Science and Morality

[aileron]

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.

Sure, I’ll try to elaborate. As an example, philosophers came up with thought experiments to explore if a moral action depends only on outcome. Scientists picked up on some of these thought experiments, mainly the Trolley Problem and attempted to apply scientific methods to answer whether people have any innate, more or less universal moral principles.

Scientists took the Trolley Problem and collected surveys from all over the world. They even put the problem into terms appropriate for remote peoples of the Amazon and surveyed people there to help rule out cultural syncratism as an explanation. They sliced and diced the statistics all ways. They now have some evidence, with at least some scientific rigor, that people really are hardwired to make certain moral choices no matter what culture, religious or atheist, rich or poor, liberal or conservative, etc. If their results are correct, and they seem to be, then there is more to moral choices than outcomes and also people have at least some rules for morality built into their brains somehow.

The Trolley Problem, and surveys based on thought experiments similar to it, give a yes or no choice to situations that will lead to the death of five innocent people or only one innocent person. If outcome were all that mattered in moral decisions, people would consistently choose the option that saved five lives, but in many setups of the thought experiment people choose the option that leads to the deaths of five people. If these moral choices were not the product of an innate sense of morality, we would expect to find differences across cultures, religions, etc., but they are consistent worldwide.

(You can search “Trolley Problem” and read the specific setups of the surveys.)

So using your definition of morality, science can do more than just sit passively until other formulators of morality ask scientific questions. They can provide (name removed by moderator)ut to the formulation too. In the case of the Trolley Problem, people could use the findings to support moral arguments that outcome should not be the only determining factor.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

I have not heard about the Trolly Problem. Will look it up.

Scientists took the Trolley Problem and collected surveys from all over the world. They even put the problem into terms appropriate for remote peoples of the Amazon and surveyed people there to help rule out cultural syncratism as an explanation. They sliced and diced the statistics all ways. They now have some evidence, with at least some scientific rigor, that people really are hardwired to make certain moral choices no matter what culture, religious or atheist, rich or poor, liberal or conservative, etc. If their results are correct, and they seem to be, then there is more to moral choices than outcomes and also people have at least some rules for morality built into their brains somehow.

If I am not mistaken, this sounds a bit like Thomas Aquinas’ view (Saint Paul before him, and Genesis before Saint Paul) that the natural law understanding of right and wrong is build into us by God at our creation. It would appear from what you have pointed out, if I understand you correctly, that science is confirming this point of Catholic theology (within a naturalist framework, of course).

Thanks for the tip on this.

One thing really interests me. Since “love one another” is at the center of Christian theology, is there some way that science could confirm “love one another” as a central feature of the natural law, or the Trolley Problem?

 

[aileron]

If I am not mistaken, this sounds a bit like Thomas Aquinas’ view (Saint Paul before him, and Genesis before Saint Paul) that the natural law understanding of right and wrong is build into us by God at our creation.

Yes, Aquinas and Paul argued this. I don’t remember the epistle, but he was remarking that the pagans observed a form of the law even without having it. I’m not sure, but I think Augustine argued this as well. Some pagan philosophers did too.

It would appear from what you have pointed out, if I understand you correctly, that science is confirming this point of Catholic theology (within a naturalist framework, of course).

Well, science does not make a statement that the innate sense of moral rules comes from God, but yes, it does corroborate what has been taught by Catholic theology. This does not surprise me at all. It seems only natural that if some of the basic rules of morality are integral to human nature, the theologians and philosophers would have intuitively suspected it.

Supporting the Catholic position, if outcome is not the only thing that matters to moral rule making it has direct relevance to many of the problems of today. For instance, supposing we accept claims that legalization of illicit drugs may lead to lower drug-trafficking crime and will not increase drug use. Since science has reasons to suggest that morality should not be based only on outcomes, we can argue that even if we agree with the assessment of the outcome there are still moral reasons to prohibit drug use. In the Trolley Problem, people consistently chose the five deaths over the one death when it required the decision maker to take any intentional part in the death of the one. In the case of legalized illicit drugs, it really calls into question the correctness of a supposed moral authority, the government, selling or allowing the sale of illicit drugs. The outcome must be weighed against the method and intent of the outcome. I agree with the Church here and reject purely utilitarian philosophy on this matter.

One thing really interests me. Since “love one another” is at the center of Christian theology, is there some way that science could confirm “love one another” as a central feature of the natural law, or the Trolley Problem?

I think science may be in a position to say “love thy neighbor” is innate morality, but science seems to be suggesting that “love thy enemy” requires us to use our rationality to overcome our baser moral rules.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Romans 2: 14-15 Natural Law

“For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus.”

*I think science may be in a position to say “love thy neighbor” is innate morality, but science seems to be suggesting that “love thy enemy” requires us to use our rationality to overcome our baser moral rules. *

Is it science that would be in that position, or is it the rule of common sense which is possessed by us all … in varying degrees? I know at least one or two scientists who have common sense.

