Science and Morality

[Charlemagne_II]

Can there be a science of morality?

Science often makes the claim that scientific knowledge alone is verifiable. Can we verify our knowledge of morality? Can morality be reduced to a scientific discipline? Why? Why not?

And if not, in the long run what is more important, scientific knowledge or moral knowledge?

 

[Oreoracle]

Well, we see mathematical principles and operations take place in the material world. The problem is “should” is unlike “add”, “subtract”, “multiply”, or “divide”. There is nothing in reality that corresponds with it, since it is a prescriptive term rather than a descriptive one. Thus, I can’t say that ethics are objective or that it is possible to know them.

 

[Shaken]

Science deals with observable data and conclusions drawn from that observation. It is objective. Values are subjective and are not observable, except maybe as descriptive words. Consequences of values may be observable but not the values.

Scientifically, statistics about morality could be compiled but morality itself is a concept and not observable. Behavior is observable. Behavior directed by a moral is observable but not the moral. Behavior can be scientifcally analyzed but not morality.

 

[Shaken]

And if not, in the long run what is more important, scientific knowledge or moral knowledge?

---

I would say scientific knowledge is useful to moral knowledge and can help support and form moral options. The widely known flat earth theory might clarify my thought. If I believe that the earth is flat, I shouldn’t go near the edge for fear of falling off because that would be suicidal which would involve a moral choice involving the fifth commandment. But scienctific observation has concluded that the earth is round so I won’t fall off no matter how far I go in any direction.

 

[eichenb2]

Can there be a science of morality?

Science often makes the claim that scientific knowledge alone is verifiable. Can we verify our knowledge of morality? Can morality be reduced to a scientific discipline? Why? Why not?

And if not, in the long run what is more important, scientific knowledge or moral knowledge?

You have touched upon one issue that perpetually confounds the scientific naturalist. Even Richards Darwins in “The God Delusion” punts on the question of human morality. He, if I am not mistaken, called it a Darwinian misfire. On a side note, I had, previously, turned this on its head and stated that atheism is a Darwinian misfire.
The relationship between human morality and science is an interesting one. I do not believe that we can say that morality is solely a natural phenomenom. If it were, we would know nothing of mercy. We would be purely driven by instinct and mothers would leave weak babies to die, as other animals do. In that sense the very existence of humans is supernatural. We ask the question that no other creature asks, “how ought we to live”? So, no, in my opinion, it cannot be a scientific discipline anymore that Hamlet can doubt Shakespeare’s existence. Scientia in Latin means Knowing. My impression is that there must be something to know. Science is a systematic approach to studying our natural surroundings. It is a useful tool and allows us to make our lives better. It does not suggest how we ought to live, though. If this were the case, woman would think it perfectly acceptable to consume her mate after copulation; since it happens in nature.
My short answer is that the sciences and metaphysics together help us to answer why and how. They are both tools that our rational minds (not brains) use to discover reality and live a good life.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Would it be the general drift of current scientific thought to argue that morality is too subjective to be reduced to the scientific method?

In other words, is there no ethical principle that can be deduced to follow any observation of human nature comparable to a principle of physics that can be deduced from observing physical actions?

 

[crowonsnow]

Would it be the general drift of current scientific thought to argue that morality is too subjective to be reduced to the scientific method?

In other words, is there no ethical principle that can be deduced to follow any observation of human nature comparable to a principle of physics that can be deduced from observing physical actions?

Morality is behavior. And behavior is scientifically observable and predictable. Even in science we base our conclusions on the behavior of the physical world. A redwood tree for example constitutes the behavior of matter is a certain way. A water molecule is matter behaving in anther particular arrangement. It may sound simplistic but that’s how we categorize everything, based on behavior, arrangements of matter.

But if you are claiming that morality is not something ultimately physical, then there is no way to answer your question.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

crowonsnow

*But if you are claiming that morality is not something ultimately physical, then there is no way to answer your question. *

Does science claim that morality is something ultimately physical, observable, and subject to the criteria of scientific verification?

 

[phoage]

To be science, you must have a hypothosis that can (theorectically) be shown to be false. Then you test it to see if correct predictions can be made from it.

[Thought experiment] Hypothosis; Telling the exact truth on all occations is good.

So now we have a hypothosis to test, design an experiment to test it and come up with a method of measuring the results.
[end thought experiment]

This is why social sciences are often referred to as soft sciences or vodoo sciences. Experiments are difficult or impossible to do in the real world, (or are immoral) and the math to measure results is difficult ot nonexistant.
Some social scientists fudge or skip the math, some fudge or skip the entire process. The ones that do it correctly get varied results because (at least partially) people are not as uniform as protons or electrons.

I believe it will be possible to make progress on this but it will require much work and probably the invention of a new branch of math, and time.

 

[Oreoracle]

Does science claim that morality is something ultimately physical, observable, and subject to the criteria of scientific verification?

Science is a method, not a doctrine. It doesn’t claim anything. You could say it does, but it would only be a suggestion of how you should go about gathering beliefs, not what you should believe.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Phoage

Welcome to Catholic Answers! Stay with us, if you please.

Charlie

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Oreoracle

*Science is a method, not a doctrine. It doesn’t claim anything. You could say it does, but it would only be a suggestion of how you should go about gathering beliefs, not what you should believe. *

Then what I hear you saying is that science has no business with deciding moral issues?

