Science and morality

[tonyrey]

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.

Even without belief in a Creator we should be grateful for the gift of life. Even if life becomes intolerable it can be ended but for the vast majority it is better than not having been born!

 

[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!

Non human animals have and are surviving without reason.

Are you defending the Principle of Sufficient Reason?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

Irrefutable!

I don’t see how this proves science can demonstrate moral truths. The science speaks on morals, but it doesn’t mean that he knows those morals due to his research

Science searches to model everything mathematically so that the quantitative nature of things can be used to create technology. Technology is just a kind of power, and power can be used for good or evil.

Science by definition is very narrow, dealing with certain abstracts from material being, abstraction with can be used to fulfil it’s purpose: to create technology. All other aspects of things and ignored, since they can’t by their nature be mechanical (Proper or “secondary” qualities, for example).

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Rhubarb]

1. 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.

Very good. So you have suggested several behaviors that are morally good and/or somethings we ought to do. (Eating, sleeping, walking, talking, reasoning, etc) So here is what is being suggested - naturalistic facts that lead to the normative.

1. We can engage in behaviors x-z
2. Behaviors x-z are necessary for survival.

---

C. We ought to do x-z

But the conclusion doesn’t follow. The argument is totally invalid. Unless we add 3. We ought to do that which is necessary for survival. And now we have a normative fact, if it is a fact, that must bridge the naturalistic premises to the conclusion.

 

[tonyrey]

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

Not in abnormal situations. On one occasion I had to rescue a mongoose which had been been trapped in a large bin all night!

Are you defending the Principle of Sufficient Reason?

I’m defending the unique power of reason.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Et tecum

Antonius

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t see how this proves science can demonstrate moral truths. The science speaks on morals, but it doesn’t mean that he knows those morals due to his research

 

[tonyrey]

1. 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.

I am assuming life is normally valuable but reason is in a more fundamental category altogether. Regardless of the value of life, to reject the value of reasoning is not only self-refuting but also self-destructive. It implies reasoning is a waste of time and energy but ask yourself how we reach that conclusion? By chance? :ehh:

We tend to take reasoning for granted but without it where would we be? Animals survive by associating events with situations but they cannot understand the principle of causality or give you explanations. They lack insight. Reasoning is far from being a mechanical process. It is a supernatural gift…

 

[Rhubarb]

I am assuming life is normally valuable but reason is in a more fundamental category altogether. Regardless of the value of life, to reject the value of reasoning is not only self-refuting but also self-destructive. It implies reasoning is a waste of time and energy but ask yourself how we reach that conclusion? By chance? :ehh:

We tend to take reasoning for granted but without it where would we be? Animals survive by associating events with situations but they cannot understand the principle of causality or give you explanations. They lack insight. Reasoning is far from being a mechanical process. It is a supernatural gift…

Assuming life is a moral good begs the question. We’re trying to tap down what makes things morally good/obligatory. Science cannot tell us that being alive is good. How would we measure that? How could there be an empirical study on that? How could it possibly be falsified? You can certainly use “life is a moral good” in an argument, but it’s not a naturalistic claim. It’s a normative claim you’re taking as an assumption. And even if both you and I agree that it’s a true proposition, that doesn’t make it a naturalistic claim that science weighs in on.

Why you’re talking about reason and reasoning, I don’t understand. Or your talk of value. Value is a huge topic that’s tangential to most moral philosophy. I know it’s a popular slogan used by the apologists at Catholic Answers and they make for nice soundbites on the radio show. I’m not saying that reason isn’t good, in a moral sense. (Though I’m not sure how reason ITSELF could be one thing or the other. Perhaps USING reason could be a moral good?) I’m saying that give me your laundry list of scientific facts about reason and reasoning - cognitive science has things to say on the subject. You still need the logical connection between “X uses reason” to “the use of reason is good” even if the normative proposition is an unstated premise.

Anyway, I think we’ve gone off the tracks. My first paragraph is why I originally stated that science can be useful in informing morality. For instance, we might both agree that causing undue pain is morally wrong. There is debate whether lobsters can feel pain the way we humans do. The science on that subject will help us discern if boiling lobsters for our expensive surf’n’turf dinners are morally wrong as the evidence can tell us whether the lobsters are dying in horrible agony or not. Science is very important in the doings of philosophy, and vice-versa.

 

[tonyrey]

I am assuming life is normally valuable but reason is in a more fundamental category altogether. Regardless of the value of life, to reject the value of reasoning is not only self-refuting but also self-destructive. It implies reasoning is a waste of time and energy but ask yourself how we reach that conclusion? By chance?

