Morality is culturally defined. Sure, religion carries huge weight when defining morality, but ultimately it is culturally defined. This is why issues such as same sex marriage, abortions, and legalization of recreational drugs are so different in different parts of the world.
Continuing that one step further to evolution, morality is selected for in communal settings. There is always an aspect of cheating in a community, where Individual A will help out Individual B on the assumption of later reciprocation that is never returned (B profits at A's expense) but long-term cheaters tend to be negatively impacted in the community. In the long run, the most moral individuals are selected for and the least moral are selected against.
If we posit for a moment that all religions are false (that is, take an atheistic position and assume that there are no gods or divine beings or creators), we can conclude that all religions are invented by humans. That is, if there is no creator giving us moral absolutes, the morals in any religion ultimately originate with some person or group of people. So where did those morals come from? They must have evolved by being selected for under the above theory for a long period of time.
So while no, science cannot define morality (as it is a cultural construct), it can at least describe it and detail its origins.
"Science can tell us that A is more moral than B, but there's nothing actually forcing us to choose A over B, just information."
Sure, but the problem is that science is often complicit in supplying the ammunition for planners to control people's lives. Even if the scientists intend on only supplying information but the outcome of their action results in that forced choice, then they're partly responsible for the outcome.
mrswdk wrote:And morality is not a question of 'well-being', it is a question of 'right' and 'wrong'. People do not necessarily connect 'right' with 'creating well-being' and 'wrong' with 'reducing well-being'.
Some people would say that if you have cheated on your wife then the moral thing to do is not to lie to her but to tell her the truth (thereby causing her anguish and destroying your marriage). I fail to see how that act of 'morality' would create well-being.
Wouldn't the moral thing to do in that situation, would be to not cheat in the first place?
I know it was only an example, but maybe not the best one to pick from.
Moral Behavior is any behavior that ensures the continuation of one's species. Any action that contributes to the species so that the species doesn't go extinct, is moral.
For if a species is extinct it cannot be moral or otherwise because the individuals of that species no longer exist!
There is no point arguing with theologians or philosophers on this because they all have different answers, so it helps to define moral behavior and then go from there.
Continuing the species is an obvious choice because if any individual creature isn't even bothered enough to survive, the best thing it could do is to go crawl off and die so that it doesn't spread it's genes through the population.
Now we can apply this to all kinds of things. Nuclear weapons, the use of them would be considered immoral would they not? At least that's what I hear all the time when people go off about how the US nuked Japan all so long ago. But full scale nuclear war would quite probably lead to the extinction of our race.
Who would argue that such a war could ever be moral?
And if we no longer exist then the whole case of morality is a moot point anyway. Is it not?
On the individual level, if a car is sinking into the river and inside is a child, it is moral for the mother to dive into the waters in an attempt to save her child. Even if the mother fails and the child drowns (along with the mother even), the action itself is still moral.
On the other hand, who would argue that a mother who purposely drowns her children by bailing from her car as she drives it into the river with her child strapped to the back seat?
Morality is summed up simply by "Women and Children first". That is that the women and children in a species are the most important. The human race could lose tomorrow 90% of the male population and we as a species would still be able to battle back from the brink because our females and children survive.
One absolute thing we should all be able to agree about is that if the human race becomes extinct then the human race no longer can be moral, act moral or even ponder about morality because the human race would no longer exist.
Thus, the most moral thing we can do as a species and as individuals is to contribute to the continued existence of our species. There are many ways to do this, on the individual and the societal levels.
Who would argue that an individual spending his/her life in a drug induced stupor would be living a moral life?
Who would argue that the cold blooded murder of a human being by another human being as moral? Not talking about self defense, or accident, but simple cold blooded murder. Few would argue that it was moral.
Science has given us not only the tools and the knowledge needed to assist keeping the species surviving, it's also provided all the tools and knowledge necessary that we actually destroy ourselves as well.
But it's individuals who apply these tools and knowledge. With this in mind, if science can define morality, then why in the world would science have ever developed the very things that will eventually kill every last man, woman and child on the planet?
Science is just the pursuit of knowledge, and that can lead to all sorts of bad roads as well as benefits. The morality of what science accomplishes is not considered until long after. I doubt seriously that science can best determine what is actually moral or not.