And would you agree that it also has no business deciding religious issues?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

And if it has no business deciding religious issues, why are so many scientists atheists or agnostics?

If there is no scientific basis for ethics, what basis is there? Personal whim?

 

[Oreoracle]

Then what I hear you saying is that science has no business with deciding moral issues?

Can science be used to derive moral values? No, values are emotional, and emotion is abstract and not quantifiable.

And would you agree that it also has no business deciding religious issues?

You speak of religions as though they are all the same. I know people who call themselves religious because they actively appreciate the universe. I know others who consider their religion to not only be an artistic hobby but a doctrine. If your religion considers something to be factual, science “claims,” if that’s how you’d like to word it, that it provides a system that can determine if that claim has merit.

 

[Oreoracle]

If there is no scientific basis for ethics, what basis is there? Personal whim?

Let’s put it this way: If ethics are objective, as I believe you’ve claimed, can you use your computer to calculate that killing innocents is wrong? No, because it has no emotion. A being with knowledge and calculating skill superior to your own, such as a computer, cannot conceive of morality because a “should” is not present in its view of reality.

 

[liquidpele]

Let’s put it this way: If ethics are objective, as I believe you’ve claimed, can you use your computer to calculate that killing innocents is wrong? No, because it has no emotion. A being with knowledge and calculating skill superior to your own, such as a computer, cannot conceive of morality because a “should” is not present in its view of reality.

I think you are leaving out the social reactions that help define our morality. You are correct that morality is subjective on the outside, but the core is very objective in certain ways. Killing, stealing, things that lead to violence or social problems, these are seen as immoral because they harm society. It’s basically a form of social evolution in a way. Then on such a foundation, we add subjective elements that use the previous constructs to then fill gaps within our respective situations and environments as we work to refine laws and morality to improve our societies.

 

[Oreoracle]

I think you are leaving out the social reactions that help define our morality. You are correct that morality is subjective on the outside, but the core is very objective in certain ways. Killing, stealing, things that lead to violence or social problems, these are seen as immoral because they harm society. It’s basically a form of social evolution in a way. Then on such a foundation, we add subjective elements that use the previous constructs to then fill gaps within our respective situations and environments as we work to refine laws and morality to improve our societies.

What I mean is that, though there are objective definitions of killing and stealing, it’s the ‘pang in our hearts’ that cause us to call such things wrong. The wrongness is a feeling, not an observable quality. But you may already understand, from the looks of it.

I just don’t want anyone to think I’m calling ethics subjective because they can’t be reduced to a consistent principle–far from it. Though consistent, a principle comes about through emotional activity.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Oreoracle

*Let’s put it this way: If ethics are objective, as I believe you’ve claimed, can you use your computer to calculate that killing innocents is wrong? No, because it has no emotion. A being with knowledge and calculating skill superior to your own, such as a computer, cannot conceive of morality because a “should” is not present in its view of reality. *

I think you are onto something here. If science is purely intellectual, much as a computer is pure intellect, then science is useless for solving moral issues. That is an indictment of the scientism that has been with us since Darwin’s day. That scientism really raised its ugly head when, without emotion apparently, scientists were will to compute and engineer the destruction of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Moreover, scientists have been complicit, as if they had no emotions, in designing and engineering the construction of thousands of nuclear missiles able to wreak universal Armagedon at a moment’s notice.

So I think you are right. Science is intellectually bright but cold at the same time, unwilling to feel repulsion at the call to do terrible things just because they can be done, rather than whether they should be done.

What good is all the good science can do for us if it can provide a way to cancel out all that good at a moment’s notice?

 

[liquidpele]

Oreoracle
I think you are onto something here. If science is purely intellectual, much as a computer is pure intellect, then science is useless for solving moral issues. That is an indictment of the scientism that has been with us since Darwin’s day. That scientism really raised its ugly head when, without emotion apparently, scientists were will to compute and engineer the destruction of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Moreover, scientists have been complicit, as if they had no emotions, in designing and engineering the construction of thousands of nuclear missiles able to wreak universal Armagedon at a moment’s notice.

So I think you are right. Science is intellectually bright but cold at the same time, unwilling to feel repulsion at the call to do terrible things just because they can be done, rather than whether they should be done.

What good is all the good science can do for us if it can provide a way to cancel out all that good at a moment’s notice?

Yikes… have you forgotten all the things that were done in the name of God over the years? Science has about as much a foothold on ethics as religion does in my opinion. That said, I think ethics ultimately is subjective and therefore philosophy, psychology, and sociology should be the factors that define it. As you said, science is too binary in it’s structure and results, and religion is too un-adaptive.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*Yikes… have you forgotten all the things that were done in the name of God over the years? *

No I haven’t forgotten. Many great and wonderful things done in the name of the Christian god. Of course, the only ones that get any press in the media and academia are the sins of Christians, as if some of them were the only criminals in the history of the world.

As you said, science is too binary in it’s structure and results, and religion is too un-adaptive.

Well, I didn’t say religion was too unadaptive. In fact, I am confident that religion has adapted itself to opposing the nuclear weapons that science had adapted itself to build. That’s certainly true of the Vatican and the American bishops who have periodically issued statements calling for world disarmament.