Can there be a science of good and evil?

[Leela]

Hi all,

Sam Harris’s book The Moral Landscape has just been released. He argues that science rather than religion ought to guide us in our moral thinking:

"Imagine that there are only two people living on earth: We can call them “Adam” and “Eve.” Clearly, we can ask how these two people might maximize their well-being. Are there wrong answers to this question? Of course. (Wrong answer #1: They could smash each other in the face with a large rock.) And while there are ways for their personal interests to be in conflict, it seems uncontroversial to say that a man and woman alone on this planet would be better off if they recognized their common interests – like getting food, building shelter and defending themselves against larger predators. If Adam and Eve were industrious enough, they might realize the benefits of creating technology, art, medicine, exploring the world and begetting future generations of humanity. Are there good and bad paths to take across this landscape of possibilities? Of course. In fact, there are, by definition, paths that lead to the worst misery and to the greatest fulfillment possible for these two people – given the structure of their brains, the immediate facts of their environment, and the laws of Nature. The underlying facts here are the facts of physics, chemistry, and biology as they bear on the experience of the only two people in existence.

As I argue in my new book, even if there are a thousand different ways for these two people to thrive, there will be many ways for them not to thrive – and the differences between luxuriating on a peak of human happiness and languishing in a valley of internecine horror will translate into facts that can be scientifically understood. Why would the difference between right and wrong answers suddenly disappear once we add 6.7 billion more people to this experiment?"

huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/can-there-be-a-science-of_b_748627.html

What do you think?

Best,
Leela

 

[Anselm33]

Hi all,

Sam Harris’s book The Moral Landscape has just been released. He argues that science rather than religion ought to guide us in our moral thinking:

"Imagine that there are only two people living on earth: We can call them “Adam” and “Eve.” Clearly, we can ask how these two people might maximize their well-being. Are there wrong answers to this question? Of course. (Wrong answer #1: They could smash each other in the face with a large rock.) And while there are ways for their personal interests to be in conflict, it seems uncontroversial to say that a man and woman alone on this planet would be better off if they recognized their common interests – like getting food, building shelter and defending themselves against larger predators. If Adam and Eve were industrious enough, they might realize the benefits of creating technology, art, medicine, exploring the world and begetting future generations of humanity. Are there good and bad paths to take across this landscape of possibilities? Of course. In fact, there are, by definition, paths that lead to the worst misery and to the greatest fulfillment possible for these two people – given the structure of their brains, the immediate facts of their environment, and the laws of Nature. The underlying facts here are the facts of physics, chemistry, and biology as they bear on the experience of the only two people in existence.

As I argue in my new book, even if there are a thousand different ways for these two people to thrive, there will be many ways for them not to thrive – and the differences between luxuriating on a peak of human happiness and languishing in a valley of internecine horror will translate into facts that can be scientifically understood. Why would the difference between right and wrong answers suddenly disappear once we add 6.7 billion more people to this experiment?"

huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/can-there-be-a-science-of_b_748627.html

What do you think?

Best,
Leela

I think it’s hogwash. Speaking as a scientist (57 years practicing physicist, papers,etc.) science has no values except whether theories are confirmed by measurements. If you insert values into science, then your choice of values dictates what you do as science, e.g. Lysenkoism in Stalinist Russia, using identical twins for cold/pain/deprivation tests i Nazi death camps. The only ethics intrinsic to science is how science should be conducted, and lately that’s been violated in the extreme (see the Climategate letters and computer files–Harryreadme.txt) There should be ethical safeguards on what science is allowed to do–e.g. to prohibit experiments on humans, born or unborn–but that’s a unidirectional interaction: ethics–> science, not the reverse.
It would be nice to see people who have some knowledge of how science is practiced (and I don’t mean social scientists–that’s an oxymoron) opine on this. Sam Harris I regard as having no intellectual authority on this topic. And are you speaking from a background as a practicing scientist? (i.e. non “social scientist”)?
anselm.

