Can there be a science of good and evil?

[inocente]

First we have to admit that there is something to know about morals. Relativists don’t think that there is

No I’d agree there’s lot we can learn about morals and behavior, but not that morals have a timeless objectivity – they are not “out there” to be discovered in some other domain but relate directly to us, how we evolved, our culture and so on.

but if we learn through scientific study that torturing our prisoners hinders rather than fosters rehabilitation of our prisoners–that tortured prisoners are more likely to commit crimes upon release, that they are less likely to be able to hold jobs, die younger, are less physically healthy, more prone to mental illness, etc.–then it would be scientifically true that it is wrong (immoral) to torture prisoners.

And the way prisoners are treated is a good example of where science can help.

 

[Leela]

Mr. Harris is a disciple of utilitarianism. The ends justify the means.

Harris thinks that morality is about our concerns for the well-being of conscious creatures. Some would say that that is a utilitarian position. Do you disagree that morality is about well-being?

In the church of constant change, there will be ongoing conflicts between the members of the ruling class - the experts. Just like today, one group of experts will tell you eating or drinking something is bad for you or might even kill you, followed six months later by another group of experts that will ‘prove’ the exact opposite was true.

This same “church of constant change” also brought us warm dry homes, the internet and cell phones, the cures for various diseases, agricultural techniques that enable us to better feed the world, etc. The fact that science constantly changes (is self-correcting) is a strength rather than a liability.

 

[Leela]

No I’d agree there’s lot we can learn about morals and behavior, but not that morals have a timeless objectivity – they are not “out there” to be discovered in some other domain but relate directly to us, how we evolved, our culture and so on.

I don’t think of morals or anything else as timeless. It is possible that there are moral truths that apply across all times and cultures, but there need not be such truths for there to be other sorts of truths worth knowing. For example, it is generally wrong to lie, but perhaps it is not always wrong to lie. the objective truth of the immorality of lying is not negated by the fact that there can be exceptions. For comparison, consider that it is objectively good chess strategy to avoid losing one’s queen, but sometimes it is nevertheless the best thing and sometimes even the only thing to do.

And the way prisoners are treated is a good example of where science can help.

There is nothing else that even could help us learn how we ought to treat prisoners. Is there?

 

[inocente]

I don’t think of morals or anything else as timeless.

I was thinking more on the lines, for example, of cultures that believe everything is sacred. They would be horrified by strip mining and so on because it harms the Earth. There would be a lot less of us around if we all thought that way, but I’m unwilling to write off their view as less valid than ours. I’m not sure how science can help us distinguish except by providing data, and our decision is then relative. Also, we are still evolving, so what is right today may not be right in future (can’t think of any examples, but it indicates to me that morals are not necessarily absolute).

There is nothing else that even could help us learn how we ought to treat prisoners. Is there?

Agreed, if we mean science informally - probably lessons were learned before carrying out rigorous studies, but rigorous science is a more productive approach.

My current moral imperative is to walk the dogs, so even though I’m tempted to stay I must leave for today.

 

[Anselm33]

Won’t you now? I suppose that if we disregard Thomas Kuhn, Richard Rorty, and all thinkers you don’t like, then all *real *

 

[Anselm33]

Won’t you now? I suppose that if we disregard Thomas Kuhn, Richard Rorty, and all thinkers you don’t like, then all *real * thinkers agree with you?

I’ve just read the Stanford Encyclopedia summary of Richard Rorty’s philosophical work on science. IMHO, it is clear he has no knowledge of how science is done in the real world, and therefore I conclude that this too is hogwash.

 

[Leela]

And what you call “fact” is different from what I call “fact” in a scientific context. A “fact” in a scientific context is a measurement–a dial reading, a location, whatever" that can be quantified and has a number attached to it. ** Only that which can be quantified is TRULY a matter for scientific investigation**… The examples you bring up are subjectively evaluated, even were they to be quantified (as in a survey) they would not belong in the domain of science. They involve judgment values (as do the scores in an Olympic figure-skating contest) and therefore lie outside the domain of science. The examples you’re bringing up are in the domain of social studies (I don’t couple social with science, it’s too oxymoronic); there may be “truth” values associated with them, but they’re not science.

