morality. This differs from objective morality, which defines certain actions to be moral or immoral. Axiomatic morality has a bases of self-evident axioms by which all morals can be determined.
Such as, let's think of math. Let's say we have this math problem:
5x-3x=12
Now, if I were to ask you, what is x? There are two systems that can be used to solve it. "Objective morality" in this sense would just state x=5 and leave it at that. It's just 5, by definition. While axiomatic morality gives a framework by which x can be determined. Axiomatic morality in this analogy would provide the framework for figuring out x.
Both are logically non-contradictory. Simply defining x as 5 would make x=5 without any logical contradictions. Axiomatic morality provides a framework for determining x.
Now, again, this is just an analogy. Don't take it literally.
My point is, axiomatic morality lays a framework to determine whether something is moral or immoral while objective morality simply defines it as moral or immoral.
>"In some societies, killing is considered "moral.""
No, it's not, actually. No society do people just say "killing=moral". It's usually more complicated than that. Such as, "it is moral to sacrifice people to the gods", or "it is moral to kill members of a rival tribe".
This is objective morality.
All moral systems can, being isolated, would be true. However, the same can be said for logic. I could create a logical framework based on purely definitions and it would be not be illogical for me to do so, because I'm defining the system.
However, the reason people don't have millions of different logical frameworks is because the one we use is based on self-evidence axioms. Logic is axiomatic rather than objective in the same sense. Science is the same way. It is also based on self-evident axioms.
>"Morality is not an axiom, because there is no hard base to what it really is."
Correct, I never said morality was an axiom. That would make no sense. Please actually read what I type if you want to reply.
Morality isn't an axiom in the same sense that logic and science are not axioms. However, logic and science are based on self-evidence axioms.
So, if logic and science are based on self-evidence axioms, why can morality not be based on self-evident axioms? For example, if I were to poll people around the country if it's moral to eat a baby, I can guarantee you nearly everyone would say "no". If I were to ask them why, most of them would say it just seems self-evident.
Now, again, I'm not saying "eating babies = immoral" should be an axiom. That would be objective and not axiomatic morality. But I do believe there is a basis for this conclusion that "eating babies = immoral" that is self-evident.
And if we can define all of the self-evident axioms of morality, then we can easily build a system science can work with.
The reason we have not defined these yet is because of the perpetuated myth that morality is relative, and therefore undefinable. This isn't a question people work on, so this isn't something we've found the answer to.
But we can find the answer to it.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 29 Oct 2014 08:19 PM |
| The GC community is pathetic and tl;drs everything |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
»
»
|
|
|
|
|