Science and morality

[tonyrey]

Science can be used to inform settling between right and wrong. But you can’t empirically judge ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.

For instance, I think I read Sam Harris (who I usually find to be terrible at philosophy) tried to suppose that which promotes human flourishing is good. Science can tell us what promotes human flourishing. But he’s still making a leap - that the good is human flourishing. Science doesn’t say that, nor can it say that.

We still have to work out what is involved in human flourishing. Is it confined to physical and mental development?

 

[tonyrey]

If to flourish means to develop in a beneficial way, then why wouldn’t that be good? What would your definition be that would make it not good.

“beneficial” really begs the question, Brad! Does it mean “naturally” or is there more to it?

 

[tonyrey]

Just a quick point.

Whenever someone like Harris refers to something that is good, he is not referring to some mysterious ‘Good’. He is using the term, at least as I have always read him, in the usual sense. Good = beneficial.

Now who benefits is another matter. To be decided by reasonable people using reasonable arguments.

“who benefits” is an important point. It raises the questions of equality and fraternity. Can they be assessed by science?

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t know what units you might use, but you already decided it in 1. If 1 is correct then you can go straight to 3. There are no health benefits from smoking and only harm can come from it. It’s a very easy decision (although giving up is not an easy matter). It’s a scientific fact.

Same as amputating a limb, although that does cause harm. But it will save your life, so it is right. It’s a scientific fact.

But sending in that missile? It could be scientifically proven that it would benefit the majority if the minority suffered, but we then need to take it to another level to make the call. Can’t use science for that.

Indeed. It also depends on whether the majority are the aggressors!

 

[tonyrey]

Science, while opening up the mysteries of creation, is basically an operating manual for matter and is all about power, economics, status and ideology. It offers a interesting and challenging game to play, and the means to try to make life better. Here people will use it in circular arguments promoting their belief in a universe that is solely material. At its basis is the philosophy of science which describes a certain type of knowledge and dictates how it is to be obtained.

It certainly doesn’t take into account the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity…

 

[tonyrey]

The distinction isn’t illusionary because the semantic content of the propositions “x is beneficial” and “x is morally good” are different. It very well might be the case that what is beneficial is morally good - but you can’t get there without a logical bridge. You need “if x is beneficial, the x is morally good” which is not a scientific fact. If it is a fact at all, it’s a normative fact. And such a fact certainly isn’t an a priori truth, and it’s not an analytic statement.

Irrefutable! Although there are exceptions to the rule that “ought” cannot be derived from “is”. Our ability to reason, eat, drink, sleep, walk and talk implies that we should do all those things in normal circumstances.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

A good point but are all negative effects evil?

I would have to look for an example, in case there is one. For the moment, let’s suppose there are negative effects which are not evil; scientific considerations would not help us to determine if they are evil or not. Our scientific effort would only give us the knowledge of the causal correlation; but that is something, isn’t it?

 

[Lucretius]

Irrefutable! Although there are exceptions to the rule that “ought” cannot be derived from “is”. Our ability to reason, eat, drink, sleep, walk and talk implies that we should do all those things in normal circumstances.

If you don’t accept empirism, the is-ought problem never arises.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

It may be right in itself but what does it tell us about human rights?

The right to know freely, as opposed to being manipulated into manipulating (through power-wielding, misuse of technology, and ideology).

Respect.

Helping others develop genuine discretion and initiative.

Not much real science is being taught.

When that is the morality of science, science will support morality.

 

[Rhubarb]

Our ability to reason, eat, drink, sleep, walk and talk implies that we should do all those things in normal circumstances.

Explain how.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

A good point but are all negative effects evil?
JuanFlorencio;13682879:

I would have to look for an example, in case there is one. For the moment, let’s suppose there are negative effects which are not evil; scientific considerations would not help us to determine if they are evil or not. Our scientific effort would only give us the knowledge of the causal correlation; but that is something, isn’t it?