Certainly we agree that it is a matter of science–a scientific fact–that a sperm fertilizes an egg in human conception, that molecules are composed of atoms, that light may be best understood as a particle in some instances and as a wave in others, that it is useful to categorize animals in terms of shared genetics, that arsenic is unsafe for human consumption, that some nonhuman animals also use tools, etc. I could list scientific facts all day that have nothing to do with numbers and dials.

There’s a load of a difference …we can make measurements that tell us the earth’s diameter and that it’s an oblate spheroid. /'quote]

Obviously measurement can’t do that by itself. There is no single measurement or collection of measurements that could alone tell you you have a sphere without some theory about how the measurements ought to be to qualify as a sphere.
Anselm33;7136965:

Where is your “good” or evil" meter that will give consistent numerical, i.e. quantitative, measures of what is good or evil?/'quote]

The difficulty of doing the measuring has nothing to do with whether or not there is something worth measuring.
Anselm33;7136965:

That may be your definition of science, but it isn’t mine or that of those philosophers of science whose opinion I respect (even though I may disagree with them): van Fraassen, Salmon, Jaki, Koons. And it isn’t a definition that most practicing scientists would subscribe to, I warrant.

You might benefit from reading the “Limits of a Limitless Science” by Fr. Stanley Jaki, who did his Ph.D thesis in cosmic ray physics, is noted philosopher and historian of science (he received the Templeton Prize and visiting fellowships at Yale, Oxford…etc.)

Perhaps you can tell me how you define science.

 

[Leela]

I was thinking more on the lines, for example, of cultures that believe everything is sacred. They would be horrified by strip mining and so on because it harms the Earth. There would be a lot less of us around if we all thought that way, but I’m unwilling to write off their view as less valid than ours. I’m not sure how science can help us distinguish except by providing data, and our decision is then relative. Also, we are still evolving, so what is right today may not be right in future (can’t think of any examples, but it indicates to me that morals are not necessarily absolute).

Morality is concerned with the well-being of conscious creatures capable of experiencing happiness and sufferring. Strip mining may be immoral, but if it is, it is immoral because of its indirect effects on conscious creatures rather than its direct effect on rocks and dirt

This is assuming of course that the earth is incapable of sufferring. But if that is in doubt, the answer to that question too will depend on scientific study rather than on the ancient traditions of the hypothetical culture in question. We just aren’t going to find out what is true about the world from anything other than studying the world. And there won’t be Muslim truth and Christian truth and Jewish truth about whether or not the earth is conscious or whether eating pork is immoral. There will just be the truth.

 

[edwest2]

Morality is concerned with the well-being of conscious creatures capable of experiencing happiness and sufferring. Strip mining may be immoral, but if it is, it is immoral because of its indirect effects on conscious creatures rather than its direct effect on rocks and dirt

This is assuming of course that the earth is incapable of sufferring. But if that is in doubt, the answer to that question too will depend on scientific study rather than on the ancient traditions of the hypothetical culture in question. We just aren’t going to find out what is true about the world from anything other than studying the world. And there won’t be Muslim truth and Christian truth and Jewish truth about whether or not the earth is conscious or whether eating pork is immoral. There will just be the truth.

The truth has a nasty habit of being manipulated by human beings for their personal gain. I add the following warning to all: The Technocrats will be interested in power and that power may mean their friends and associates will be able to have and you will not. They, not you, can and will decide what is true and what is not, if it gives them some advantage, especially financially.

hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674047143

God bless,
Ed

 

[Anselm33]

Certainly we agree that it is a matter of science–a scientific fact–that a sperm fertilizes an egg in human conception, that molecules are composed of atoms, that light may be best understood as a particle in some instances and as a wave in others, that it is useful to categorize animals in terms of shared genetics, that arsenic is unsafe for human consumption, that some nonhuman animals also use tools, etc. I could list scientific facts all day that have nothing to do with numbers and dials

You’re confusing “difficulty” with impossibility. Science does not deal with non-quantifiable qualities such as good, evil, beautiful, ugly, etc… Read Fr. Jaki’s book.

