Can there be a science of good and evil?

[Leela]

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 don’t know anything about whatever you are referring to here, but of course it is a given that scientists can be wrong. But science is merely our collective endeavor to value reliable chains of evidence that are most likely to lead to correct conclusions. What else could we possibly rely on besides rationality in deciding moral questions?

 

[Leela]

Originally Posted by Leela
“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.

Are you suggesting that the moral values taught by the Church are not those thought by the Church to be the most conducive to the greatest possible well-being for conscious creatures capable of experiencing happiness and suffering? I should think that we ought to agree on the goal of morality as human well-being. The question is instead who is right about how to achieve it? How can we know who is right? Unless human well-being is entirely random, we can study the conditions under which well-being is best achieved. We can determine whether it really is good for human beings to force their women to wear burqas or have their boys participate in dangerous rituals or sacrifice people and animals to gods, or withhold medical treatment in favor of prayer, etc.

 

[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.

The “two people” is just a thought experiment. The point is that even when there are many many more people, though the situation becomes much more complicated, the fact remains that there are ways for people to thrive and ways for them not to thrive and those ways will depend on facts about the world and facts about people–facts that can in principle be studied scientifically. So it is absurd to say that science can never even in principle have anything to say about morality (which is what a lot of people tend to think).

 

[grannymh]

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.

Pardon me. The above comment appears a tad strange. Could this be because relatively speaking, there is no such thing no how as definite moral standards?

 

[inocente]

So it is absurd to say that science can never even in principle have anything to say about morality (which is what a lot of people tend to think).

But then a lot of people think we never sent a man to the moon.

Most would agree that science has and should keep its support roles in determining evidence, putting forward options, risk analysis and so forth, but Harris appears to be arguing that science alone should take the main role to the exclusion of debate. Removing debate from morality is very … debatable.

 

[grannymh]

The “two people” is just a thought experiment. The point is that even when there are many many more people, though the situation becomes much more complicated, the fact remains that there are ways for people to thrive and ways for them not to thrive and those ways will depend on facts about the world and facts about people–facts that can in principle be studied scientifically. So it is absurd to say that science can never even in principle have anything to say about morality (which is what a lot of people tend to think).

A Gedanken experiment should make some reasonable connection to actual circumstances. However, subjectively everyone can make their own criteria for thinking creative thoughts.

 

[Leela]

Pardon me. The above comment appears a tad strange. Could this be because relatively speaking, there is no such thing no how as definite moral standards?

It only qualifies as relativism if you think that the Church suffers from relativism in saying that French kissing is moral in the context of a marriage between a man and a woman and immoral in other contexts.

 

[grannymh]

But then a lot of people think we never sent a man to the moon.

Most would agree that science has and should keep its support roles in determining evidence, putting forward options, risk analysis and so forth, but Harris appears to be arguing that science alone should take the main role to the exclusion of debate. Removing debate from morality is very … debatable.

Agree. Here’s a point from post 102 which could be debatable regarding its incompleteness.
“I should think that we ought to agree on the goal of morality as human well-being.” However, the debate may go nowhere because relatively and subjectively there could be a zillion sides to the issue.

 

[Leela]

But then a lot of people think we never sent a man to the moon.

True, and we don’t think that such people have anything to add to a discussion about science. Likewise, if there is anything to know about morals, then some people will be better informed than others. Some people will be clearly wrong about what is right and wrong.

Most would agree that science has and should keep its support roles in determining evidence, putting forward options, risk analysis and so forth, but Harris appears to be arguing that science alone should take the main role to the exclusion of debate. Removing debate from morality is very … debatable.

I don’t think that is his point. The point is that the debate must be scientific one since it is an argument about the conditions that lead to happiness and suffering including facts about biology and physics, economics and intentions and attitudes.and their consequences for conscious beings. In those terms it quickly becomes apparent that questions about whether the God of Abraham or someone else’s gods are the true ones and which people have rightful claims to speak on behalf of such gods are recognized as irrelevnt to moral questions and ought to have no bearing on moral debates.

 

[grannymh]

It only qualifies as relativism if you think that the Church suffers from relativism in saying that French kissing is moral in the context of a marriage between a man and a woman and immoral in other contexts.

Perhaps it is time to explore the real usage of the word relativism. Misuse of this word or an incomplete use of its full implications can lead to some funny ideas regarding an answer to the OP question “Can there be a science of good and evil?”

On the other hand, some teenagers might be interested in the science of kissing.
I remember a friend who thought that kissing produced babies. But what does knowing the science of kissing have to do with the actual choice of actions?

Blessings,
granny

The quest for truth is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[inocente]

Perhaps it is time to explore the real usage of the word relativism.