 

[Leela]

I think it’s hogwash. Speaking as a scientist (57 years practicing physicist, papers,etc.) science has no values except whether theories are confirmed by measurements. If you insert values into science, then your choice of values dictates what you do as science, e.g. Lysenkoism in Stalinist Russia, using identical twins for cold/pain/deprivation tests i Nazi death camps.

It is a common misconception that facts are forever divorced from values. Nothing could ever be regarded as fact without presupposing certain values.

The only ethics intrinsic to science is how science should be conducted, and lately that’s been violated in the extreme (see the Climategate letters and computer files–Harryreadme.txt) There should be ethical safeguards on what science is allowed to do–e.g. to prohibit experiments on humans, born or unborn–but that’s a unidirectional interaction: ethics–> science, not the reverse.

This ethical arrow can run the other way as well. For example, if scientific studies were done and indicated that beating our children with rods (as required by the Bible) tends to
produce children who are not as intellectually, socially, and physically healthy as those who are treated in other ways, it would be scientifically true that it is wrong (immoral) to beat our children with rods. It would mean that the Bible got the morality of beating children wrong just as it got many other scientific facts wrong.

It would be nice to see people who have some knowledge of how science is practiced (and I don’t mean social scientists–that’s an oxymoron) opine on this. Sam Harris I regard as having no intellectual authority on this topic. And are you speaking from a background as a practicing scientist? (i.e. non “social scientist”)?
anselm.

Sam Harris is a practicing scientist. He has a phD from Stanford in neuroscience. I am not a scientist, but being a scientist does not make one an expert on the philosophy of science concerning such issues as you raised here.

Best,
Leela

 

[D84]

It looks like you are ignoring that, as the group grows, personal and communitary well-being become disjoined.

 

[Anselm33]

I

t is a common misconception that facts are forever divorced from values. Nothing could ever be regarded as fact without presupposing certain values

 

[Moonstruck888]

that statement is not supported by any sort of philosophy or philosophy of science.

As a scientist of 57 years, you’ll know that the philosophy of science is as much use to a scientist as a physics degree is to a billiards player.

 

[Moonstruck888]

… and where in the Bible does it say that we should beat our children?

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.

 

[Anselm33]

As a scientist of 57 years, you’ll know that the philosophy of science is as much use to a scientist as a physics degree is to a billiards player.

Oh, I think someone with a physics degree might be able, from conservation of momentum requirements and all that other good stuff to be a reasonably good player (or to design a robot that could play). But of course, there would be “natural” players who could do all this from instinct.
And you’re correct in that I didn’t need a philosophy of science to do work in quantum mechanics, but it has helped me to appreciate, in retirement, why what I did was useful and correct. And it has helped me to reconcile that what I know of science is altogether consistent with and does not conflict with my religious faith. So that’s a bonus.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Oh, I think someone with a physics degree might be able, from conservation of momentum requirements and all that other good stuff to be a reasonably good player (or to design a robot that could play). But of course, there would be “natural” players who could do all this from instinct.
And you’re correct in that I didn’t need a philosophy of science to do work in quantum mechanics, but it has helped me to appreciate, in retirement, why what I did was useful and correct. And it has helped me to reconcile that what I know of science is altogether consistent with and does not conflict with my religious faith. So that’s a bonus.

Well, I’m glad you got something out of it.

 

[Just_Lurking]

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.”

So the appropriate scientific experiment would be to study the comparative salvation percentages of children beaten with a rod versus those children not beaten.

Perhaps canonized saints would be a sufficient sample in terms of size and selection?

 

[Anselm33]

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.

thanks for the attribution.
you can cherry-pick, and cherry-pick. And I can cite quotations from Paul’s epistles about the subjugation of women. so what? If you do a literalist interpretation of the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, you can get all sorts of nonsensical stuff, But that does not deny the authority of the Bible, particularly the New Testament as a guide to how to live.
As Ghandi said (more or less paraphrased), the only trouble with Christianity is that nobody has practiced it.
And all your quotes and objections still do not negate the assertion that science does not yield a moral code.
which was the point of my post.