Perhaps you can tell me how you define science.

Here’s a short definition from “Limits of a Limitless Science” by Fr. Jaki:

“…that for a proposition or reasoning to qualify as science it must be subject to being tested in the laboratory, or, in general, by scientific instruments.”

and

“the gathering of data and measurements in those fields (psychology, history, sociology, economics) never achieved a predictive accuracy which is on hand in physics, astronomy and chemistry.”

I have expounded on this at greater length in the facebook site for Magis Center for Reason and Faith, in a discussion topic, “the limits of science”"
facebook.com/topic.php?uid=119295591426601&topic=273

 

[The_Exodus]

I read the original quote and ask, is he… serious?

Such a passage betrays any real intellectual depth or subtlety, any knowledge of philsophy, any serious thinking on ethics and morals.

As with all the other “new atheist” literature, what a complete waste of time to read.

 

[inocente]

This is assuming of course that the earth is incapable of sufferring. But if that is in doubt, the answer to that question too will depend on scientific study rather than on the ancient traditions of the hypothetical culture in question.

The culture I was thinking of is the Hopi, who are still around but were greatly affected by the colonization of America. They would even apologize to the spirit of any animal they need to kill for food. Everyone and everything is sacred, and scientifically this belief makes sense as it stops them from plundering the planet, keeps them in tune with their habitat, and so helps them survive.

And there won’t be Muslim truth and Christian truth and Jewish truth about whether or not the earth is conscious or whether eating pork is immoral. There will just be the truth.

Given the mess we’re making of the planet, we can’t say that the Hopi are wrong and we are right. We all here have a worldview inherited from the Abrahamic religions, that we have dominion over the Earth. The Hopi belief may sound strange to us but it encapsulates the twin truths that we’re just another species and must care for our habitat.

We’ve begun to arrive at those truths scientifically but our version isn’t plain and simple, it requires analysis and management, and so far new technologies have outstripped our will and capability to reverse or even to limit the damage we’re doing.

So yes, some systems of belief contain outmoded moral imperatives, but that doesn’t of itself invalidate the systems. On evidence we have no more right to insist we know what we’re doing than the Hopi.

Science can help us overcome some of our limitations but it doesn’t make us gods, we can only see the world through human eyes. An idyllic single world culture based on faith in science sounds very enlightened but might get dangerously close to Brave New World or 1984, and would ironically harm our survival capability by removing diversity. Jiminy Cricket, more relativism.

 

[Dameedna]

Scott Peck put forth an interesting view in his book “People of the Lie, Healing human evil” about how the nature of Evil within humanity can and should be studied scientifically.

He was a psychiatrist, so this was obviously the area of study he was thinking about.

And to a degree, I do think it is worth scientific investigation, even if the conclusions drawn should not perhaps be used to draw some kind of cut and dry method of dealing with humanity.

Some of the the examples he gave in his book, were dealing with severely narcissistic humans, who were according to religious philosophy those that had sided with the devil. These were not normal narcissistic tendancies, but ones that were deliberate. A specific choice being made. And Peck didn’t differentiate, between spiritual health and mental health.

No-one’s taken him up on his offer(and he has now passed away) but his ideas were interesting to say the least.

 

[Leela]

Too many people with their heads in the sand.

amazon.com/Plutonium-Files-Americas-Medical-Experiments/dp/0385319541

amazon.com/Undue-Risk-Secret-Experiments-Humans/dp/0415928354

I suggest people look up the Atomic Veterans. These are soldiers who were ordered in the 1950s to march into areas shortly after the detonation of a nuclear weapon. Unknowingly, they were followed their entire lives to determine long-term effects. Obviously, some scientists somewhere decided they simply needed the data. Almost needless to say, these men were not fully informed of the risks at the time.