Science is not the sole arbiter of reality. The best best of any theory is its fertility, coherence and consistency with the way we think, behave and live. Only a lunatic acts as if life is valueless. People who commit suicide are consistent if they believe live is not worth living but the vast majority implicitly acknowledge the immense value of life by continuing to stay alive in spite of all its drawbacks. It was an atheist without an axe to grind (Thomas Nagel) who pointed out that life is valuable because it is a source of opportunities… Pragmatism is not the sole criterion of truth but it is one of them…

Why you’re talking about reason and reasoning, I don’t understand. Or your talk of value. Value is a huge topic that’s tangential to most moral philosophy. I know it’s a popular slogan used by the apologists at Catholic Answers and they make for nice soundbites on the radio show. I’m not saying that reason isn’t good, in a moral sense. (Though I’m not sure how reason ITSELF could be one thing or the other. Perhaps USING reason could be a moral good?) I’m saying that give me your laundry list of scientific facts about reason and reasoning - cognitive science has things to say on the subject. You still need the logical connection between “X uses reason” to “the use of reason is good” even if the normative proposition is an unstated premise.

If you abandon reason you are contradicting yourself. How can you distinguish between what is logical and illogical without the power of reason?

Anyway, I think we’ve gone off the tracks. My first paragraph is why I originally stated that science can be useful in informing morality. For instance, we might both agree that causing undue pain is morally wrong. There is debate whether lobsters can feel pain the way we humans do. The science on that subject will help us discern if boiling lobsters for our expensive surf’n’turf dinners are morally wrong as the evidence can tell us whether the lobsters are dying in horrible agony or not. Science is very important in the doings of philosophy, and vice-versa.

Science is subordinate to metascience, e.g. metaphysics, logic and epistemology which provide its foundations. It presupposes the intelligibility of the universe and the validity of intelligent activity. Its role is restricted to physical phenomena and human behaviour which is only partly explained by biological facts.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Science is not the sole arbiter of reality.

Indeed, when scientists first went about building the atomic bomb there seems to have been little difficulty among themselves whether they ought to do it. They certainly had not used science to decide whether they should do so. What they used was the motive of human greed, the ambition to kill and to kill in abundance. They satisfied that initial greed, and then, in the decades that followed, their success made them more greedy and ambitious than ever to create an arsenal of weapons sufficient to annihilate human civilization. They had forgotten that science was only one arbiter of reality, and that morality itself was the supreme arbiter before which all other arbiters should have to kneel.

 

[HelenRose]

Can science help us distinguish between right and wrong?

1. Never
2. Sometimes (If so when?)
3. Always

Science alone never:

Science alone is concerned with the survival of the species.

Science alone does not address the human soul.

Science alone states that morals and morality only serves to determine what society will survive.
For instance: A society which kills it young through abortion, neglect and abuse; Euthanizes the wisdom of its elderly; Considers suffering a capital offense; Places sexual desires above the needs of its children. Will not survive because it will be weakened and easy prey for a much stronger society that has a future and a will to survive in spite of suffering and hardship.

 

[inocente]

Can science help us distinguish between right and wrong?

1. Never
2. Sometimes (If so when?)
3. Always

Always, since any ethic based on the consequences of conduct has to measure the costs and benefits of alternatives. For instance, Chinese Mohism, dating from 400 BC, seeks the way to the highest welfare for everyone in society, and so needs an unprejudiced means of measuring welfare. Or utilitarianism, which seeks the maximum well-being for the most individuals.

What science can’t do is make value judgments, for instance, whether Mohism is better or worse than utilitarianism, or whether the well-being of non-human animals is or isn’t important, or whether some actions ought always be categorically wrong.

 

[tonyrey]

Science alone never:

Science alone is concerned with the survival of the species.

Science alone does not address the human soul.

Science alone states that morals and morality only serves to determine what society will survive.

 For instance:  A society which kills it young through abortion, neglect and abuse;  Euthanizes the wisdom of its elderly;    Considers suffering a capital offense; Places sexual desires above the needs of its children. Will not survive because it will be weakened and easy prey for a much stronger society that has a future and a will to survive in spite of suffering and hardship.

A bleak picture, Helen, but very close to the truth. Vivisection is also a feature of an amoral scientific society which ignores the rights of animals and is guilty of diabolical cruelty. PETA has opened my eyes to the immense number of atrocities being committed against our fellow creatures in our so-called civilised world - in addition to man’s inhumanity to man. Evil seems to have no limits… That is where materialism demonstrates that it is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of reality and the secular society is doomed to destroy not only itself but all life on this planet unless moral and spiritual values are recognised and restored by governments and the United Nations. Religion is not a luxury but a necessity in a world dominated by greed and the lust for power.

 

[tonyrey]

Indeed, when scientists first went about building the atomic bomb there seems to have been little difficulty among themselves whether they ought to do it. They certainly had not used science to decide whether they should do so. What they used was the motive of human greed, the ambition to kill and to kill in abundance. They satisfied that initial greed, and then, in the decades that followed, their success made them more greedy and ambitious than ever to create an arsenal of weapons sufficient to annihilate human civilization. They had forgotten that science was only one arbiter of reality, and that morality itself was the supreme arbiter before which all other arbiters should have to kneel.

They would argue that their aim was to bring about peace in the war against Japan but instead it has led to the prospect of a nuclear holocaust which could destroy all life on this planet. The indiscriminate and ruthless slaughter of men, women and children who were already victims of their own government’s policies was totally unjustified. Like money science is often a monster over which we have no control. Both types of power are a potential threat not only to humanity but to every other creature on earth.