So, the Moral Directive of Humanity is to continue perpetuating itself?
How does science* indicate which is the best way?
*Yeah, 'trial-and-error' counts as basic science. The problem is about maximizing human growth and not simply sticking your dick in a vagina.
And even if an extinct species can no longer discuss morality--and there's no other sentient enough creatures in the universe to continue philosophy, then why does the Moral Directive of Humanity follow?
For example:
if the human race becomes extinct then the human race no longer can be scientific, act scientifically or even ponder about science because the human race would no longer exist.
Thus, the most moral thing we can do as a species and as individuals is to contribute to the continued existence of our species.
We can't conduct, behave, or think about a lot of things if we're all dead, so why is "continue breeding" the most moral goal?
mrswdk wrote:And morality is not a question of 'well-being', it is a question of 'right' and 'wrong'. People do not necessarily connect 'right' with 'creating well-being' and 'wrong' with 'reducing well-being'.
Some people would say that if you have cheated on your wife then the moral thing to do is not to lie to her but to tell her the truth (thereby causing her anguish and destroying your marriage). I fail to see how that act of 'morality' would create well-being.
Wouldn't the moral thing to do in that situation, would be to not cheat in the first place?
I know it was only an example, but maybe not the best one to pick from.
Assuming he has already cheated, what is the moral thing to do?
Or, if it makes you feel better, what if you are a friend of theirs who discovers what has happened?
It's just a social code.
The underlying concept of morality is that you value your own life and wish others to respect your life.
The trade-off being that you must return this sentiment.
Ultimately, morality is based off of what is valued.
The extent to which an act is deemed (to some extent arbitrarily) acceptable or unacceptable and what is valued depends on the society.
Renewed yet infused with apathy.
Let's just have a good time, all right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjQii_BboIk
BigBallinStalin wrote:Science should frame morality since theory and empirical evidence play an important role in (1) constraining the expectations of people's moral philosophies and (2) distinguishing imaginary opportunities from actual opportunities.
For example, throughout the late 1800s and especially during the 1960s in the US, beliefs in the success of socialism were very strong because the claims predominantly rested on moral claims and little on scientific claims. Note how much people ignored the Socialist Calculation debate where Mises and Hayek explained in the 1940s how socialism would fall short of its goals. The argument of Mises and Hayek was perhaps not convincing enough because (a) it didn't appeal to people's emotions and (b) it was totally theoretical. Nevertheless, their criticism of socialism is still correct and has been empirically validated enough. The problem is that it's more difficult to explain how this is so--compared to chanting socialist slogans. Also note how the socialist professors have largely dropped from the scientific departments and into the more fuzzy-scientific or science-devoid departments (e.g. sociology and philosophy).
Faith in government is a fun example. Many are often too hasty for attributing too much credit to government for a variety of successes.
A main problem about science constraining morality is that it's difficult to separate the normative from the positive. My first sentence of this post is a normative claim about the role of science on moral philosophy (it's a policy recommendation), and it's a positive claim which states that science is useful for updating people's normative claims.
Does anyone really understand what the heck he's typing? Or is it necessary to use words and phrases that "normative" people don't understand?
BigBallinStalin wrote:Science should frame morality since theory and empirical evidence play an important role in (1) constraining the expectations of people's moral philosophies and (2) distinguishing imaginary opportunities from actual opportunities.
For example, throughout the late 1800s and especially during the 1960s in the US, beliefs in the success of socialism were very strong because the claims predominantly rested on moral claims and little on scientific claims. Note how much people ignored the Socialist Calculation debate where Mises and Hayek explained in the 1940s how socialism would fall short of its goals. The argument of Mises and Hayek was perhaps not convincing enough because (a) it didn't appeal to people's emotions and (b) it was totally theoretical. Nevertheless, their criticism of socialism is still correct and has been empirically validated enough. The problem is that it's more difficult to explain how this is so--compared to chanting socialist slogans. Also note how the socialist professors have largely dropped from the scientific departments and into the more fuzzy-scientific or science-devoid departments (e.g. sociology and philosophy).
Faith in government is a fun example. Many are often too hasty for attributing too much credit to government for a variety of successes.
