Can there be a science of good and evil?

[tonyrey]

Increasing happiness and reducing suffering are positively immoral if they considered as the sole criteria of morality.

So the state of your body, your subconscious mind, living organisms and the world are not morally significant?

Harris: “Just imagine someone coming forward claiming to have some other source of value that has nothing to do with the actual or potential experience of conscious beings. Whatever this is, it must be something that cannot affect the experience of anything in the universe, in this life or in any other…”

There is confusion here. Harris jumps from experience of “conscious beings” to experience of “anything”. Does “anything” include living organisms apart from human beings?

“If you put this imagined source of value in a box, I think what you would have in that box would be — by definition — the least interesting thing in the universe. It would be — again, by definition — something that cannot be cared about. Any other source of value will have some relationship to the experience of conscious beings.”

It is significant that Harris refers to the source of value as a physical object. Value is related to purpose - which is intangible and originates in the mind.

Science is morally deficient because it cannot justify the principle of equality or determine which is the lesser of two evils in any given situation.

Saying that science is deficient because you think it can’t justify some moral principle is putting the cart before the horse.

Why? Do you think science the basis of morality? The reverse is true: the pursuit of science presupposes moral integrity.

I’m not sure what you mean by the principle of equality, but it may turn out to be false once we learn more about morality.

The principle of equality means that everyone should have the same basic rights. Could that turn out to be false?

Can you give us an specific example of when science can help us decide what we ought to value from a moral point of view?

To be honest, I’m still reading the first chapter, but I’d like to get back to you on this with some clear examples.

I’m looking forward to them.

 

[tonyrey]

I suspect that science will one day determine that a fertilized human ovum has as much consciousness as a single human skin cell. However, Catholic teaching holds that we have a moral duty toward that fertilized human ovum that is independent of any considerations based on consciousness. That moral duty is owed the fertilized human ovum not because of its potential to become a conscious being, nor because of the effect that harming it will have on already existing conscious beings, but because it was made in the image and likeness of God (i.e., it has a soul).

In other words it has intrinsic value regardless of its physical or social circumstances…

 

[Thursdayhat]

and understanding morality–of understanding which values or sets of values lead to the greatest possible fulfillment of all conscious creatures

Since morality is about promoting well-being

You have done nothing to demonstrate that morality is the values or sets of values which lead to the greatest possible fulfillment of all conscious creatures, or for that matter, that science in any way leads us to this conclusion. If I disagree, there is no scientific criterion with which you could challenge my disagreement. Simply stating, “This is what morality is,” and then using science to determine how to fulfill the predefined morality, is not using science to determine morality. It is using science to determine actions which lead to goals, which were previously designated as being moral.

When we ask, “Can there be a science of good and evil,” we presumably mean, “Can we use science to determine what is good and what is evil,” or to provide definitions for those words, not simply to classify an action as good or evil based on a preexisting criterion. If what we mean by the question is actually the latter of these, then of course the answer is yes, but that was already obvious; of course if we have a predefined goal, science can be a tool for determining action towards that end. However, what this does not mean, is that science can determine what good and evil themselves mean; you have apparently already conceded this,
“You are correct that science cannot tell us what the goal of morality ought to be any more than it can tell us what the goal of science ought to be.”
So, I do not understand what we are arguing about. If you already accept that science cannot tell us what the goal of morality should be, then the arguments you have been having in this thread have only been a problem of equivocation, which is to say, there are two things meant by, “Can there be a science of good and evil,” and having already accepted one of the meanings (namely, science can direct us towards predefined moral goals), you seem to be arguing for the other meaning which you have apparently rejected (namely, science can define moral goals). At any rate, at least we are all apparently now in agreement that, no, science can’t define moral goals.

It isn’t that Harris has solved the is-ought problem. It is just that it is not a problem we ever face. We are simply never in the position of being is the possession of a bunch of ises and no oughts and trying to derive our very first ought. On the contrary, we can never have any ises unless we already have some oughts. We can never claim to know a fact without presupposing criteria for what ought to be counted as a fact.

Best,
Leela

To reiterate for the first point, we were apparently faced with the is-ought problem by the original post and thread title, which I think could be fairly reworded as, “Can science tell us what ought to be?” If the title can’t be reworded that way, and actually means, “Can science tell us how to achieve what we have already stated are desirable ends,” then this discussion is a pretty silly one.
For your second point, from an existential standpoint all we have are ises, and no oughts. If the original question is one of philosophy, the ought is precisely what we are trying to determine. As for your last two sentences, they are apparently a problem of equivocation. We have the word, ought, which in the one sense means, “The way things should be,” and then we have ought, “Should be considered in such a way.” The ought being used in the latter sense, is irrelevant to the is-ought problem, and is only linked to it by using the same word, not the same meaning. Or you might say the words are used in an analogous sense, insofar as, there is a somewhat shared meaning, but at any rate they aren’t being used in the same way.
All of this is ultimately irrelevant to the original post, I think.