 

[inocente]

What do you think?

I’d say it’s perfectly possible for science to provide predictive data and criteria, for example to help set fishing limits or identify the difference between psychopathic and “merely” criminal behavior. It can also help to explain widespread moral behavior (any society that thought murder was good has died out, hence those of us that remain say murder is bad, etc.).

But exactly when is it morally OK for a soldier to kill an enemy, is it ever OK to torture someone in the hope of gaining information that may save others, is it better to have a small number of healthy people on a healthy planet, or a higher number of slightly unhealthy people on an unhealthy planet?

I can’t see how the scientific method can be used to get the answers. It can provide frameworks, in the same way as religions or philosophies, but we have to work these things out for ourselves by consensus. Oops, unabashed moral relativism crept in there.

 

[Leela]

that statement is not supported by any sort of philosophy or philosophy of science (and I won’t include Derrida, or Fyerabend type philosophies as legitimate.)

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?

Any claim of a fact includes the value-laden notion that this particular piece of information is worth paying attention to. It presupposes values for what ought to count as standards of evidence and being justified in claiming something as fact. There are no facts divorced from such values as those used to determine what ought to count as a fact. In short, though Hume is correct to say that it is impossible to derive one’s very fist ought from any collection of ises alone, we are never in that position. There are no ises without oughts usedto tell us what ought to count as an is.

where is the science in your statement? Science is theory to predict observations confirmed by experiments.

It is either true or false that the beating our children is good. The is no difference between what we mean by true when we say it is true that the earth is roundish and it is true that slavery is evil. There are truths to be learned, facts about human well-being–about what leads to misery and what leads to happiness. These are moral truths.

I’m talking about the hard sciences…physics and those areas of other disciplines that involve theory and quantitative verification of theories by measurement. And in order to talk about what science can do, you should, in my opinion, have some knowledge of how science operates in the real world. That is to say have been involved in real science.

I’m talking about science as abody of knowledge, as the collection of everything we have good reason to believe. If there are truths to be known about what is right and wrong, then we should try to learn them. We can be as certain that it is wrong to beat your children as we can be about any other scientific fact.

 

[streetpreacher]

Science has nothing to do with morality or philosophy, the two simply have nothing to do with each other. Science is a tool, it’s how man uses this tool that results in the moral clause and basis. It has no bearing upon anything, good or bad, it’s how it’s applied that matters.

 

[Leela]

I’d say it’s perfectly possible for science to provide predictive data and criteria, for example to help set fishing limits or identify the difference between psychopathic and “merely” criminal behavior. It can also help to explain widespread moral behavior (any society that thought murder was good has died out, hence those of us that remain say murder is bad, etc.).

But exactly when is it morally OK for a soldier to kill an enemy, is it ever OK to torture someone in the hope of gaining information that may save others, is it better to have a small number of healthy people on a healthy planet, or a higher number of slightly unhealthy people on an unhealthy planet?

I can’t see how the scientific method can be used to get the answers. It can provide frameworks, in the same way as religions or philosophies, but we have to work these things out for ourselves by consensus. Oops, unabashed moral relativism crept in there.

The fact that questions such as these are very difficult and we have no answer for them now does not mean that they have no answers or that we cannot in principle ever find the answers. It is likewise impossible for us to know now and probably ever know how many people in the world were bitten by mosquitos in the last minute, but we all admit that there is an answer. We also know right now that there are some answers that are definietly wrong. Your moral relativism comes in when we look at an analogous moral situation and say that there just is no answer just because we have no way of knowing the answer right now and perhaps ever. Even in your moral condundrums above, we do know that there are some really really bad responses to such questions.

By the way, I’m not talking about science as any special method for knowing. I just talking about having good reasons for our beliefs about questions for which there are answers at least in principle. First we have to admit that there is something to know about morals. Relativists don’t think that there is, but there is a fact of the matter as to whether the cultural practice of female genital circumcision contributes to human well-being or not. There does not have to be one right answer to every moral question, but there are certainly better and worse ways to live.

