Science and Morality

[Jeanettelop]

As an artist I often thank God for the wonderful gifts given to me. I can say that art requires science to be possible but perhaps it is the morality that gives it interest and depth. Another words I know I need specific elements to make colors or clay or even to understand the measurements. Those alone do not make true art. It is still the insight to the soul. In the same respect if a person is religious he knows every day he still will need science to some degree. The problem with science is that many have turned their back on morality as an unessessary or unprovable subject. They are blind to the beauty and joy it can fill in our hearts. Hence society today.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;5259818:

Satan? Now that’s an easy way out.

In that case you don’t believe one evil person can influence another… or perhaps you reject the idea of evil altogether? It’s a very easy way out to explain the deliberate, premeditated, repeated torture of a child as pathological… Come to think of it, you must believe all the Nazis were pathological cases.

 

[tonyrey]

As an artist I often thank God for the wonderful gifts given to me. I can say that art requires science to be possible but perhaps it is the morality that gives it interest and depth. Another words I know I need specific elements to make colors or clay or even to understand the measurements. Those alone do not make true art. It is still the insight to the soul. In the same respect if a person is religious he knows every day he still will need science to some degree. The problem with science is that many have turned their back on morality as an unessessary or unprovable subject. They are blind to the beauty and joy it can fill in our hearts. Hence society today.

Welcome, Jeanette! Your first contribution is a welcome antidote to the gloom and doom in some of the contributions to this forum (by Catholics as well as atheists).

 

[Leela]

Leela;5260614:

In that case you don’t believe one evil person can influence another… or perhaps you reject the idea of evil altogether? It’s a very easy way out to explain the deliberate, premeditated, repeated torture of a child as pathological… Come to think of it, you must believe all the Nazis were pathological cases.

No, I don’t think all Nazis were sociopaths, but I do think that psychologists will be able to tell us much more about what went wrong with them than theologians.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela
*
No, I don’t think all Nazis were sociopaths, but I do think that psychologists will be able to tell us much more about what went wrong with them than theologians. *

At the very least the psychologists could tell you that the Nazis had not learned from Christ to “love one another.” But I think the theologians got that long before the psychologists.

Psychology is probably the only science (and a soft one at that) that would take any interest in defining or analyzing morality and drawing conclusion said to be “scientific.” I am reminded of the decision rendered by the American Psychological Association (I think it was back on the 70s) to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder. But they said nothing about (or chose not to say anything about) any moral implications of that condition. If it is not a mental disease, then it must be a lifestyle freely chosen with full knowledge of the consequences.

I do not think psychologists can ever deal scientifically with issues of right and wrong, sin and virtue. About all they can do is analyze the condition you are in, and, without benefit of confession, repentence, prayer, etc., prescribe a pill. I think the Church has offered a good deal more, and doesn’t even charge by the hour!

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;5263253:

No, I don’t think all Nazis were sociopaths, but I do think that psychologists will be able to tell us much more about what went wrong with them than theologians.

In other words you absolve them of all responsibility… and also every torturer and killer who has lived on this planet. It is an extremely easy way out. I thought you believe in good and evil…

 

[Leela]

Leela;5263684:

In other words you absolve them of all responsibility… and also every torturer and killer who has lived on this planet. It is an extremely easy way out. I thought you believe in good and evil…

In other words, you can just make any ridiculous claim you want about what I am really saying, and then claim that I have contradicted myself.

Of course such people bear the responsibility for their actions. Trying to understand such behavior and its causes is not at all the same thing as saying that there is nothing wrong with torture and murder.

 

[liquidpele]

Psychology is probably the only science (and a soft one at that) that would take any interest in defining or analyzing morality and drawing conclusion said to be “scientific.” I am reminded of the decision rendered by the American Psychological Association (I think it was back on the 70s) to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder. But they said nothing about (or chose not to say anything about) any moral implications of that condition. If it is not a mental disease, then it must be a lifestyle freely chosen with full knowledge of the consequences.

Hahahahahaha… says the person who *obviously *has no gay friends. Also, false dichotomy.

I do not think psychologists can ever deal scientifically with issues of right and wrong, sin and virtue. About all they can do is analyze the condition you are in, and, without benefit of confession, repentence, prayer, etc., prescribe a pill. I think the Church has offered a good deal more, and doesn’t even charge by the hour!