 

[inocente]

Harris thinks that there are probably moral questions that we will never know the answer to.

And the trolley problem does for his theory. According to his own words most real life moral questions involve tensions and choices where science cannot provide the answers. If your teenage daughter is set on being an actress and you disagree, science cannot predict which choice will have the highest probability of providing for her long term well-being. There are far too many variables, about her personality and aptitude alone, for science to be much use except in some support roles. Science by itself can’t provide a usable objective model.

I think he sees the two as the most common objections to a science of morality. Left wing secular folks (especially intellectuals) too often think that there is no such thing as moral truth. Right wing religious folks tend to think that there is moral truth but only religious texts or other authorities can say what they are.

No, I really think he has fallen into the common American trap of assuming that the USA is the world, when in reality 19 out of 20 people are not Americans. A central dogma of my branch of Christianity (not to be confused with some US versions) is to make up my own mind and not follow authorities. Here in Spain 60% of an overwhelmingly Catholic population approved one of the most liberal pieces of LGBT legislation in the world. The polarizing secular = liberal and religious = conservative is provincial, and in any event political motivations are not a good basis for proposing scientific theories.

In that sense the thesis is directly parallel to ID. It doesn’t really matter if it’s right, wrong or not even wrong, all that matters is to provide a rallying point for the troops.

Harris: "Just imagine someone coming forward claiming to have some other source of value that has nothing to do with the actual or potential experience of conscious beings. Whatever this is, it must be something that cannot affect the experience of anything in the universe, in this life or in any other

This isn’t a scientific claim. Harris is making a value judgment that sounds entirely reasonable but cannot be falsified. For him to even ask the question “Can there be a science of good and evil” assumes there are such things as good and evil, and that they can be objectively quantified in, presumably Harris units. It’s not even wrong, there’s just no where to hang your hat.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

To put this discussion in concrete perspective, how would science be able to decide whether sodomy is moral, immoral, or amoral?

 

[Leela]

Leela

To put this discussion in concrete perspective, how would science be able to decide whether sodomy is moral, immoral, or amoral?

Can you explain what you mean by sodomy? Do you mean anal sex? Anal sex and oral sex? Something else?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sodomy is named after the city of Sodom, famous for sex between members of the same sex, whether anal or oral.

For the sake of limiting the question so that there can be no doubt what we are talking about, how would science go about determining whether anal sex between two men is moral, immoral, or amoral?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Any takers for the previous post?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Sodomy is named after the city of Sodom, famous for sex between members of the same sex, whether anal or oral.

For the sake of limiting the question so that there can be no doubt what we are talking about, how would science go about determining whether anal sex between two men is moral, immoral, or amoral?

The best science could do is study the outcomes of such behavior and then use the result to (falsely) determine whether it ought to be moral, immoral, or amoral.

 

[Leela]

The best science could do is study the outcomes of such behavior and then use the result to (falsely) determine whether it ought to be moral, immoral, or amoral.

What else could possibly matter in the determination of whether or not something is moral besides the potential or real consequences of the act in question? Why would we ever care about something that has no possible consequences for us? How could morality have anything to do with things that never enter into the conscious experiences of beings capable of experiencing happiness and suffering? What is the additional concern that rightly goes by the name “morality” that science can never in principle deal with?

 

[Robert_Sock]

What else could possibly matter in the determination of whether or not something is moral besides the potential or real consequences of the act in question? Why would we ever care about something that has no possible consequences for us? How could morality have anything to do with things that never enter into the conscious experiences of beings capable of experiencing happiness and suffering? What is the additional concern that rightly goes by the name “morality” that science can never in principle deal with?

How about the a-priori moral and values of the Roman Catholic Church? When will people understand that we are living in exile here in this world and that our true home is Heaven? Yes, there truly is a higher-ordered world above us as we sit here debating pseudo issues. All it takes is faith, not “science.”

That’s the most straight-forward response I can offer. I think this response is most worthy of consideration and contemplation.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

In your opening post you say:

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:

Do you agree with Harris that science rather than religion ought to settle moral questions? If so, how would science settle the question I posed?

Is male anal sodomy moral, immoral, or amoral?

