Can science define morality?

[crispybits]

We've all heard the argument that "you can't get an ought from an is" (or most of us with any history of discussing ethics have).

However I was linked to a couple of long youtube videos (over an hour each, I won't post them yet because I want to initiate a discussion here and get people's views not bore you all with long videos). The basic premise of one of the people in the videos was that science can define morality, and there could in theory be scientific tests devised to tell if an act is moral or immoral (a caveat, in practice it would be very complicated to have those tests in reality, because of the hugely complex nature of reality and the interactions of actions and consequences).

Their very basic argument is this: Morality is dependent on minds existing. In a universe full of inanimate matter there is no such thing as a moral or immoral act, just rocks bashing together. Morality is about well-being, the more well-being is caused or promoted by an action the more moral it is. We can imagine a world where the worst possible situation exists for everything. The least possible well-being. We can also imagine a world where the best possible situation exists. Both of those situations are measurable by science, certain conditions exist in reality independent of any thinking thing. It's no real stretch from there to posit that the situations in between could also be measured for how much well-being exists. By comparing, if we could, the well-being caused by decision A as opposed to decision B we could scientifically state that decision B is more moral.

The most obvious objection is that well-being is a very loose and fluffy term and we probably can't agree on what well-being comprises. The response to that is that we cannot readily define good health, yet that doesn't stop us having a science of medicine. There's stuff to do with not throwing up all the time, and not being in constant pain, but any definition of good health also has fuzzy edges.

Do you agree? Can we get to morality through scientific methods and reasoning alone or should science stay mute on this topic?

(a note - this thread isn't for bashing one moral judgement or another, or to bash religion, or for any other kind of bashing, or for promoting either of those things either. The topic at hand is whether morality is in theory testable, measurable and definable by science)

[Symmetry]

Do you agree? Can we get to morality through scientific methods and reasoning alone or should science stay mute on this topic?

I think there are a few issues at play here.

The first is science vs the scientific method. A scientific method can certainly be applied to morality, indeed, it's pretty much what we call ethics, or philosophy, or even law.

The second is that it's a tad lazy (sorry) to confuse science and reason. Reasoning is, I think, a key part of moral judgements.

The third, drawn out of those two, is that science should not be mute if it has something relevant to say. If a scientist's research proves that an animal feels pain, for example, that can be a moral argument for vegetarianism. That should not be silenced.

[mrswdk]

The main problem is that, as you say, morality only exists as a figment of people's imaginations. As such, there can be no one 'morality'. 'Morality' is a concept that changes just as much as 'sanity' or 'normality'. It has no meaning outside of its time- and location-specific context.

If I say that it was 'moral' of Hitler to try and rid the world of Jews, how can you prove me wrong? You can't. There's no possible benchmark.

Morality as a concept is just a big chiro-like logical fallacy.

[BigBallinStalin]

Science should frame morality since theory and empirical evidence play an important role in (1) constraining the expectations of people's moral philosophies and (2) distinguishing imaginary opportunities from actual opportunities.

For example, throughout the late 1800s and especially during the 1960s in the US, beliefs in the success of socialism were very strong because the claims predominantly rested on moral claims and little on scientific claims. Note how much people ignored the Socialist Calculation debate where Mises and Hayek explained in the 1940s how socialism would fall short of its goals. The argument of Mises and Hayek was perhaps not convincing enough because (a) it didn't appeal to people's emotions and (b) it was totally theoretical. Nevertheless, their criticism of socialism is still correct and has been empirically validated enough. The problem is that it's more difficult to explain how this is so--compared to chanting socialist slogans. Also note how the socialist professors have largely dropped from the scientific departments and into the more fuzzy-scientific or science-devoid departments (e.g. sociology and philosophy).

Faith in government is a fun example. Many are often too hasty for attributing too much credit to government for a variety of successes.


A main problem about science constraining morality is that it's difficult to separate the normative from the positive. My first sentence of this post is a normative claim about the role of science on moral philosophy (it's a policy recommendation), and it's a positive claim which states that science is useful for updating people's normative claims.

[crispybits]

The problem I have with the assertion is that we have no real way to define well-being (despite it being the first thing the speaker attemtped to counter)

I have no problem with reality being the thing that actually exists whether we witness it or not, and that things are either true or false regardless of whether we know if they are true or false. I have no problem with the fact that, in theory, we can measure things that exist in reality should we advance our technology sufficiently, even emotional states can already be detected in an active brain scan. It's more about how does science tell me whether it is better to make a decision between two options that all other things being equal will make someone very content and relaxed, or make that same person excitably happy? Which is better - relaxed contentment or excited happiness? What is better for well-being?