 

[inocente]

They would argue that their aim was to bring about peace in the war against Japan but instead it has led to the prospect of a nuclear holocaust which could destroy all life on this planet. The indiscriminate and ruthless slaughter of men, women and children who were already victims of their own government’s policies was totally unjustified. Like money science is often a monster over which we have no control. Both types of power are a potential threat not only to humanity but to every other creature on earth.

Actually, the US government had total control. It had evidence that the Nazis were developing the Bomb (for instance intelligence of the heavy water plant in Norway, later sabotaged), and got the scientists to develop a deterrent out of a sense of patriotic duty.

The US government spent $26 billion in today’s money, employed 130,000 on the project, and then decided to order its air force to drop the Bomb on Japan.

While scapegoats may be convenient, the truth is that the entire population of America was culpable, as it was done by their government of the people, for the people and by the people.

 

[HelenRose]

A bleak picture, Helen, but very close to the truth. Vivisection is also a feature of an amoral scientific society which ignores the rights of animals and is guilty of diabolical cruelty. PETA has opened my eyes to the immense number of atrocities being committed against our fellow creatures in our so-called civilised world - in addition to man’s inhumanity to man. Evil seems to have no limits… That is where materialism demonstrates that it is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of reality and the secular society is doomed to destroy not only itself but all life on this planet unless moral and spiritual values are recognised and restored by governments and the United Nations. Religion is not a luxury but a necessity in a world dominated by greed and the lust for power.

I believe in God for many reasons - mainly because I love my Savior.

But, I could not live with the idea that God does not exist. I would despair because there would be no purpose to life at all for me.

 

[tonyrey]

Actually, the US government had total control. It had evidence that the Nazis were developing the Bomb (for instance intelligence of the heavy water plant in Norway, later sabotaged), and got the scientists to develop a deterrent out of a sense of patriotic duty.

The US government spent $26 billion in today’s money, employed 130,000 on the project, and then decided to order its air force to drop the Bomb on Japan.

While scapegoats may be convenient, the truth is that the entire population of America was culpable, as it was done by their government of the people, for the people and by the people.

I don’t believe that all the people who live in a democracy are morally responsible for everything their government does. Were the people consulted about the decision to drop the two Bombs? Obviously they couldn’t be because it was top secret but it doesn’t follow that all US citizens are guilty of that crime against humanity.

 

[tonyrey]

I believe in God for many reasons - mainly because I love my Savior.

But, I could not live with the idea that God does not exist. I would despair because there would be no purpose to life at all for me.

I agree with you. I suppose we could pretend we are doing our best to make life bearable but I for one am quite sure we would only imagine we have control over what happens, let alone self-control. In a Godless universe we would be impotent cogs in an immense machine incapable of altering the course of events. Fortunately it doesn’t make sense because our ability to reason presupposes the freedom to choose what to believe and how to live. Even the most powerful computer has no insight into what it is doing…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Actually, the US government had total control. It had evidence that the Nazis were developing the Bomb (for instance intelligence of the heavy water plant in Norway, later sabotaged), and got the scientists to develop a deterrent out of a sense of patriotic duty.

When Einstein saw the results at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he quickly forgot about that so-called patriotism and became a rabid advocate for disarmament. This was yet another example of a great scientist who got some wisdom but got it too late to stop the genie from getting out of the bottle.

Germany never developed the bomb, so that particular weapon of mass destruction, like the so-called ones supposedly being prepared for our destruction by Sadam Hussein, never really existed. The so-called intelligence was not so intelligent in either case.

So here we are, thanks to those patriotic scientists who really did it because they were fascinated by the prospects of mass annihilation, here we are sitting on top of an arsenal of nuclear weapons sufficient to annihilate human civilization, and of course there is no one patriotic enough to stop the madness.

 

[mikekle]

When Einstein saw the results at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he quickly forgot about that so-called patriotism and became a rabid advocate for disarmament. This was yet another example of a great scientist who got some wisdom but got it too late to stop the genie from getting out of the bottle.

Germany never developed the bomb, so that particular weapon of mass destruction, like the so-called ones supposedly being prepared for our destruction by Sadam Hussein, never really existed. The so-called intelligence was not so intelligent in either case.

So here we are, thanks to those patriotic scientists who really did it because they were fascinated by the prospects of mass annihilation, here we are sitting on top of an arsenal of nuclear weapons sufficient to annihilate human civilization, and of course there is no one patriotic enough to stop the madness.

In many ways, the same thing is happening today, scientists and researchers are probing areas we never knew of. CERN is one of those, they are doing things to just see what happens, then they keep going, increasing power, different conditions, etc. I read awhile back one of the ‘unexpected’ outcomes of these tests was some kind of byproduct material, I believe they call them ‘strangelets’ or something like that. They one scientist being interviewed said just one tiny drop of this material held more energy potential than pounds of uranium…now you dont think the military and the weapons industry is going to be interested in this?!!

Besides the CERN tests, Im sure sometime in the future, we will make major new discoveries, new inventions, they are always trying to find better ways to kill, Im sure there are plenty of R&D labs out there working on the next big weapon.