Tony, if what you were asking in your first post was equivalent to ask “is there any scientific procedure to distinguish between right and wrong?”, then the answer is “No, there isn’t any”. If you want to know if there is any possibility for scientists to develop an experimental method to identify right and wrong, the answer is again “No, there is no possibility”. For right and wrong to be identifiable by means of scientific procedures they would need to be certain peculiar configurations of matter or energy states, but they aren’t.

But if your question is equivalent to this other “is my moral judgment influenced by my knowledge?, and, in particular, can my moral judgment be influenced by scientific knowledge?” Then, I think the answer is “Yes”. If you know the possible effects of different courses of action, then definitely you can make better decisions. And naturally science can help you know the possible effects of different courses of action.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

National Institutes of Health
NIH-supported medical research and training advance health worldwide
2008:
. . .]

Dr. Roger Glass, Director of the Fogarty International Center discusses worldwide health and NIH research and training.

Although Roger I. Glass, M.D., Ph.D., was named Director of the Fogarty International Center and NIH Associate Director for International Research just two years ago, he has been contributing to the study of global health for decades. Dr. Glass’s research interests are in the prevention of gastroenteritis from rotaviruses and noroviruses through the application of novel scientific research. He has maintained field studies in India, Bangladesh, Brazil, Mexico, Israel, Russia, Vietnam, China, and elsewhere. He is fluent and often lectures in any of five different languages. MedlinePlus Managing Editor Selby Bateman shares Dr. Glass’s thoughts on global health.

Why should Americans care about global health research? Do Americans also benefit?

*Dr. Glass: First, from a moral standpoint, as citizens of the wealthiest country in the world, we have a responsibility to share our scientific knowledge and medical advances to benefit those less fortunate than ourselves. Second, in this increasingly “flat” world, health issues impact us all. The recent outbreak of SARS and the ongoing bird flu epidemic in Asian poultry both show that diseases don’t respect borders. Globalization has increased the movement of people and products around the world, which means diseases can spread more quickly.
*
. . . ]
nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/magazine/issues/spring08/articles/spring08pg10-11.html

 

[tonyrey]

Tony, if what you were asking in your first post was equivalent to ask “is there any scientific procedure to distinguish between right and wrong?”, then the answer is “No, there isn’t any”. If you want to know if there is any possibility for scientists to develop an experimental method to identify right and wrong, the answer is again “No, there is no possibility”. For right and wrong to be identifiable by means of scientific procedures they would need to be certain peculiar configurations of matter or energy states, but they aren’t.

But if your question is equivalent to this other “is my moral judgment influenced by my knowledge?, and, in particular, can my moral judgment be influenced by scientific knowledge?” Then, I think the answer is “Yes”. If you know the possible effects of different courses of action, then definitely you can make better decisions. And naturally science can help you know the possible effects of different courses of action.

An impeccable distinction, Juan!

 

[tonyrey]

Explain how.

The most obvious one is being reasonable. If you say “We don’t have to be reasonable” you are contradicting yourself because you expect others to agree with you, i.e. to be reasonable! Otherwise why would you say it to them?!

If you say “I don’t have to be reasonable” you are again contradicting yourself because You are using your power of reason to reach that conclusion!

 

[Lucretius]

The most obvious one is being reasonable. If you say “We don’t have to be reasonable” you are contradicting yourself because you expect others to agree with you, i.e. to be reasonable! Otherwise why would you say it to them?!

If you say “I don’t have to be reasonable” you are again contradicting yourself because You are using your power of reason to reach that conclusion!

What Rhubarb is pointing out (which Rhubarb can clarify if need be) is that what you wrote can justify anything. Just because you are capable of doing something, doesn’t mean you ought to do something. Just because you can sin, doesn’t mean you shoudl. Otherwise, all is permitted.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Rhubarb]

The most obvious one is being reasonable. If you say “We don’t have to be reasonable” you are contradicting yourself because you expect others to agree with you, i.e. to be reasonable! Otherwise why would you say it to them?!

If you say “I don’t have to be reasonable” you are again contradicting yourself because You are using your power of reason to reach that conclusion!

