Can there be a science of good and evil?

[Charlemagne_II]

So it appears there can be no science of good and evil.

 

[MissesE]

So it appears there can be no science of good and evil.

Why do you think it is impossible for science to weigh in on what is moral and immoral?

 

[grannymh]

Why do you think it is impossible for science to weigh in on what is moral and immoral?

This is the point where I would shift my thinking to scientists as real people who have intellect and will. Although it is popular to personify science, it doesn’t have a mind of its own.

 

[MissesE]

I asked, Why do you think it is impossible for science to weigh in on what is moral and immoral?

This is the point where I would shift my thinking to scientists as real people who have intellect and will. Although it is popular to personify science, it doesn’t have a mind of its own.

In that sense iy is meaningless to ask if science can weigh in on morals, but then it is also nonsense to say whether religion can tell us about morals too. Agreed?

 

[NE_Catholic]

so it goes on…

Science tells us over eating is bad for us, therefore gluttony is immoral
Science tells us smoking is bad for us, therefore smokers are immoral
Science tells us that the homosexual lifestyle is not good for gay people, therefore it is immoral.
Science tells us the boxing & football are dangerous and can result in life threatening injuries, hence, immoral activities
Science tells us pot changes our decision making and alters our thinking, hence, immoral.
Science tells people are more happy in marriages, therefore divorce is immoral.

wait a minute, science doesn’t tell us this, we decide this based on statistics

 

[MissesE]

This is the point where I would shift my thinking to scientists as real people who have intellect and will. Although it is popular to personify science, it doesn’t have a mind of its own.

so it goes on…

Science tells us over eating is bad for us, therefore gluttony is immoral
Science tells us smoking is bad for us, therefore smokers are immoral
Science tells us that the homosexual lifestyle is not good for gay people, therefore it is immoral.
Science tells us the boxing & football are dangerous and can result in life threatening injuries, hence, immoral activities
Science tells us pot changes our decision making and alters our thinking, hence, immoral.
Science tells people are more happy in marriages, therefore divorce is immoral.

wait a minute, science doesn’t tell us this, we decide this based on statistics

That is something like saying, Catholicism doesn’t tell us what us what is right and wrong, we decide based on what Catholicism says.

I think it logically follows from scientific thinking that if something, say, causes the worst possible for misery for everyone, then we ought not to do it. To conclude otherwise is to not know what “ought” means or to not know how to reason scientifically. If it is a given that morality is about human flourishing, and if science can inform us on questions about how to flourish, then science can tell us what is moral.

 

[NE_Catholic]

I think it logically follows from scientific thinking that if something, say, causes the worst possible for misery for everyone, then we ought not to do it. To conclude otherwise is to not know what “ought” means or to not know how to reason scientifically. If it is a given that morality is about human flourishing, and if science can inform us on questions about how to flourish, then science can tell us what is moral.

all my examples have science showing us hinderances to “flourishing”. Therefore, they are scientifically immoral. The comparison to Catholicism isn’t necessary, we are debating science’s role in determining morality.

 

[grannymh]

I asked, Why do you think it is impossible for science to weigh in on what is moral and immoral?

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
This is the point where I would shift my thinking to scientists as real people who have intellect and will. Although it is popular to personify science, it doesn’t have a mind of its own.

In that sense it is meaningless to ask if science can weigh in on morals, but then it is also nonsense to say whether religion can tell us about morals too. Agreed?

Respectfully, I disagree because science (material objects) is in a different realm than religion’s (spiritual goals) realm. Where the two realms meet is within the nature of the human person. The person is the one who ultimately faces issues regarding both morals and/or science.

Post 116 gives a clarification that is spot on. Science can present data and results from research. Religion, depending on one’s choice, can help decide if and how a study relates to one’s own life.

Personally, I prefer looking at issues as a probable both/and situation rather than mutually exclusive either/or

 

[edwest2]

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.

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.

This is an example of the mathematical, mechanistic human life philosophy. It’s no good. Scientists know a human embryo is a human embryo. It is a unique comibnation of genetic material from both parents. You and everyone reading this were once human embryos - no exceptions. I don’t need Sam Harris or anyone else to lay out a complicated road map. Common sense will do just fine.

Why aren’t scientists cutting up cow embryos? Shouldn’t they be able to get the utility they’re looking for there? In the meantime, Geron, ever conscious of its stock price, is testing an embryo derived treatment to see if it’s safe. I doubt it will be. The body tends to reject foreign genetic material. And there is also the risk of cancerous tumors forming. Some - I repeat, some - scientists have been blinded by the culture of death.