Morals are not “out there” in the sense of laws of physics but relate directly to us, our evolved state, culture and so on. Some moral behavior is instinctive, giving it the appearance of being timeless, but that’s only an appearance. Our thinking, informed by our experience, allows us to work out the rest and as a social animal we then apply consensus. (That’s absolutely what Paul meant by his aside in Romans 2:14-15, other interpretations being relatively complicated. )

But then Harris seems to loose touch with reality - get ten Baptists (my kind) together and get twenty different opinions (leave us a while and you’ll get forty). It’s all very well to propose that only the intelligent and informed should have a say, but us proles will rebel without a thought police to keep us in line.

I remember a friend who thought that kissing produced babies. But what does knowing the science of kissing have to do with the actual choice of actions?

What is it with Catholics and sex?

It would certainly be the most interesting science class of the semester. In a sense it can produce babies by heightening passion, but we hardly need science to tell us that.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

*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. *

Is this the best you can do?

I asked if you agreed with Harris that science is in a better position than religion to answer questions about morality? Then, if you agreed with Harris (which I suppose you do), I asked how science would go about determining whether anal sex between men is moral or immoral.

You are not answering the questions. Why?

I think inocente was on the money. The attempt to answer such a question from the scientific perspective is so fraught with impractical difficulties that science is useless. At best, science could point to rectal cancer and Aids as a consequence of anal sex. However, even that is not evidence in favor of sodomy as a moral or even an amoral act. In the end, science can only describe things as they are, not as they *ought *to be.

 

[Leela]

*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. *

Is this the best you can do?

I’m just pointing out Charlemagne that you are claiming that science is somehow lacking in not taking a stand on whether anal sex is right or wrong under all circumstances when the Church also does not take such a stand. The Church says it may be okay some times and not others. Science says the same thing. It is wrong if it harms those doing it such as in cases of rape or other abuse. If it not wrong if it does not cause harm.

I asked if you agreed with Harris that science is in a better position than religion to answer questions about morality? Then, if you agreed with Harris (which I suppose you do), I asked how science would go about determining whether anal sex between men is moral or immoral.

You are not answering the questions. Why?

I think inocente was on the money. The attempt to answer such a question from the scientific perspective is so fraught with impractical difficulties that science is useless. At best, science could point to rectal cancer and Aids as a consequence of anal sex. However, even that is not evidence in favor of sodomy as a moral or even an amoral act. In the end, science can only describe things as they are, not as they *ought *to be.

I think science is entirely unlikely to find any reason why anal sex is immoral. I think that is because anal sex is not immoral.

Your objection that some moral situtations are just so complicated that it is impractical to persue them does not discount morality as a scientific persuit. Lots of other scientific questions are complicated and may not be answerable in practice at this time. They are nevertheless still scientific questions in principle that have right and wrong answers.

Note that though we do not have a scientific answer to the question of what specifically the conditions must be like and the people involved must be like for anal sex to be a good thing or a bad thing, not having a complete answer does not mean that we know absolutely nothing. We know, for example that it is immoral to be raped in the anus because we understand many of the negative consequences. We also know that people claim to have sexually fulfilling relationships including this practice. Not knowing everything is not the same as knowing nothing.

What are you suggesting as an alternative to understanding moral questions scientifically? If there is such a thing as moral truth and better and worse answers to moral questions, how else could we possibly pursue answers to such questions if not through reasoning about coming to better understand the consequences of such behaviors?

 

[Leela]

Morals are not “out there” in the sense of laws of physics but relate directly to us, our evolved state, culture and so on. Some moral behavior is instinctive, giving it the appearance of being timeless, but that’s only an appearance.

Right. Many Catholics in this forum of claimed to me that feelings of guilt or conscience are the natural law written on our hearts. But we know well that our moral instincts regularly fail us. For example, we are much more naturally compassionate for a single dog being harmed than for a large group of victims of a natural disaster. Studies have shown that we are more likely to donate money if the ad shows a single needy person than two or three needy people. The arithmetic of our consciences do not add up the way they should. We also know that entire towns used to gather and picnic and pose for pictures for teh community event known as lynching. Clearly our consciences malfunction as tools for moral discernment and we need to apply our rationality to morals.

But then Harris seems to loose touch with reality - get ten Baptists (my kind) together and get twenty different opinions (leave us a while and you’ll get forty). It’s all very well to propose that only the intelligent and informed should have a say, but us proles will rebel without a thought police to keep us in line.

I’m not sure what your objection is here.

What is it with Catholics and sex?

Many people here sure do seem to be obsessed with anal penetration.

It would certainly be the most interesting science class of the semester. In a sense it can produce babies by heightening passion, but we hardly need science to tell us that.

 

[davidv]

Right. Many Catholics in this forum of claimed to me that feelings of guilt or conscience are the natural law written on our hearts.