I wonder why you think any of this has anything to do with the question of whether morality ought to be studied scientifically in terms of what values contribute to human well-being. Obviously scientists have done immoral things just as priests have. Bringing this up in this thread would be like me bringing up the tens of thousands of victims of sexual abuse at the hands of Catholic priests here. It has nothing to do with whether science can study morality.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

that’s gobbledy gook. The science in quantum mechanics comes from measurements, not from interpretations.

How could a measurement be of any worth without interpretation?

The science in the phylogenetic tree comes from a quantitative comparison of similar residues in DNA, or of amino acid sequences… instead of spouting pop science, please inform yourself of what science is all about. And for lethal doses of arsenic, the level is important. Sodium chloride is a poison in excess amounts.

Though you can also provide scientific facts that involve numbers all day long, that is not a rebuttal to my claim that I can provide non-numerical scientific facts all day long.

of course…I say theory and measurements are interrelated, but it is the confirmation by measurement that establishes the validity of a theory.

Part of that process of validating a theory is of course a theory about what sorts of measurements ought to be valued as confirmation and what ought to count as inconsistent.

Here’s a short definition from “Limits of a Limitless Science” by Fr. Jaki:"…that for a proposition or reasoning to qualify as science it must be subject to being tested in the laboratory, or, in general, by scientific instruments."

That is probably the least enlightening definition of science I have ever heard. Beyong making revererence to testing, it basically says that science is that which uses the tools of science.

Rorty said something like this: science is our project of trying to get consensus on a coherent account of how the world works that best enables us to predict and control things. I think Sam Harris may want to add that it can also contribute to our knowledge of the good life and how to achieve it. It can tell us what we ought to value.

I have expounded on this at greater length in the facebook site for Magis Center for Reason and Faith, in a discussion topic, “the limits of science”"
facebook.com/topic.php?uid=119295591426601&topic=273

I’m blocked from facebook on this computer, but I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on why science is limited in its ability to study human values.

 

[Tenofovir]

Prov 23:13: “Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.”

I don’t think even the most subtle interpretation can get you out of this one.

The emphasis of this passage is on the “correction” and a method of correction is provided. One could argue about this method in an overtly politically correct world but there are other forms of punishment one could also employ (such as withholding of PlayStation gaming time or dessert).

The language is archaic but basically means that parents need to raise their children and not leave them to pick up bad habits and consequently one day commit nasty sins (crimes) or become maladjusted individuals. I think we can prove this easily, there is much evidence which shows that children from loving and caring homes do better than children raised by uninterested or absent parents or parents who indulge their children’s every whim and do not educate them. Secondly the message is clear too that a little temporal pain or other form of punishment is better than an eternity in hell - but since you are a non-believer this last bit will be lost on you.

It is moral to take active interest in your children. It is immoral to let your children raise themselves for they will suffer (damnation or temporal/earthly problems).

 

[Leela]

The emphasis of this passage is on the “correction” and a method of correction is provided. One could argue about this method in an overtly politically correct world but there are other forms of punishment one could also employ (such as withholding of PlayStation gaming time or dessert).

The language is archaic but basically means that parents need to raise their children and not leave them to pick up bad habits and consequently one day commit nasty sins (crimes) or become maladjusted individuals. I think we can prove this easily, there is much evidence which shows that children from loving and caring homes do better than children raised by uninterested or absent parents or parents who indulge their children’s every whim and do not educate them. Secondly the message is clear too that a little temporal pain or other form of punishment is better than an eternity in hell - but since you are a non-believer this last bit will be lost on you.

It is moral to take active interest in your children. It is immoral to let your children raise themselves for they will suffer (damnation or temporal/earthly problems).

I think your interpretation is quite a stretch. Plus, wouldn’t you think that a work guided by a devine hand could have made it much more clear if your interpretation is the correct one?

Anyway, this is all off topic. Can we get back to the question of whether science can study human values?

 

[edwest2]

I wonder why you think any of this has anything to do with the question of whether morality ought to be studied scientifically in terms of what values contribute to human well-being. Obviously scientists have done immoral things just as priests have. Bringing this up in this thread would be like me bringing up the tens of thousands of victims of sexual abuse at the hands of Catholic priests here. It has nothing to do with whether science can study morality.