See The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis.

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Why do you think it is impossible for science to weigh in on what is moral and immoral?

Sam Harris, a scientist, has decided that the human being is a biological robot that will respond to certain (name removed by moderator)uts. He is not knowlegeable enough and/or chooses to ignore the human ability to lie and tendency to beat the system. So whatever system he devises will be circumvented by those who still want what they want regardless of who is telling them different. Science is done by fallible human beings, just like the rest of us.

God bless,
Ed

 

[GreggAlvarez]

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

Hi Leela,
As a former atheist, I have a nice spot in my reading collection for people like Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett (Richard Dawkins is not intelligent in dealing with his own unbelief). I still read their books because I greatly admire them (Sam Harris most of all), but after reading The Moral Landscape, I figured out that Sam Harris has more bias and disdain for religion than I previously thought. Granted though, he is not nearly as bad as Richard Dawkins in intelligence considering he is actually a philosopher and is infinitely more articulate. Anyway, his chapter on belief was not at all what people take as belief (at least what I have read and what people tell me). It was just an attack on the silliness of believing something that is assumed to be false (which clearly has not been proven). He makes an attempt to file belief as a lower form of truth than knowledge (although I can certainly see how he gets it) which can be true (in the elementary method he gave about George Washington; that was a terrible analogy) and it can be true (in the reality it is meant to surpass) that it transcends knowledge. Facts and figures is clearly not all there is to life. This is where he lowers himself to Dawkins. And I do not think that anybody could agree more that his chapter on religion should have been left out. Every single atheist book I have ever read already has those kinds of chapters. If anything, he should have just sourced books in that chapter. Also, Dawkins clearly lied in his review which does not help Harris’ case of morality. If anybody has read The Selfish Gene, The God Delusion and The Blind Watchmaker, they would know that Dawkins never doubted morality in science and reason (and of course himself). Never.

Anyway, about your actual question… I digress. Sorry. He offers almost nothing new. He used a whole book to say what had been previously thought. Admittedly, the moral landscape was a great way to say where this science can start in neurological studies. I would certainly love to seem some results! Sounds exciting. Also, we do not need religion for morality. He is certainly right with that. (I do not consider Catholicism “another religion”. Although, it certainly seems to be. I do not care of anybody’s opinion on this. You will not agree with me and I will not agree with you, nor will I agree to disagree and nor will you. Otherwise, I would care.) He is also right that science MAY be more than just facts and figures (again, Dawkins sure thinks otherwise) and a path to morality (whether or not it can is a different story). But, all in all, he misses the point of morality. Being a good person is not the meaning of life. As far as the possibility of science being able to answer questions, I can make no conjecture to that. I would say no, not as a bias toward my belief in God, but just because I have never read anything of morality coming from science. I have only read that it may be possible. Having said that, I really have no idea if it can or cannot. I am obviously no scientist.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts from his book. His only book I am actually disappointed with. I hope I answered your question. If not, please let me know.
Gregg

P.S. If it is not clear, I have a strong dislike for Richard Dawkins. He is NOT an idiot but he really should stick with science. His God Delusion (The Blind Watchmaker also but not as bad) was COMPLETELY irrational and delusional. And people, atheists to theists (especially Christians for some reason), believed every word despite his lack of logic and reason (then he has the audacity to start a foundation for science and reason). He just had a comical rhetoric. Many people (I would venture to say in the thousands) fell away from theism from his lies and illogical thematic reductions. Anyway, Sam Harris carries that team. Dawkins brings it down. So, it will never progress.

 

[MissesE]

Sam Harris, a scientist, has decided that the human being is a biological robot that will respond to certain (name removed by moderator)uts. He is not knowlegeable enough and/or chooses to ignore the human ability to lie and tendency to beat the system. So whatever system he devises will be circumvented by those who still want what they want regardless of who is telling them different. Science is done by fallible human beings, just like the rest of us.

It sounds to me like you are conflating two distinct issues. The question of whether sceince can tell us what we ought to be valuing is separate from the question of whether human beings can be enticed to do what they ought to do.

You seem to believe that there must be a system of carrots and sticks or else people will always behave immorally. That may or may not be true, but it is a whole other issue.

 

[MissesE]

all my examples have science showing us hinderances to “flourishing”. Therefore, they are scientifically immoral.

That’s true. If the examples you gave are really known to be hinderances to human flourshing then they are indeed immoral and scientifically known to be so.

