Science and Morality

[Charlemagne_II]

I’ll repeat a comment I believe I made earlier in this thread. I think morality is more important than science because it is vastly more important to learn that we should not wish to kill the world than that we should want to invent the means by which killing the world would be made possible.

Morality is meant for progress. Science is value-blind. It only sees values when it is led by morality. A Louis Pasteur will give himself up to good when he sacrifices himself for the well being of others. A Robert Oppenheimer will give himself up to wrong when he sacrifices the good of others to the bomb.

 

[liquidpele]

I’ll repeat a comment I believe I made earlier in this thread. I think morality is more important than science because it is vastly more important to learn that we should not wish to kill the world than that we should want to invent the means by which killing the world would be made possible.

Morality is meant for progress. Science is value-blind. It only sees values when it is led by morality. A Louis Pasteur will give himself up to good when he sacrifices himself for the well being of others. A Robert Oppenheimer will give himself up to wrong when he sacrifices the good of others to the bomb.

You keep bringing up bad things that science has helped… but science itself did not do those things. People did. The fact that we figured out how to split atoms doesn’t kill anyone. We could have used it to just produce energy in nuclear reactors, but we chose to use it in a bomb. That is not science, that is the application of science to the wants and needs of the time. One could even argue that morality played more of a role in using the bomb than science did, considering one of the arguments was that it would save American lives to use the bomb rather than invade.

I’m not saying that science cannot be used in brutal ways… it surely can. However, science is just a tool we use to develop more understanding about reality. How we use the knowledge it gives us is still up to us. Besides, rejecting science and saying that the knowledge and advances it provides only leads to bad things is a rejection of all advancements and a call for us to live something like the Amish… even the Amish get vaccinated though.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

After I said: “A Louis Pasteur will give himself up to good when he sacrifices himself for the well being of others.”

You said:

“You keep bringing up bad things that science has helped… but science itself did not do those things.”

Do you read only some of my sentences and not others?

“I’m not saying that science cannot be used in brutal ways… it surely can.”

Exactly my point. I will prefer a simple man with morals to a scientific genius without them.

 

[liquidpele]

I will prefer a simple man with morals to a scientific genius without them.

Fair enough. Now we just need to define morals

 

[JDaniel]

Ah, usually I agree with you Leela, but this one I think is debatable.

In the same way I think the universe would still exist, regardless of wether we are here to observe it, the concept of quanity would exist, regardless of who measures it.

I don’t think Math is a free creation, I think it’s an observation of an already existing concept/phenomenom.

Those hell bent on converting me, will try and convince me that this leads one down the path of “who” and “what” created that concept. There’s nothing actually wrong with asking the question “did something do it?”. Of course for them…what did it…was a God who got up and walked around after he died 2 thousand years ago…hmmmm.

I personally don’t have a problem with the paradox presented by existance or “pre-existing” concepts without their being a “first” cause. All things are possible to me(including a first cause…lets call him the flying spaghetti monster for arguments sake).

Feels good to be able to make a statement that is lowly and disrespecting of our God, on our forum, doesn’t it? The real Dame Edna wouldn’t be afraid to admit that feeling publicly.

In other words, it’s okay for me to say Math and the laws of nature exist independantly of me and at the same time say I’m an athiest. The answers to the question of why these laws and why this universe are not answered by any religion that I know of, with any sincerity or integrity.

I am amazed our moderators still allow your insolence and disrespect, and not just for God, but, for our Church as well. Don’t you think that it is rather big of us to continue to allow you to get away with your Christian-disparaging statements in this forum? We keep turning the other cheek, don’t we?

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Everyone is predisposed to a myriad of behaviors, some good and some bad. Some men have a natural tendency to be short tempered and violent, some women have an overwhelming desire to gossip, some have same sex attraction. People with these afflictions naturally would like to justify their tendencies by adjusting one’s moral judgments. However, people need to develop self control and fight against natural tendencies that lead to harm and social discord. Because a thing is natural or scientifically proven does not mean a hill of beans to its being good or bad.

Hello, Thales:

I am always alert to statements like this - especially when they come from a discerning, intelligent person. If we can believe the magazines and the newspapers, science has found the genetic codes for the human predisposition to smoking and to excessive alcohol use. Now, these two have been “looked for” for a relatively short period of time. And, in that short time, at least these two, if not many more, mal-behaviors have been readily found.

A gay friend of mine has told me - numerous times - that science has been looking for the genetic codes for homosexuality for about a hundred years. And, yet, nothing, nada, zilch.

Unlike mere animals, man’s eyes have been open to good and evil, and our higher nature and civilization are dependent on the morality which flows from that awareness.

No question - with part of your statement, at least. It would appear that your statement circumscribes homosexuality by nature, but, then blasts the homosexual into twilight zone of life. Wow! That would be a cruel God!

jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

Fair enough. Now we just need to define morals

I think “Love God and love one another” would be at the center of all morals. To the degree that we depart from this maxim we depart from right and move toward wrong.

Science might concede the second half, but not the first, since God is verboten, right!?