And there has been no evidence offered that proves otherwise.

But we know well that our moral instincts regularly fail us.

Why is that? Because we can choose what is pleasurable instead what is good?

For example, we are much more naturally compassionate for a single dog being harmed than for a large group of victims of a natural disaster. Studies have shown that we are more likely to donate money if the ad shows a single needy person than two or three needy people. The arithmetic of our consciences do not add up the way they should. We also know that entire towns used to gather and picnic and pose for pictures for teh community event known as lynching. Clearly our consciences malfunction as tools for moral discernment and we need to apply our rationality to morals.

I’m not sure what your objection is here.

Many people here sure do seem to be obsessed with anal penetration.

Why do you call it obsession?

It would certainly be the most interesting science class of the semester. In a sense it can produce babies by heightening passion, but we hardly need science to tell us that.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela
*
What are you suggesting as an alternative to understanding moral questions scientifically? If there is such a thing as moral truth and better and worse answers to moral questions, how else could we possibly pursue answers to such questions if not through reasoning about coming to better understand the consequences of such behaviors? *

Reasoning for sure, but why scientific reasoning as opposed to philosophy and common sense?

This is your thread. It is your responsibility, if you agree with Harris, to show an example, or several examples, of how science can decide moral questions. What examples does Harris show? Instead, as usual, you want to change the subject and talk about the Catholic Church. Step up to the plate, girl! Do your thing!

 

[Leela]

Leela
*
What are you suggesting as an alternative to understanding moral questions scientifically? If there is such a thing as moral truth and better and worse answers to moral questions, how else could we possibly pursue answers to such questions if not through reasoning about coming to better understand the consequences of such behaviors*?

Reasoning for sure, but why scientific reasoning as opposed to philosophy and common sense?

Neither Harris nor I am trying to draw any distinction between science, philosophy, and rationality in general. Science as Harris uses the term is simply our best collective effort to have good reasons for our beliefs. If you want to convince others that anal sex is immoral (as it seems very important for you to do) then you’ll need to provide evidence that it is harmful to the well being of conscious creatures. In other words, your claim will be a rational or scientific one if you can provide good reasons why others ought to believe it.

This is your thread. It is your responsibility, if you agree with Harris, to show an example, or several examples, of how science can decide moral questions. What examples does Harris show?

I suppose you are jumping in a little late since I already gave a few examples. For one, I wrote about how we have research supporting the belief that corporal punishment is bad for children. While some would like to pretend that science can have nothing to say about reality, obviously knowing that it is bad for our children to beat our children tells us that it is immoral for us to beat our children.

Someone suggested that we will most likely learn through science that an embryo is just as capable of happiness and suffering as an adult human. If that turns out to be true, it will of course then be known to be scientifically true that abortion is just as immoral as killing a person. Of course if it is demonstarted that an embryo could not possibly suffer, then it would become extremely difficult to argue aginst the notion that destroying collections of 150 cells smaller than specks of dust (blastocysts) for use in embryonic stem cell research for the justified hope of helping humans who are indeed suffering is anything but a moral obligation.

 

[Leela]

Why do you call it obsession?

I find it strange how often the phenomenon comes up in this forum. It seems no matter the context, someone will want to know how it relates to anal sex. It is not something I spend any time thinking about outside this forum, so it seems so strange that there is such an emphasis on it here. Certain posters seem to me to be obsessed with it.

 

[grannymh]

Life is so simple once one actually understands the universal truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect because she and he have been created by God for the definite purpose of sharing in His life for eternity.

On the other hand, people who are shackled to the natural science microscope do have a bit of trouble figuring out what composes the human being. And of course people who have difficulty with Catholicism have a conundrum (definition 2.) on their hands.

Science can certainly figure out the material effects of evil physical acts against the human person and in modern times can figure out the psychological effects of evil actions. That is well and good.

Hanging up the lab coat and going outside, scientists as real people are capable of seeing beyond blood and guts to the eternal purpose of our lives. It is their choice to do so. Actually, its everyone’s choice to view the human person as worthy of profound respect and act accordingly.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

If you want to convince others that anal sex is immoral (as it seems very important for you to do) then you’ll need to provide evidence that it is harmful to the well being of conscious creatures.

May I remind you that you have spent yourself generously defending homosexuality and gay marriage (which implies defending sodomy) in at least two other forums currently active?

So it goes without saying that you must think sodomy (including anal sex) is morally defensible. Why does it distress you that you are called to account to explain how science can be helpful in deciding whether anal sex is moral, immoral, or amoral?

could it be that you don’t have the foggiest notion how science can go about doing that, whereas the answer is blatantly clear to anyone with reasoning powers and common sense?