A main problem about science constraining morality is that it's difficult to separate the normative from the positive. My first sentence of this post is a normative claim about the role of science on moral philosophy (it's a policy recommendation), and it's a positive claim which states that science is useful for updating people's normative claims.
Does anyone really understand what the heck he's typing? Or is it necessary to use words and phrases that "normative" people don't understand?
You can try asking better questions, or you can try convincing yourself to use a dictionary/wikipedia. Good luck.
Brief words reflect particular concepts--e.g. normative. The normative is about value-judgments--e.g. "we shouldn't murder people (because murdering people is bad)."
If I defined every other word I used, I'd have a post that's 3x as long. It's simpler for you to just ask.
patches70 wrote:
Moral Behavior is any behavior that ensures the continuation of one's species. Any action that contributes to the species so that the species doesn't go extinct, is moral.
For if a species is extinct it cannot be moral or otherwise because the individuals of that species no longer exist!
So if I make genetically engineered corn that has all my favorite genes in it, and that corn takes over most of the world, and my genes continue without humans around I still can't morally genocide the whole world?
kuthoer wrote:Science by the way has NOTHING TO DO WITH MORALITY.
Oh, how so?
Since you want me to check out your ridiculous use of words on wiki, why don't you check wiki about SCIENCE.
Later my long winded poster.
scientia means knowledge.
are you implying that morality doesn't exist and therefore you can't know it?
If you think BBS is obtuse, you should read some modern drosophila genetics papers.
Morality is strictly a cultural value that changes from region and time. Science is like you said, knowledge.
WTF, in Iran you can be a 50 year old scumbag, marry and rape a 13 year old girl and it's acceptable, yet here in America you would be jailed and branded for life as a sexual predator for doing the same thing. How does science explain that?
How do you know that morality changes from Iran to the US without science?
You can say that, and we could take a poll or whatever (do a rape experiment?). Either it's true, and science will prove it, or what you said isn't true, and science will debunk you.
DoomYoshi wrote:How do you know that morality changes from Iran to the US without science?
You can say that, and we could take a poll or whatever (do a rape experiment?). Either it's true, and science will prove it, or what you said isn't true, and science will debunk you.
How can we determine the validity of the following sentence:
"WTF, in Iran you can be a 50 year old scumbag, marry and rape a 13 year old girl and it's acceptable, yet here in America you would be jailed and branded for life as a sexual predator for doing the same thing."
Hi, update, I just checked random.org and it says that 76% of Americans support the marriage and rape of 13-year old girls and that only 58% of Iranians support it.
kuthoer wrote:Science by the way has NOTHING TO DO WITH MORALITY.
Oh, how so?
Since you want me to check out your ridiculous use of words on wiki, why don't you check wiki about SCIENCE.
Later my long winded poster.
Ah, so science does not influence morality in any way because by definition science is " is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied (wiki)."
Therefore, creating knowledge through the scientific method has NOTHING TO DO WITH MORALITY.
How do you think people choose which morality they wish to take? Do they randomly pick some moral claims and stick with them? Or are they in any way influenced by the knowledge gleaned from science?
Using science may have moral implications such as inventing the atomic bomb and dropping on a civilian population.
Using science to explain morality is absurd. Morality is a thought process and sort of imaginary limits placed on some of us.
Now let's take Doom and his/her idea of having a rape experiment...he may be breaking some moral/cultural code where he lives. Science can't determine whether it's right or wrong aka moral. Plus the fact that finding test subject to experiment on would be illegal and yes immoral in most places on this planet.
Science is void of morals, only the scientist may have some moral responsibility in using science for right or wrong.
crispybits wrote:Do you agree? Can we get to morality through scientific methods and reasoning alone or should science stay mute on this topic?
The simple answer is "NO" ... scientific methods (observation, the formulation of hypotheses, the testing of hypotheses through observation) cannot "define" morality.
Note that a given moral system can be tested in the long term through scientific method and can be used to grade moral systems within the society at large, but it's not like one can observe morality in the wild.
This is completely different from the argument that one can come up with a moral framework through logic and rational thought. Such a framework is more "art" than "science." (Aristotle, for example considered rhetoric an "art" not a "science" so I'm using the more technical definition for the term "art.") Personally I think it is impossible to create a system of morality without a series of defined axioms, but a lot of systems require that, including mathematics.