It doesn’t matter. Christ got to the whole maxim two thousand years ago, and I haven’t heard science yet say a thing about either half.

 

[liquidpele]

Love God and love one another.

That is indeed a good start. Now we just need to take into account animals, environmentalism, morals in war, traits like homosexuality, differing opinions, etc.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

*That is indeed a good start. Now we just need to take into account animals, environmentalism, morals in war, traits like homosexuality, differing opinions, etc. *

I’m glad you think so, but why doesn’t “Love God and one another” cover all the things you just mentioned? You could apply the commandment to any human activity and come up with the right moral point of view, couldn’t you? Correction, if you subscribe to both halves of the maxim, you could do that. If you only subscribe to the latter half, you are sooner or later destined to sink in moral quicksand.

By the way, do you think science would even fix on Love one another?

 

[liquidpele]

liquidpele

That is indeed a good start. Now we just need to take into account animals, environmentalism, morals in war, traits like homosexuality, differing opinions, etc.

I’m glad you think so, but why doesn’t “Love God and one another” cover all the things you just mentioned? You could apply the commandment to any human activity and come up with the right moral point of view, couldn’t you? Correction, if you subscribe to both halves of the maxim, you could do that. If you only subscribe to the latter half, you are sooner or later destined to sink in moral quicksand.

By the way, do you think science would even fix on Love one another?

I don’t think it covers everything because there are gray areas. Do you love someone actively trying to rape your wife? Do you shoot someone trying to kill you in a war you were drafted into? Do you steal from others so that you can feed your kids? What about extremely small details, like whether you should jwalk or not. It’s breaking the law, but is it really defined by morality? What about a choice of giving aid to family A or B, knowing both need it but you can only give to one? Which one is the moral choice?

I suppose my point is that I think it’s a good foundational concept (even if I don’t really agree with the God part), but I don’t think that it covers all the ins and outs of society. Then again, perhaps nothing can.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Yes, there will be tough choices to make along the way. It would be hard to love someone who raped your daughter. But it would not be impossible to forgive, which is a form of love. I think love covers an awful lot of territory, even though there is too little of it as there is. I don’t see what science can do to up the ante. Without love, life is a zero sum game.

 

[aileron]

Can there be a science of morality?

Charlemagne, would you be so kind as to elaborate, in very specific terms, how you define morality for the purposes of this query? Thanks.

 

[KDB]

Are there instances of genetically traced homosexuality among any other species?

Biologists use terms like “Transgender behavior and gender confusion behavior” when they are talking about males doing things females usually do and vice versa. Also lots of species have dominance displays and social interactions that would strike us as sexual. Only a few species do things that i would call homosexuality. Dolphins do a lot of things you only see humans doing on the internet including all-out same sex stimulation

 

[Leela]

That is indeed a good start. Now we just need to take into account animals, environmentalism, morals in war, traits like homosexuality, differing opinions, etc.

Right, it’s a lot like saying “do good” is the basis for all morality. True, but not very helpful in practice.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Loraine,

*Charlemagne, would you be so kind as to elaborate, in very specific terms, how you define morality for the purposes of this query? Thanks. *

A very good question. I would define morality as a system of knowledge (perhaps wisdom is the better word?) by which we distinguish right from wrong. Morality might be implicit in the laws of the land, such as those laws which must be obeyed for the general and the specific good. However, morality is not to be identified as the law per se, since some laws might be unjust, as some have been and still are (slavery, killing of the unborn, etc.)

Issues concerning morality may include objective and subjective morality, who decides what is moral and immoral, how those decisions are arrived at, how those decisions can be enforced, who will enforce them, the role of tradition, the role of progress, the problem of regress, the rights of the majority, the rights of the minority, moral consensus, obedience to the law, rebellion against the law, religious morality, atheistic morality, teaching morality, etc. etc.

Over against all this must be a shield and a sword by which the public can be protected from wrongdoers. This may include prison time, rehabilitation, etc. Virtue, on the other hand, is its own reward.

The purpose of this thread is to determine whether science can, or whether it should, make serious contributions toward building a better wisdom or consciousness of how to decide between right and wrong.

This necessarily requires analysis of the scientific method and whether it is applicable to moral questions.

Do you think it is, or do you think it isn’t?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

*Right, it’s a lot like saying “do good” is the basis for all morality. True, but not very helpful in practice. *

But it’s a whole lot better than “do bad,” isn’t it?

 

[aileron]

…who decides what is moral and immoral, how those decisions are arrived at…

Thank you for taking the time to define your concept of morality. Based on this quoted part in particular, I think it’s safe to say that science cannot form a complete system of morality as described. Science is a rather slippery thing to define, but I think it’s safe to say that these issues among others in your definition more properly fall in the purview of other endeavors, i.e., jurisprudence, legislation, religion, and others.

However, given your definition there are still areas where science can play a role. For instance, if in the formulation of morality as you describe, there arise questions that seem to fall into the purview of science, in these situations scientists should play a role.