Best,
Leela

Your view of science and scientists is utopian: science can heal, amuse and illuminate. Scientists can also experiment on their fellow human beings as if they were lab rats. You fail to see that any science of good and evil needs to study the behavior of scientists themselves. You seem to view science as the ultimate tool for the ultimate control of everything. It is certainly moving in that direction. However, as I wrote elsewhere, scientists, and the elite who finance them, will remain whole human beings, complete with flaws. That will not stop them from excluding some from their grand vision or from lying for some greater good or from manipulating people in some purely ‘scientific’ experiment.

Science cannot study morality, especially as it is defined here. All it can do is study utility. Or, what is the function of this? That’s it. Without a stable guide to what is and what is not immoral, which you state does not exist, science is not competent to write about something that it can’t establish with any degree of certainty.

God bless,
Ed

 

[streetpreacher]

You recite this as dogma, but if we learn through scientific study that torturing our prisoners hinders rather than fosters rehabilitation of our prisoners–that tortured prisoners are more likely to commit crimes upon release, that they are less likely to be able to hold jobs, die younger, are less physically healthy, more prone to mental illness, etc.–then it would be scientifically true that it is wrong (immoral) to torture prisoners.

We will learn what is best with reard to rehabilitation prisoners through science rather than religion.

You are using a poor example to use here, and the morality behind it is twisted. You are forced to face the moral question in regards to the use of torture. If the end results are favorable, or not, it doesn’t matter as much as if one puts the human equasion out of the picture “as science absolutely must”, and leaving the decision to a moral authority, or a scientific one. If your example was true, it would be using science again as a tool to point out the facts, which in turn still require a moral decision to be made regardless. Looking at the bigger picture in your case, who is to say that torture of those prisoners is not used as a deterrent for those contemplating committing a crime? Science would then have to be used to analyze the populas, taking note to the increase or decrease of crimes being committed due to torture being implemented as part of their punishment out of fear of the perpetrators concerned about the greater punishment they would face if caught. From there, if the numbers were favorable, and left entirely up to science, and science alone, it would be condoned.

You can take this further, we have food shortages, leaving the moral equation out of the solution, one has to either increase the food supply or decrease the population, and again, left up to the moral solution, knowing full well our logistical infrastructure is doing the best it can at present, population control would be the logical choice. Again in this case, we have a moral authority that dictates population control is not an option in spite of the fact, scientifically would be beneficial to the whole of society when it comes to food supplies.

 

[Leela]

Your view of science and scientists is utopian: science can heal, amuse and illuminate. Scientists can also experiment on their fellow human beings as if they were lab rats.

True. And priests can gang rape orphans. Your point?

You fail to see that any science of good and evil needs to study the behavior of scientists themselves.

I don’t fail to see that. Of course science needs to study scientists, just as priests need confessors. The key difference is that scientists make their names by pointing out the errors of other scientists rather than trying to cover them up.

QUOTE=edwest2;7140413
You seem to view science as the ultimate tool for the ultimate control of everything. It is certainly moving in that direction. However, as I wrote elsewhere, scientists, and the elite who finance them, will remain whole human beings, complete with flaws. That will not stop them from excluding some from their grand vision or from lying for some greater good or from manipulating people in some purely ‘scientific’ experiment.

Science cannot study morality, especially as it is defined here. All it can do is study utility. Or, what is the function of this? That’s it. Without a stable guide to what is and what is not immoral, which you state does not exist, science is not competent to write about something that it can’t establish with any degree of certainty.

I don’t state that we don’t have knowledge of what is right and wrong. I’m just pointing out that we learn about right and wrong in the ways we learn about everything else that we really know–through human experience. We know simple moral truths like it is better for us to cooperate than to try to kill one another. This is an objective truth. It is possible to cite scientific evidence that societies where the norm is “kill one another” do not produce happy and healthy people as compared to societies that value cooperation. Science therefore tells us that we ought to value cooperation over killing one another.

Harris’s call for a science of morality is not a call for authoritarian control of scientists over the rest of society. It is a call for us to admit that we actually do have moral knowledge–that morals are not mere cultural preferences.