Can science define morality?

[BigBallinStalin]

Using science may have moral implications such as inventing the atomic bomb and dropping on a civilian population.

Sure, science may something to do with morality, but in certain scenarios it does indirectly influence one's moral decision-making, thus morality.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=203639&start=15#p4455799

Using science to explain morality is absurd. Morality is a thought process and sort of imaginary limits placed on some of us.

Aren't you contradicting yourself? You just used the first step of the scientific method while talking about morality. Hypothesis: "morality is a thought process and sort of imaginary limits placed on some of us." Can that be verified? To some degree, and it can be updated. So (1) hypothesis, (2) verification, (3) update/revise hypothesis.

Also, there are sciences which deal with thought processes and imaginary limits...

Now let's take Doom and his/her idea of having a rape experiment...he may be breaking some moral/cultural code where he lives. Science can't determine whether it's right or wrong aka moral. Plus the fact that finding test subject to experiment on would be illegal and yes immoral in most places on this planet.

Science is void of morals, only the scientist may have some moral responsibility in using science for right or wrong.

Sure, "science" doesn't determine morality, but neither does morality determine morality. Only human action can accomplish these causal tasks. So, what can humans use in order to make moral decisions? The knowledge generated from science, thus in this way science influences morality.

Do we not use science and its products (e.g. facts) to address moral dilemmas? We certainly do, but not for all moral dilemmas. Suppose you feel morally obliged to help poor people, and you believe that the poor would be helped in the best way if only the government would nationalize the production of all capital goods (cars, steel, coal, etc.).

Does science (e.g. economics) help us make the right moral decision? Sure, 100% socialism won't attain your goal (positive claim). If you have some moral claim about wanting to do the right thing (normative claim), then you'll let the science shape your decision by not going for 100% socialism (positive claim).


You can even blend science with moral philosophy. Some people apply cost-benefit analysis to making (most but not all) moral decisions. That's another example of science determining/influencing morality.


In other words, most sciences 'within themselves' are devoid of moral claims because they don't require moral claims. It doesn't follow that all sciences are devoid of moral claims nor that science doesn't determine/shape/influence morality.

[tzor]

It is important to understand that morality is an abstract construct. It may or may not be related to cultural norms. Many cultures claim to be "moral" just as many notions claim to be "scientific." The derivation of a moral code from logic and rational thought may not even resemble a moral code reveled from top down definition (or revelation). Just because there is a moral code, it does not mean it is logically derived from rational thought.

Let us then consider the question of rape. One of the common axioms of any logically derived moral system is the notion of role reversal. The morality of action A upon person B should be the same with the role reversed, that is to say person B performs the action A on me. Would you want to be raped (against your will)? Since I would assume the answer is no then the answer remains no. (This isn't a complete answer in and of itself, as there is the question as to what extent "role reversal" should be extended, but we are only applying one of possibly many axioms that are needed for the base of any logical argument of rational thought.)

[BigBallinStalin]

Science by the way has NOTHING TO DO WITH MORALITY.

Oh, how so?

Since you want me to check out your ridiculous use of words on wiki, why don't you check wiki about SCIENCE.

Later my long winded poster.

scientia means knowledge.

are you implying that morality doesn't exist and therefore you can't know it?

If you think BBS is obtuse, you should read some modern drosophila genetics papers.

Morality is strictly a cultural value that changes from region and time. Science is like you said, knowledge.

WTF, in Iran you can be a 50 year old scumbag, marry and rape a 13 year old girl and it's acceptable, yet here in America you would be jailed and branded for life as a sexual predator for doing the same thing. How does science explain that?

Can you make a hypothesis (a guess) which explains the difference in outcomes?

Can that that guess be tested?

If so, then we're doing science.


Science isn't only the physical sciences like chemistry, astronomy, and biology. Science includes the social sciences like sociology, economics, and psychology.

Philosophy--like moral philosophy, isn't fully a science because they hardly test any claims. Many modern philosophers tend to make up stuff. They tend to forget about the soundness of their claims.

[kuthoer]

Science by the way has NOTHING TO DO WITH MORALITY.

Oh, how so?

Since you want me to check out your ridiculous use of words on wiki, why don't you check wiki about SCIENCE.

Later my long winded poster.

scientia means knowledge.

are you implying that morality doesn't exist and therefore you can't know it?

If you think BBS is obtuse, you should read some modern drosophila genetics papers.

Morality is strictly a cultural value that changes from region and time. Science is like you said, knowledge.