Have done some research on the Trolley Problem as a thought experiment.

Of course the experiment is only hypothetical. Would the results be different if those tested were actually at the switch? How many would have frozen or run for cover? We’ll never know. Yet, as a thought experiment, it seems to point in the right direction.

Years ago I remember a popular thought experiment called the Life-boat Incident. Survivors on a raft had to throw somebody off the raft in order to save all the others from sinking. To complicate matters, the age, sex, and profession of each person was described, thereby thrusting the solution in the pragmatic direction (no blind justice there!)

 

[severntofall]

I have not heard about the Trolly Problem. Will look it up.
If I am not mistaken, this sounds a bit like Thomas Aquinas’ view (Saint Paul before him, and Genesis before Saint Paul) that the natural law understanding of right and wrong is build into us by God at our creation. It would appear from what you have pointed out, if I understand you correctly, that science is confirming this point of Catholic theology (within a naturalist framework, of course).

It would seem in this instance that science is affirming the effects of herditary traits far more so that Aquanian theology. Aquanias’ “natural laws” were just observations of natural tendancies and then artificially ascribing their cause to his god. Those same observations would have been just as valid (those that were actually valid many were not) without a single mention of a god. Fact of the matter is that all humans (particualrly males) have intrinsic tendancies to act in a manner largely inconsistent with the concept of Christian morality. Just look at the seven deadly sins.

 

[severntofall]

Romans 2: 14-15 Natural Law

“For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus.”

I think science may be in a position to say “love thy neighbor” is innate morality, but science seems to be suggesting that “love thy enemy” requires us to use our rationality to overcome our baser moral rules.

Is it science that would be in that position, or is it the rule of common sense which is possessed by us all … in varying degrees? I know at least one or two scientists who have common sense.

Have done some research on the Trolley Problem as a thought experiment.

Of course the experiment is only hypothetical. Would the results be different if those tested were actually at the switch? How many would have frozen or run for cover? We’ll never know. Yet, as a thought experiment, it seems to point in the right direction.

Years ago I remember a popular thought experiment called the Life-boat Incident. Survivors on a raft had to throw somebody off the raft in order to save all the others from sinking. To complicate matters, the age, sex, and profession of each person was described, thereby thrusting the solution in the pragmatic direction (no blind justice there!)

Greek discussions of the same concepts predate christian theology by quite a margin.

 

[Leela]

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.

If you read the OT you’ll see that religion used to include rules for hygiene, agriculture, fashion, what foods should be eaten, and economics as well as regulations for how to sell your daughter into sexual slavery. Nothing has been lost in dissociating these areas from religion and in fact much as been gained since freeing agricultural science and economics from religion has made us more productive, and freeing hygiene and nutrition from religion has made us healthier. I fully expect that once we dissociate morality from religion we will become more moral.

Moral issues researched by atheist scientists, for example, might yield conclusions rather different from those of religion.

I would certainly hope so.

 

[aileron]

If you read the OT you’ll see that religion used to include rules for hygiene, agriculture, fashion, what foods should be eaten, and economics as well as regulations for how to sell your daughter into sexual slavery. Nothing has been lost in dissociating these areas from religion

Not all of them have been totally dissociated yet either. Haredim (commonly called ultra-orthodox Jews) follow many OT based laws. They often go to great lengths to find loopholes in the law that could be described as simultaneously ingenious and sad. Most Haredi rabbis have decided that its not kosher to push buttons or activate electrical switches on the sabbath, but some rabbis have decided that its OK to dial phones using one’s teeth and use Shabbat elevators that automatically stop on every floor (must make for an interesting ride in a skyscraper).

and in fact much as been gained since freeing agricultural science and economics from religion has made us more productive, and freeing hygiene and nutrition from religion has made us healthier. I fully expect that once we dissociate morality from religion we will become more moral.

I agree, and the dissociation is not an either or choice but a continuum. We can see it in action today. If the polling data is correct, many Roman Catholics have different positions on current moral controversies than the Church.

 

[Thales]

… Fact of the matter is that all humans (particularly males) have intrinsic tendencies to act in a manner largely inconsistent with the concept of Christian morality. Just look at the seven deadly sins.

That’s exactly right and precisely the reason we need the objective morality of Christianity. Human beings, like other animals, naturally behave in a variety of ways influenced by instinct (nature) and experience. Like other animals this behavior can be seemingly “humane” or very cruel. Man has a natural tendency to gravitate to the “seven deadly sins” because, by nature we seek profit (that which is expediently beneficial) and power. This sort of action may be fit for the other animals, but it is not good enough for man who is distinguished by its knowledge of good and evil.

This does not address the issue of science and morality but does provide a conclusion to why a system of morality is essential for man.