 

[Windfish]

Actually, it would be scientifically true that beating our children with rods produces children who are not as intellectually, socially, and physically healthy as those who are treated in other ways. It does not follow that therefore we should not beat our children with rods, unless we have already defined human flourishing as a desirable goal, and therefore defined morality as pursuing this desirable goal. However, there is no reason from science to believe that human flourishing is a desirable goal. What is implicit in your statement is what we are trying to determine-- which is to say, you have assumed there is a moral value of human flourishing, and that therefore science can lead us in matters of morality because it can show us how to attain human flourishing, but what we are asking is whether science can say human flourishing, or anything else for that matter, is a moral and right goal. It cannot. Consider another possible statement, based on yours,

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 right (moral) to beat our children with rods.

What scientific criterion would be used to determine that this is a false conclusion? And no, reference to the fact that the children would be better off does not suffice, because again, what we are ultimately trying to determine is whether human flourishing is desirable.

Harris as a philosopher is a joke. He proposes to solve the centuries old is-ought problem by defining what ought to be and showing how what is can be made to reflect that. Which is to say, he doesn’t solve the is-ought problem at all.

/thread

How do we, though, regard that OT passage on corporal punishment if studies have shown that other methods produce better results?

 

[edwest2]

Studies have shown? You know what studies have shown? That all the so-called experts of the last 40 years were wrong about kids and teachers in school. Now, in 2010, in Detroit, they are talking about giving teachers greater authority over their students.

I watched as expert after expert appeared over the last 40 years: “teachers cannot hit students” (no, I’m not advocating beating them to death, just discipline), followed by teachers cannot do this and they cannot do that. So what happened? Classrooms got out of control. The handful of troublemakers made it harder for their fellow students to learn and the teacher to teach. They could disrespect their teacher and that led to what? More respectful individuals? No way.

Then, in the late 1990s, another “experimentalist” got hold of a school board. He convinced them to give little kids playing little league baseball trophies, the winners and the losers. Apparently, he used some high falutin’ data to convince them. Bad idea. Everyone knows that kids need to fail, make mistakes and learn from those mistakes and failures. That leads to functional adults.

God bless,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

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 agree that physics, chemistry, and biology can be factual science.

But only two people living on earth? The quote which was picked from Sam Harris sounds more like some of the movies around the 50’s-60’s which pictured what two survivors of a worldwide nuclear war would do. I better just listen to what others do with such an imaginative, creative scenario.

 

[grannymh]

The best science could do is study the outcomes of such behavior and then use the result to (falsely) determine whether it ought to be moral, immoral, or amoral.

Practically speaking, deciding moral, immoral, or amoral is based on the universal truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*Practically speaking, deciding moral, immoral, or amoral is based on the universal truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect. *

No doubt, but how does that statement qualify as science? Sounds like philosophy to me.

 

[grannymh]

*Practically speaking, deciding moral, immoral, or amoral is based on the universal truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect. *

No doubt, but how does that statement qualify as science? Sounds like philosophy to me.

My apology. I didn’t realize that this thread was in the “mutually exclusive or” category.

Practically speaking, science, philosophy, music, stamp collecting, all the activities of the human person can lead to the universal truth – The human person is worthy of profound respect. In fact, it is because the human intellect can participate in these and other activities to a degree far beyond the capabilities of animal kingdom members, that human beings rightly deserve profound respect.

 

[inocente]

To put this discussion in concrete perspective, how would science be able to decide whether sodomy is moral, immoral, or amoral?

What is it about Catholics and sex?

The decision would presumably be based on the well-being of society and the individuals concerned. It would need to enumerate all the factors that may have a bearing, give each of them weighting factors and so on. This complicated process would have to be so obviously objective as to obviate the need for any debate.

I’d agree with Harris that we must understand ourselves, that science can help, and that old-time religion can get it badly wrong at times. But if he’s saying that science alone can determine morality, the idea is so outrageously impractical as to seriously undermine his main message.

 

[Leela]

Leela

In your opening post you say:

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:

Do you agree with Harris that science rather than religion ought to settle moral questions? If so, how would science settle the question I posed?

Is male anal sodomy moral, immoral, or amoral?

From a scientific perspective, no act can be intrinsically moral or immoral since there is no inside of an act. For example, is it immoral to slice open a child’s belly with a knife? It depends. It is certainly moral if the person holding the knife is a doctor trying to save the child’s life. Rather than think of morality in terms of intrinsic properties of actions it is necessary to determine the consequences of acts in terms of changes in the consious experiences of being capable of experiencing happiness and suffering.

What we would need to determine to better understand the morality involved in different situations is not what is natural. Cancer is natural, yet we should fight against it. Sticking one’s tongue in another person’s mouth is unnatural, yet it can be a way of expressing affection under some circumstances. Instead, what we will need to learn is to what extent certain behaviors contribute to or reduce well-being.

The Catholic Church of course does not forbid anal sex or oral sex. Presumably it also recognizes that the morality of such activity depends upon the context.