Psychology mostly concerns itself with mental states and decision making that is not inline with what is considered “normal”. Defining normal is done by the psychologists, so a huge portion of the field is based on standards that are subjective. Psychology only tries to define morality in the same way the court systems do - by what is considered “right” and “normal” in society at the time.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;5264653:

Of course such people bear the responsibility for their actions. Trying to understand such behavior and its causes is not at all the same thing as saying that there is nothing wrong with torture and murder.

You are implying that the causes of behaviour explain our behaviour. In that case we are not responsible for our behaviour.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

Psychology only tries to define morality in the same way the court systems do - by what is considered “right” and “normal” in society at the time.

Show me a psychologist who has talked significantly about right and wrong, sin and virtue.

 

[Leela]

Leela;5265539:

You are implying that the causes of behaviour explain our behaviour. In that case we are not responsible for our behaviour.

Why would you jump to the conclusion that we are not responsible for our behavior?

 

[liquidpele]

liquidpele

Psychology only tries to define morality in the same way the court systems do - by what is considered “right” and “normal” in society at the time.

Show me a psychologist who has talked significantly about right and wrong, sin and virtue.

ummm… what? You picked up on and make a request about something that I wasn’t trying to argue about… but anyway, take your pick.

google.com/search?q=psychology+right+and+wrong

I get the feeling from your comments that you’ve never actually taken a psychology course though.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;5266198:

Why would you jump to the conclusion that we are not responsible for our behavior?

It’s not a jump but a logical consequence. If our thoughts and actions are explained by physical causes we are just cogs in a machine and are not responsible for the ways in which we function.

 

[liquidpele]

Leela;5266558:

It’s not a jump but a logical consequence. If our thoughts and actions are explained by physical causes we are just cogs in a machine and are not responsible for the ways in which we function.

Except the reality is that we can make decisions, so we are about trillion times more complicated than a cog in a machine, and we can be held responsible for our decisions. Just because it could be completely physical (ie no soul) doesn’t trivialize the complexity of our brains or negate reality. Besides, even if we were just just cogs in a machine (which we obviously are far more complex than that), responsibility still exists… I can’t hold my hand on a hot stove and try to not take responsibility for that action. In such a case, as with everything, consequences exist that force responsibility whether or not we decide to learn or accept it.

 

[Leela]

Leela;5266558:

It’s not a jump but a logical consequence. If our thoughts and actions are explained by physical causes we are just cogs in a machine and are not responsible for the ways in which we function.

If you are right that we are just cogs in a machine then we have no choice but to hold one another responsible. We cannot be held responsible for holding one another responsible.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

Take my pick? Is that the best you can do? Why do I think you haven’t taken a course on psychology? I’ve read almost all the major works of Freud and Jung and took several psychology courses in college. Wonder why the subject of right and wrong, sin and virtue, never came up.

So I think psychology historically has, is, and always will be cop-out on morality. Even B.F. Skinner, with whom I once corresponded, and who came as close as anyone to dealing with moral issues, turns out to be not much more than a utopian socialist.

 

[liquidpele]

liquidpele

Take my pick? Is that the best you can do? Why do I think you haven’t taken a course on psychology? I’ve read almost all the major works of Freud and Jung and took several psychology courses in college. Wonder why the subject of right and wrong, sin and virtue, never came up.

Ah, you were talking about literally trying to define right and wrong. I agree psychology does not attempt this, I was simply trying to point out that it does deal some with the topic though because such things are major indicators of a person not being “normal” and also major motivators in personal decision making.

So I think psychology historically has, is, and always will be cop-out on morality. Even B.F. Skinner, with whom I once corresponded, and who came as close as anyone to dealing with moral issues, turns out to be not much more than a utopian socialist.

I can agree with that to an extent. I think sociology has much more to do with morality. I hope you weren’t trying to use “socialist” as a negative term there though.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*I hope you weren’t trying to use “socialist” as a negative term there though. *

:bowdown: SOCIALISM!

Topic for another thread?

“Is socialism Christian?”

 

[cm25]

HI everyone, maybe this will help . There is a CD series on this topic, Ethics: A History of Moral Thought by Peter Kreeft Lecture 10 Being Good and Being Scientific: Can Morality Be a Science? (Descartes, Hume, Mill) looks like what your talking about.
you can find it at learnoutloud.com/Catalog/Philosophy/Philosophers/Ethics-A-History-of-Moral-Thought/3502. He has a website with other free audio also. I didn’t see this series on there, but there is other interesting stuff. This is a really good question thanks for asking it.
**
**

 

[Charlemagne_II]

cm25

Thank you for observing and the suggestion. I’ll check it out!

Charlie