I don’t understand what being reasonable has to do with agreeing with anyone. People agree with lots of ‘unreasonable’ things, or hold unreasonable beliefs and biases. I also don’t have to use the power of reason to say “I don’t have to be reasonable”, I could spout it arbitrarily. But I still don’t know what you mean by ‘reasonable.’

I don’t see how any of the above quote follows. What do you mean by ‘reasonable’? And how does that bridge that if we are capable of eating, drinking, sleeping, etc, that we ought to? If by ‘reason’ you mean our ability to think in logical terms, then that should support my point. Because you need a normative claim to bridge the naturalistic claim that we can eat, drink, walk, reason, etc. to the claim that we should.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The fundamental nature of ethics is to deal with the oughts and the ought-nots.

The most important question that haunts everyone, even the atheist, is whether I ought to worship God or I ought not to.

When I consider whether I ought to worship God, science cannot tell me I ought to or I ought not to.

My heart has reasons science cannot know. One of those reasons is gratitude.

Only the ingrate can say he ought not to worship his Creator.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t understand what being reasonable has to do with agreeing with anyone. People agree with lots of ‘unreasonable’ things, or hold unreasonable beliefs and biases. I also don’t have to use the power of reason to say “I don’t have to be reasonable”, I could spout it arbitrarily. But I still don’t know what you mean by ‘reasonable.’

I don’t see how any of the above quote follows. What do you mean by ‘reasonable’? And how does that bridge that if we are capable of eating, drinking, sleeping, etc, that we ought to? If by ‘reason’ you mean our ability to think in logical terms, then that should support my point. Because you need a normative claim to bridge the naturalistic claim that we can eat, drink, walk, reason, etc. to the claim that we should.

Let’s put it like this:

1. If you believe in never being reasonable you are definitely contradicting yourself because you reject **every **reason that is given to you. In other words you are being totally irrational.
2. It doesn’t make sense to abandon the only way you can survive and communicate with people intelligently. It implies that not only is reasoning worthless but so is your very existence! It would be more consistent to say nothing and do nothing but even that is self-contradictory because you use reasoning to reach the conclusion that it is better to say nothing and do nothing.

3.The idea that everything is worthless is obviously self-destructive because the idea itself is included in "everything"!

 

[tonyrey]

What Rhubarb is pointing out (which Rhubarb can clarify if need be) is that what you wrote can justify anything. Just because you are capable of doing something, doesn’t mean you ought to do something. Just because you can sin, doesn’t mean you shoudl. Otherwise, all is permitted.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

On the contrary reasoning is unique because it is the foundation of survival in abnormal situations. If reasoning is worthless so is everything else!

 

[tonyrey]

National Institutes of Health
NIH-supported medical research and training advance health worldwide
2008:
. . .]

Dr. Roger Glass, Director of the Fogarty International Center discusses worldwide health and NIH research and training.

Although Roger I. Glass, M.D., Ph.D., was named Director of the Fogarty International Center and NIH Associate Director for International Research just two years ago, he has been contributing to the study of global health for decades. Dr. Glass’s research interests are in the prevention of gastroenteritis from rotaviruses and noroviruses through the application of novel scientific research. He has maintained field studies in India, Bangladesh, Brazil, Mexico, Israel, Russia, Vietnam, China, and elsewhere. He is fluent and often lectures in any of five different languages. MedlinePlus Managing Editor Selby Bateman shares Dr. Glass’s thoughts on global health.

Why should Americans care about global health research? Do Americans also benefit?

Dr. Glass: First, from a moral standpoint, as citizens of the wealthiest country in the world, we have a responsibility to share our scientific knowledge and medical advances to benefit those less fortunate than ourselves. Second, in this increasingly “flat” world, health issues impact us all. The recent outbreak of SARS and the ongoing bird flu epidemic in Asian poultry both show that diseases don’t respect borders. Globalization has increased the movement of people and products around the world, which means diseases can spread more quickly.

. . . ]
nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/magazine/issues/spring08/articles/spring08pg10-11.html

Irrefutable!