WTF, in Iran you can be a 50 year old scumbag, marry and rape a 13 year old girl and it's acceptable, yet here in America you would be jailed and branded for life as a sexual predator for doing the same thing. How does science explain that?

Can you make a hypothesis (a guess) which explains the difference in outcomes?

Can that that guess be tested?

If so, then we're doing science.


Science isn't only the physical sciences like chemistry, astronomy, and biology. Science includes the social sciences like sociology, economics, and psychology.

Philosophy--like moral philosophy, isn't fully a science because they hardly test any claims. Many modern philosophers tend to make up stuff. They tend to forget about the soundness of their claims.

Stalin, stick to the only subject which is " Can science define morality". Morality is taught or forced upon us by the community we live in. What's acceptable in Colorado "possession of a certain quantity of marijuana" would land you in jail in Texas.

[Phatscotty]

stealing money from future generations with no plan on paying them back and purposefully leaving them holding the bag is immoral.

How much they are stealing can be measured

[kuthoer]

stealing money from future generations with no plan on paying them back and purposefully leaving them holding the bag is immoral.

How much they are stealing can be measured

Sorry Phats, but you have to be more specific. Yes money can be measured, but Republicans stealing the nation's wealth for the benefit of the wealthy is approved by The Lord Jesus Christ.

[DoomYoshi]

stick to the only subject which is " Can science define morality". Morality is taught or forced upon us by the community we live in. What's acceptable in Colorado "possession of a certain quantity of marijuana" would land you in jail in Texas.

First off, you are the one who went off subject by saying "Science by the way has NOTHING TO DO WITH MORALITY." That's not a response to the question. That's an overarching statement which says that one cannot have knowledge of morality. How you continue to profess knowledge of morality is beyond me.

Second, when did illegal come to mean immoral?

[kuthoer]

stick to the only subject which is " Can science define morality". Morality is taught or forced upon us by the community we live in. What's acceptable in Colorado "possession of a certain quantity of marijuana" would land you in jail in Texas.

First off, you are the one who went off subject by saying "Science by the way has NOTHING TO DO WITH MORALITY." That's not a response to the question. That's an overarching statement which says that one cannot have knowledge of morality. How you continue to profess knowledge of morality is beyond me.

Second, when did illegal come to mean immoral?

Hey Doom, how's that Rape experiment going? Any luck finding volunteers?

People can define morality, duh. Science can't.

[DoomYoshi]

How do they define it?

[kuthoer]

How do they define it?

I don't expect you to actually read what I have posted on this thread, as that would require you to read and comprehend what was typed.

Individuals and your local community sets standards for morality. These standards for morality will vary greatly from region to region.

Science is too cold of an instrument to make a one size fits all.

[mrswdk]

The sooner humanity frees itself from the archaic blindfold of 'morality', the sooner it will find peace with itself.

[crispybits]

Stalin, stick to the only subject which is " Can science define morality". Morality is taught or forced upon us by the community we live in. What's acceptable in Colorado "possession of a certain quantity of marijuana" would land you in jail in Texas.

Firstly as has been mentioned legality and morality are two different things.

Aside from that, we can easily imagine, whatever markers you use to work out morality (well being/happiness/species survival) to imagine the worst possible world. The world where suffering or pain or whatever are at the worst extreme for everyone. It's also fairly easy to imagine a world where the best possible situation exists. Science can measure both, it can measure every aspect of both worlds (we can do brain scans that we can use to tell what emotions people are feeling at that moment already, and the technology is getting better to the point where we can now tell if someone is thinking of a person or a place even.) Emotional states are not ethereal numinous unmeasurable things, we can measure them, so there is no reason why we couldn't measure suffering or happiness. Well being is a bit of a fuzzier term, but then so is "good health".

Economics is a very fuzzy science too. Economic systems are hugely complicated things, and while we can put markers down all over the place and measure uncountable different variables, but there still isnt one over-riding theory of economics that can claim to be "right" in the same way that we could declare things like the theory of germs and disease "right". Economies still act in ways that surprise us and defy prediction or analysis until after the event when hindsight becomes 20-20. We don't say "science can't define economics", we say "economics is a very difficult and complicated thing and we need to study it more and understand it more by asking the right questions and looking for the underlying truths".

It could easily be the same with morality. We could shrug and say "science can't define morality" and give up enquiry into trying to understand it using the tools of science and reason, or we could say "morality is a very difficult and complicated thing" and keep asking questions and studying real world situations and reviewing evidence in an effort to understand it better.