 

[Leela]

Science has nothing to do with morality or philosophy, the two simply have nothing to do with each other. Science is a tool, it’s how man uses this tool that results in the moral clause and basis. It has no bearing upon anything, good or bad, it’s how it’s applied that matters.

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.

 

[inocente]

For example, if scientific studies were done and indicated that beating our children with rods (as required by the Bible) tends to produce children who are not as intellectually, socially, and physically healthy as those who are treated in other ways, it would be scientifically true that it is wrong (immoral) to beat our children with rods. It would mean that the Bible got the morality of beating children wrong just as it got many other scientific facts wrong.

We may all be overlooking the fact that ethical protocols don’t allow us to regularly beat one group of kids then monitor their development compared with a control group.

The is no difference between what we mean by true when we say it is true that the earth is roundish and it is true that slavery is evil. There are truths to be learned, facts about human well-being–about what leads to misery and what leads to happiness. These are moral truths.

To keep to my relativistic theme, people two hundred years from now might see the killing of animals for food as evil, and count us as barbaric.

 

[edwest2]

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.

This is the same greater good argument that is driving embryonic stem cell research.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Hi all,

Sam Harris’s book The Moral Landscape has just been released. He argues that science rather than religion ought to guide us in our moral thinking:

"Imagine that there are only two people living on earth: We can call them “Adam” and “Eve.” Clearly, we can ask how these two people might maximize their well-being. Are there wrong answers to this question? Of course. (Wrong answer #1: They could smash each other in the face with a large rock.) And while there are ways for their personal interests to be in conflict, it seems uncontroversial to say that a man and woman alone on this planet would be better off if they recognized their common interests – like getting food, building shelter and defending themselves against larger predators. If Adam and Eve were industrious enough, they might realize the benefits of creating technology, art, medicine, exploring the world and begetting future generations of humanity. Are there good and bad paths to take across this landscape of possibilities? Of course. In fact, there are, by definition, paths that lead to the worst misery and to the greatest fulfillment possible for these two people – given the structure of their brains, the immediate facts of their environment, and the laws of Nature. The underlying facts here are the facts of physics, chemistry, and biology as they bear on the experience of the only two people in existence.

As I argue in my new book, even if there are a thousand different ways for these two people to thrive, there will be many ways for them not to thrive – and the differences between luxuriating on a peak of human happiness and languishing in a valley of internecine horror will translate into facts that can be scientifically understood. Why would the difference between right and wrong answers suddenly disappear once we add 6.7 billion more people to this experiment?"

huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/can-there-be-a-science-of_b_748627.html

What do you think?

Best,
Leela

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

If all Adam and Eve had to go on were experts, they’d both be lying dead at the bottom of a cliff because some expert had these ideas and they didn’t have a chance to hear other experts debunk those ideas six months later.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Leela]

We may all be overlooking the fact that ethical protocols don’t allow us to regularly beat one group of kids then monitor their development compared with a control group.

Nevertheless, we can agree that the morality of beating our children can in principlebe known. Even if we can’t do such an experiment in practice, we can still agree (I hope) that there is a scientific truth to be known here and that science indeed can tell us about morals.

To keep to my relativistic theme, people two hundred years from now might see the killing of animals for food as evil, and count us as barbaric.

We are not relativists so long as we agree now that such future people will either be right or wrong. It will be scientifically true that eating animals is immoral or moral or perhaps moral under some circumstances but not others.

The answer to the question will depend on the happiness and sufferring of creatures capable of experiencing happiness and sufferring. If morality is about human well-being, and unless well-being is just random, then there are good and bad, wrong and right answers to moral questions.

We may never settle on a final understanding of what well-being is. Just as physical health is an evolving concept, we will continue to better understand human well-being as we learn more about how to foster it. There is more than one way to be healthy. Just as there is no one perfect food, we still know that some foods are nourishing and some are things are poisin.