 

[NE_Catholic]

That’s true. If the examples you gave are really known to be hinderances to human flourshing then they are indeed immoral and scientifically known to be so.

but are they?

 

[grannymh]

I think it logically follows from scientific thinking that if something, say, causes the worst possible for misery for everyone, then we ought not to do it. To conclude otherwise is to not know what “ought” means or to not know how to reason scientifically. If it is a given that morality is about human flourishing, and if science can inform us on questions about how to flourish, then science can tell us what is moral.

I know you used the word If – however, I believe it is necessary to point out that
morality is really not about “human flourishing” except in the eyes of utilitarians, humanists, and other relativists.

 

[MissesE]

I know you used the word If – however, I believe it is necessary to point out that
morality is really not about “human flourishing” except in the eyes of utilitarians, humanists, and other relativists.

The “if” was intended to mean “obviously we all agree,” but it looks like we do not. I’m confused, how could morality be about anything other than human flourishing? My understanding is that what God commands in the name of the moral law is what is best for us. Are you suggesting that it is not–that we would thrive better by not following the moral law than by following it? That sounds like a very strange way of using the word “moral” to me.

 

[grannymh]

The “if” was intended to mean “obviously we all agree,” but it looks like we do not. I’m confused, how could morality be about anything other than human flourishing? My understanding is that what God commands in the name of the moral law is what is best for us. Are you suggesting that it is not–that we would thrive better by not following the moral law than by following it? That sounds like a very strange way of using the word “moral” to me.

As I have often said, I prefer not to use the “mutually exclusive or”.

“either/or” is so very limiting such as the example above which confines “human flourishing” to a mutually exclusive proposition. Furthermore, I respect one’s choice of relativism, humanism, utilitarianism, (exhibited in various posts) in regard to moral law even though it is done in such a narrow context. I simply do not agree. Furthermore, I see Catholicism as a better choice because of its worldview.

My own worldview takes in both material and non-material, both rational and corporeal, both spirit and matter so that I see the human person, soul and body, as the pinnacle of God’s creation. I view human nature as something beyond the anatomy which eventually decomposes.

 

[edwest2]

It sounds to me like you are conflating two distinct issues. The question of whether sceince can tell us what we ought to be valuing is separate from the question of whether human beings can be enticed to do what they ought to do.

You seem to believe that there must be a system of carrots and sticks or else people will always behave immorally. That may or may not be true, but it is a whole other issue.

That’s not what I’m saying. As a scientist, he needs to factor in non-compliance to his objectives, that’s all. Speaking mathematically: x + y = z - noncompliant individuals.

I’ve read articles by Mr. Harris. He appears to hold a utopian view.

God bless,
Ed

 

[MissesE]

That’s not what I’m saying. As a scientist, he needs to factor in non-compliance to his objectives, that’s all. Speaking mathematically: x + y = z - noncompliant individuals.

I’ve read articles by Mr. Harris. He appears to hold a utopian view.

God bless,
Ed

I still don’t understand your objection or how it relates to Harris’s thesis. There are ways for human beings to thrive and countless ways for them to be miserable. The possibilities for human flourishing depend on facts about ourselves and facts about the world. Science can study such facts to help us learn about what is moral. It already does this of course, but people seem to be under the false impression that science does not deal in values.

 

[MissesE]

As I have often said, I prefer not to use the “mutually exclusive or”.

“either/or” is so very limiting such as the example above which confines “human flourishing” to a mutually exclusive proposition. Furthermore, I respect one’s choice of relativism, humanism, utilitarianism, (exhibited in various posts) in regard to moral law even though it is done in such a narrow context. I simply do not agree. Furthermore, I see Catholicism as a better choice because of its worldview.

My own worldview takes in both material and non-material, both rational and corporeal, both spirit and matter so that I see the human person, soul and body, as the pinnacle of God’s creation. I view human nature as something beyond the anatomy which eventually decomposes.

I’m not the one insisting on a “mutually exclusive or.” I think that if morality is thought of as human flourishing it is entirely consistent with what is meant by God’s moral law. I don’t think you have to choose one or the other. But you said “morality is really not about "human flourishing”." So I asked, since you are imposing an either/or, what morality could possibly be if it is decidedly not about human flourishing. How could morality be about anything other than human flourishing? If it is not about human flourishing, what is it about? My understanding is that what God commands in the name of the moral law is what is best for us–what will best enable us to flourish as human beings–so what is moral, what God commands, and how we can thrive as human beings are all the same thing. There is no “either/or” that I can see here.