From the objective eye of science and naturalism what can be said of the unique position of man? To those things is man uniquely in need of morals? I would like to know how science can recommend certain morals or prove moral behavior to be fit for man and why not so for any other animals?

 

[liquidpele]

That’s exactly right and precisely the reason we need the objective morality of Christianity. Human beings, like other animals, naturally behave in a variety of ways influenced by instinct (nature) and experience. Like other animals this behavior can be seemingly “humane” or very cruel. Man has a natural tendency to gravitate to the “seven deadly sins” because, by nature we seek profit (that which is expediently beneficial) and power. This sort of action may be fit for the other animals, but it is not good enough for man who is distinguished by its knowledge of good and evil.

This does not address the issue of science and morality but does provide a conclusion to why a system of morality is essential for man.

From the objective eye of science and naturalism what can be said of the unique position of man? To those things is man uniquely in need of morals? I would like to know how science can recommend certain morals or prove moral behavior to be fit for man and why not so for any other animals?

You say that we need the objective morality of Christianity… but the rules there are even debated. Government and Law are fair more suitable for this because the rules are clearly defined and *enforced * with consequence. Government need not be based on religious foundation, although the two do draw form many of the same foundations because the goals are similar. That said, I really like the two moral systems both existing, because it means one can’t go too crazy because the contrasting the two makes things clearer.

As to your last question, I don’t think it can. Science can provide information as to what works, what doesn’t, and why people do things, but it is not a suitable tool to define morality with. With respect to morality, science is something that can help us travel once we know where we want to go.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

I fully expect that once we dissociate morality from religion we will become more moral.

Ah, you mean like those atheists Stalin, Hitler, and Mao? Here we go again! Will you ever learn?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

severntofall

*Greek discussions of the same concepts predate christian theology by quite a margin. *

I think you owe us a name, date, and quotation, don’t you?

 

[Thales]

Originally Posted by Charlemagne II
Moral issues researched by atheist scientists, for example, might yield conclusions rather different from those of religion.

I would certainly hope so.

Taking the Ten Commandments as the cornerstone of Judeo-Christian morality, how would you like to see them changed by science? Perhaps a rational for murdering the unborn? Maybe an out clause for adultery, since it is a natural instinct for humans to be promiscuous, especially males?

The atheist’s whole reliance on natural explanation and science is just setting these things up as gods to replace the traditional religious ones. You will basically just be following the dictates of an impersonal process of finding knowledge. Whatever science says is moral will be moral as long as it coalesces with my rational. It’s is too bad reason is never foolproof without perfect knowledge. What will you say about science if it turns out to prove abortion* is* the killing of a person or if the universal use of contraception ends in a serious crisis of sexuality and loss of appropriate sexual context. Can you even conceive of science making poor moral conclusions?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

liquidpele

With respect to morality, science is something that can help us travel once we know where we want to go.

But science cannot tell us where we want to go. Only wisdom can tell us that. I didn’t see any wisdom with the creation of nuclear weapons.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

aileron

If the polling data is correct, many Roman Catholics have different positions on current moral controversies than the Church.

Yes, but those Catholics are not the Church. There have been many heretics in the Church right from the start, as even Paul was quick to point out. They will never rule the Church, then or now.

 

[Leela]

Leela

I fully expect that once we dissociate morality from religion we will become more moral.

Ah, you mean like those atheists Stalin, Hitler, and Mao? Here we go again! Will you ever learn?

These are not examples of what it looks like when we apply reason rather than religion to moral questions. No one thinks that these people were very reasonable or scientific at all.

 

[liquidpele]

liquidpele

With respect to morality, science is something that can help us travel once we know where we want to go.

But science cannot tell us where we want to go. Only wisdom can tell us that. I didn’t see any wisdom with the creation of nuclear weapons.

Perhaps you were not looking in the right place. What do you see here?

gryphonscry.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/optical_illusion.jpg?w=368&h=374

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

*These are not examples of what it looks like when we apply reason rather than religion to moral questions. No one thinks that these people were very reasonable or scientific at all. *

No one thinks they were very religious either.

 

[aileron]

aileron

If the polling data is correct, many Roman Catholics have different positions on current moral controversies than the Church.

Yes, but those Catholics are not the Church. There have been many heretics in the Church right from the start, as even Paul was quick to point out. They will never rule the Church, then or now.

These things take time. Many of John Paul II’s writings would have gotten him a knock on the door from the inquisitor a few centuries ago.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*These things take time. Many of John Paul II’s writings would have gotten him a knock on the door from the inquisitor a few centuries ago. *

Hmm? Such as?

I’m not a fan of the Inquisition, but I think its power is vastly overstated by modern critics.

In any case, I hope we don’t get sidetracked away from “science and morality”.

Can you think of any scientific enterprises in the last hundred years that the Church has opposed, other than nuclear weapons, which it has fairly vigorously opposed?

Can you think of any scientific enterprises in the last hundred years that have changed the Church’s way of thinking on moral issues?