Or, using the assertion we can say that the best holiday choice is the one that most increases well being, but how do you measure the difference between 7 days spent lounging on a beach in the sun and 7 days hiking in the woods if I enjoy both equally and both have equal overall impacts on others? They are 2 different realities with different benefits and drawbacks in a multitude of different ways but does it simply come out as the moral equivalent of 100 pounds (UK) and 150 euros - the same value in financial power in different forms?

[mrswdk]

Well, to back up a bit, morality is not one of those things which exists independent of human witness. As you said earlier, it exists only as a mental invention of humans.

As such, there is no way of creating a uniform measure, because there is no standardized concept of morality. chiro's Christian morality is different from WBC's Christian morality is different from your atheist morality is different from my amorality. They all spring from different sources and embody totally different sets of values. So there is no constant that could be used a measure.

[Symmetry]

The problem I have with the assertion is that we have no real way to define well-being (despite it being the first thing the speaker attemtped to counter)

Of course we do. We have several ways to do this, from basic surveys to advanced statistical analysis of societal data points.

[BigBallinStalin]

The problem I have with the assertion is that we have no real way to define well-being (despite it being the first thing the speaker attemtped to counter)

I have no problem with reality being the thing that actually exists whether we witness it or not, and that things are either true or false regardless of whether we know if they are true or false. I have no problem with the fact that, in theory, we can measure things that exist in reality should we advance our technology sufficiently, even emotional states can already be detected in an active brain scan. It's more about how does science tell me whether it is better to make a decision between two options that all other things being equal will make someone very content and relaxed, or make that same person excitably happy? Which is better - relaxed contentment or excited happiness? What is better for well-being?

Or, using the assertion we can say that the best holiday choice is the one that most increases well being, but how do you measure the difference between 7 days spent lounging on a beach in the sun and 7 days hiking in the woods if I enjoy both equally and both have equal overall impacts on others? They are 2 different realities with different benefits and drawbacks in a multitude of different ways but does it simply come out as the moral equivalent of 100 pounds (UK) and 150 euros - the same value in financial power in different forms?

Well, if we view science as a tool for controlling others, then this problem will continue to dog us.

If we view science as having an advisory role which is not monopolized by one group of planners (i.e. politicians and bureaucrats), then granting people the freedom to choose seems to be the most wise route.

But given many people's desires to control other people's lives (for the sake of some moral philosophy which guides them), then they won't like the hands-off approach and will insist on finding some way to 'objectively' measure people's well-being. In the meantime, they'll still insist on controlling people's lives with 'enough' scientific support. Either way, this is called "scientism," which is hubristic and dangerous. Scientism has been the age-old backbone for colonialism, eugenics, racism, protectionism, socialism, and even public policy (neoclassical economics is guilty of scientism).

[BigBallinStalin]

The problem I have with the assertion is that we have no real way to define well-being (despite it being the first thing the speaker attemtped to counter)

Of course we do. We have several ways to do this, from basic surveys to advanced statistical analysis of societal data points.

I agree that "happiness" of a person can be measured with (perhaps) good enough accuracy if you have a team of scientists following that person everyday and intermittently asking them, "are you happy?"

Survey data is shoddy, but I'm eager for you to explain how "advanced statistical analysis of societal data points" truly reflects the well-being of all humans for a given area.

[Army of GOD]

A scientific method can certainly be applied to morality

No, no it can't.

[mrswdk]

And morality is not a question of 'well-being', it is a question of 'right' and 'wrong'. People do not necessarily connect 'right' with 'creating well-being' and 'wrong' with 'reducing well-being'.

Some people would say that if you have cheated on your wife then the moral thing to do is not to lie to her but to tell her the truth (thereby causing her anguish and destroying your marriage). I fail to see how that act of 'morality' would create well-being.

[Symmetry]

A scientific method can certainly be applied to morality

No, no it can't.

A persuasive argument there, AoG.

[crispybits]

Well, if we view science as a tool for controlling others, then this problem will continue to dog us.

If we view science as having an advisory role which is not monopolized by one group of planners (i.e. politicians and bureaucrats), then granting people the freedom to choose seems to be the most wise route.

That was one of the things that got touched on in one of the videos. Scientists don't go out there and rip cigarettes out of people's mouths, but the do say regularly "if you want to avoid a lot of the risk of getting diseases such as lung cancer and emphesema (sorry for the bad spelling) then don't smoke". That's not a nanny state type situation, it's just fully advisory.