Over against all this must be a shield and a sword by which the public can be protected from wrongdoers. This may include prison time, rehabilitation, etc. Virtue, on the other hand, is its own reward.

I was going to cite an example of the role science can play in your system of morality, but you beat me to it – prison time. Let’s say that on the issue of prison sentences, outside of science the following two rationales for imprisonment among others emerge: deterrence and avoidance of recidivism. Although science was not instrumental in the formulation of these justifications, science plays a central role in determining how to implement these goals by prison sentence.

For example, science can examine which crimes are more likely to lead to recidivism than others. Science can also examine how effective prison sentences are in deterring different types of crimes, the efficacy of various sentences, the effect of mandatory sentencing, etc. These answers are not going to be as precise in their mathematics as chemistry or physics, but however imperfect the results science is in the best position to answer them. Once science does answer them, they can be used as (name removed by moderator)uts back to the system of moral formulation you describe.

The purpose of this thread is to determine whether science can, or whether it should, make serious contributions toward building a better wisdom or consciousness of how to decide between right and wrong.

Based on how you are defining morality, I would say that science should perform an instrumental role. I’m using “instrumental” not in the sense of central or leading, but in the sense of a tool. When the answer to a moral question is contingent on something that can be evaluated by observation, experiment, etc., science is the place to turn.

Do you think it is, or do you think it isn’t?

One of the things you mention in your definition of morality is who determines it. I would like to slightly expand on this: Whom do people recognize as the proper formulators of moral rules? People generally do not accept definitions of morality that could be in the purview of science alone. Even for people who define morality in strictly scientific terms (or try to), science is not advanced enough yet to have a complete or even much of a partial system.

My short answer would be: Today science should be used as a tool to answer questions of morality formulated elsewhere. Perhaps someday science may take a leading role, but if and only if people accept that it is within their purview. Even if people accepted this purview today, science is unprepared to accept it and it’s unclear when if ever they will be.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Perhaps someday science may take a leading role, but if and only if people accept that it is within their purview.

As you suggest, I think this will be a serious problem, largely because for most people morality is deep in the fabric of religion, whereas science wants to dissociate itself entirely from religion. Moral issues researched by atheist scientists, for example, might yield conclusions rather different from those of religion. In that case, the gap between science and religion might grow wider than it already is. In the old Soviet Union for several generations scientists had to present their credentials as atheists, so it was a forgone conclusion that the State intended to use science as a weapon against religion. Whether that could happen again in the U.S. is arguable, since the 1st amendment protects religious freedom; unless the Amendment was thrown out, which will never happen unless the great majority of Americans turn against religion. In that event, given a theoretical vacuum, science would be in a stronger position to advise on moral issues, but would have to develop a (soft?) scientific method that at present is not clearly possible or even likely.

*For example, science can examine which crimes are more likely to lead to recidivism than others. *

I agree that this would be a task for social scientists, and I think evidence has already been gathered to suggest that prisoners who attend religious services while in prison are less likely to return to prison that those who do not.

However, given your definition there are still areas where science can play a role. For instance, if in the formulation of morality as you describe, there arise questions that seem to fall into the purview of science, in these situations scientists should play a role.

Could you elaborate here?

Thank you for joining the discussion.

 

[antunesaa]

If a person is genetically homosexual the compulsion to behave homosexually must affect one’s moral judgment of that behaviour.

A pervasive tendency of modern thinking (well, not that modern) is to ascribe morally incorrect behavior (to steal, to kill, to envy, to betray, to seduce one’s sister, to seduce one’s father, etc.) to some primeval cause non imputable to the author of the misdeeds. This is wrong because, in an extreme version, it implies that there is no responsibility in one’s acts, and therefore humans are really non-imputable robots. Another implication is that no moral system is valid: everything is predetermined and consequently devoid of moral content. No one is guilty, no one to blame. In milder versions you get moral relativism, which also has its own caveats. For instance, if enough people or people influential enough think that it’s ok to kill a particular kind of their brothers (be them Jews and Catholic clergy, or unborns, or black people, just to cite examples from the 1930s Germany, today’s Western countries, and the 1900s Namibia), then relativistic morals will reflect that. The moral code somehow accepts killing such and such group because a large or influential group thinks so. An absolute moral code is needed to avoid this inconsistency: willfully killing people is never ok. Period.

Moreover, just because I am more inclined to it, doing a bad thing (like those stated above) cannot wipe out my guilt. The potential inclination to some particular bad action changes the relative prices of doing things, but does not change the fact that the person still has the final say. People in billions of occasions have said no to deep-seated bad inclinations because they chose to. Others picked the evil option. For some it’s more difficult to do the right or neutral thing instead of the bad one, but it can’t hurt to ask someone’s help. Why not God’s?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

An absolute moral code is needed to avoid this inconsistency: willfully killing people is never ok. Period.

The operative word is “willfully.” Killing in self defense might be necessary, but it cannot be willful. That is, we should not exult in the killing, and in all probability, with any kind of conscience, we might never recover from killing even in self defense.