I think the speaker was trying to get along the same lines at points. Science can tell us that A is more moral than B, but there's nothing actually forcing us to choose A over B, just information.

[mrswdk]

I'll just talk to myself then.

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure crispy is gonna be talking to many people here.

[Army of GOD]

A scientific method can certainly be applied to morality

No, no it can't.

A persuasive argument there, AoG.

Yes, yes it is.








Scientific method requires its subject to be measurable. Morality is as measurable as my dick (spoiler alert: my dick is immeasurable)

[mrswdk]

my dick is immeasurable

pix

[BigBallinStalin]

The problem I have with the assertion is that we have no real way to define well-being (despite it being the first thing the speaker attemtped to counter)

Or, using the assertion we can say that the best holiday choice is the one that most increases well being, but how do you measure the difference between 7 days spent lounging on a beach in the sun and 7 days hiking in the woods if I enjoy both equally and both have equal overall impacts on others? They are 2 different realities with different benefits and drawbacks in a multitude of different ways but does it simply come out as the moral equivalent of 100 pounds (UK) and 150 euros - the same value in financial power in different forms?

One can simply say, "at this time, it's most likely that I am enjoying these days on the beach. Seven days in the woods might have been better, but I'm really enjoying this more." Individually, we can compare imagined states of well-being with actual states of well-being. Some time after the beach, we might experience an opportunity loss: "I should've went to the woods instead, I imagine it would've been better," but we can still subjectively measure states of well-being accurately enough if we update enough. ("Next time, I'll try the woods and see if I really would like it more").

Before the decision, you had that choice between the beach and the woods, but you chose the beach; therefore, you valued the beach moreso than the woods. To this extent and in this circumstance, we know that this is true. Whatever one chooses at a time before the activity, we assume that choice is expected to yield the greatest value. This assumption cuts through a lot of nonsense.

With prices, we can more accurately compare the imagined expected values of each activity. When you pay the price, you incur the opportunity cost, so you best be sure you enjoy what you've chosen--compared to the alternative. If you pay $300 for a trip to the beach, it means that you expect to yield the greatest value at the beach instead of from some other $300 good.


These hold only at the individual level. The main problem is "interpersonal comparisons of utility/value." Science can't do that accurately. Neoclassical economics 'can'--but only by sleight of hand (e.g. by assuming that people's utility functions, thus preferences, are homogeneous--i.e. everyone has the same tastes). It's a heroic assumption which misleads people into fallaciously supported policies.

[Symmetry]

Morality is measurable.

[Army of GOD]

Morality is measurable.

THE DEBATE IS OVER

[Army of GOD]

my dick is immeasurable

pix

Just imagine an infinitely long, girthy, beige and veiny pipe.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, if we view science as a tool for controlling others, then this problem will continue to dog us.

If we view science as having an advisory role which is not monopolized by one group of planners (i.e. politicians and bureaucrats), then granting people the freedom to choose seems to be the most wise route.

That was one of the things that got touched on in one of the videos. Scientists don't go out there and rip cigarettes out of people's mouths, but the do say regularly "if you want to avoid a lot of the risk of getting diseases such as lung cancer and emphesema (sorry for the bad spelling) then don't smoke". That's not a nanny state type situation, it's just fully advisory.

I think the speaker was trying to get along the same lines at points. Science can tell us that A is more moral than B, but there's nothing actually forcing us to choose A over B, just information.

Well... you just jumped to a conclusion there. "Science can tell us that A is more moral than B." Science doesn't directly determine what is moral; morality is determined by one's perception of information which coincides and conflicts with one's prior beliefs and emotions.

Optimal science can only tell us that "based on many cross-country studies which controlled for all relevant variables, smoking x-amount of cigarettes is correlated with y-amount of years loss in life expectancy. Therefore, every year spent smoking 2 packs per day 'causes' a reduction of one's lifespan by an expected 1.2 months."

That's it, and that's the optimal science. The choice to smoke entails a subjective valuation of benefits versus costs (however defined in whatever units of measurement). The information from science helps update the decision-maker, whose perception of 'what is moral' might be influenced by the science. Nevertheless, it could be the case that the science fails to overcome powerful priors/emotions, thus science wouldn't influence morality. Or it could be the case that the decision to quit smoking was based predominantly on positive grounds, thus having nothing or very, very little to do with morality. Science itself doesn't define morality, but it can indirectly define it to some degree in limited range of scenarios.