I know science and reason were separated by one poster near the start of the thread, but I don't think (using a broad definition of science) that they are separate ting at all. An idea is proposed, critiqued, and either tentatively accepted or rejected. That is the process of both science and human reason both, and fundamentally there is no divide between the two.

[crispybits]

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

It's not going too badly - up to the 5th page already and unlike religious troll threads I haven't been back in arguing with every 3rd post to keep bumping it.

Besides, length of discussion wasn't my metric of success. I heard an idea, I liked it but there were things that I wasn't sure what they lead to or how the could be argued out and the weaknesses weren't attacked sufficiently by the debate on the video, so I brought it here so that I could see the different sides of the discussion expressed in other ways, and maybe hear other ideas that weren't covered in the video. It's done that and even if this is the last post on this thread it's definitely helped me understand the idea better which was the metric of success I had in mind when I created the OP.

[kuthoer]

Stalin, stick to the only subject which is " Can science define morality". Morality is taught or forced upon us by the community we live in. What's acceptable in Colorado "possession of a certain quantity of marijuana" would land you in jail in Texas.

Firstly as has been mentioned legality and morality are two different things.

Aside from that, we can easily imagine, whatever markers you use to work out morality (well being/happiness/species survival) to imagine the worst possible world. The world where suffering or pain or whatever are at the worst extreme for everyone. It's also fairly easy to imagine a world where the best possible situation exists. Science can measure both, it can measure every aspect of both worlds (we can do brain scans that we can use to tell what emotions people are feeling at that moment already, and the technology is getting better to the point where we can now tell if someone is thinking of a person or a place even.) Emotional states are not ethereal numinous unmeasurable things, we can measure them, so there is no reason why we couldn't measure suffering or happiness. Well being is a bit of a fuzzier term, but then so is "good health".

Economics is a very fuzzy science too. Economic systems are hugely complicated things, and while we can put markers down all over the place and measure uncountable different variables, but there still isnt one over-riding theory of economics that can claim to be "right" in the same way that we could declare things like the theory of germs and disease "right". Economies still act in ways that surprise us and defy prediction or analysis until after the event when hindsight becomes 20-20. We don't say "science can't define economics", we say "economics is a very difficult and complicated thing and we need to study it more and understand it more by asking the right questions and looking for the underlying truths".

It could easily be the same with morality. We could shrug and say "science can't define morality" and give up enquiry into trying to understand it using the tools of science and reason, or we could say "morality is a very difficult and complicated thing" and keep asking questions and studying real world situations and reviewing evidence in an effort to understand it better.

I know science and reason were separated by one poster near the start of the thread, but I don't think (using a broad definition of science) that they are separate ting at all. An idea is proposed, critiqued, and either tentatively accepted or rejected. That is the process of both science and human reason both, and fundamentally there is no divide between the two.

Did you start the sentence with "Firstly"?

Legality or morality are entangled together, since humans started writing up laws.

Secondly, if I was your Science teacher, I'd have to give you a failing grade.

[crispybits]

Yes I did, perfectly acceptable use of grammar there (except maybe that I never said "secondly" for my next point)

Legality and morality are two wholly different things. Is adultery illegal? How about breaking (non-contractual) promises? Or not keeping a secret (outside the realm of confidentiality agreements)? There are a whole bunch of commonalities, but you can't say that just because something is legal it's moral, or vice versa.

If you were my science teacher I don't think I'd have got past year 1. "Now kids this is very complicated and we don't understand it yet so IT'S NOT EVER GOING TO BE SOLVED!! Now go home..."

[Symmetry]

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

It's not going too badly - up to the 5th page already and unlike religious troll threads I haven't been back in arguing with every 3rd post to keep bumping it.

Besides, length of discussion wasn't my metric of success. I heard an idea, I liked it but there were things that I wasn't sure what they lead to or how the could be argued out and the weaknesses weren't attacked sufficiently by the debate on the video, so I brought it here so that I could see the different sides of the discussion expressed in other ways, and maybe hear other ideas that weren't covered in the video. It's done that and even if this is the last post on this thread it's definitely helped me understand the idea better which was the metric of success I had in mind when I created the OP.

Well, it's good that you're engaging anyway. Did you read my reply to the OP?

[crispybits]

Yes, I was leaving it alone back then because I didn't want to jump on the first reply, I wanted to see how the discussion developed from at least 3-4 replies. I thought you made a false divide between science and reasoning. Science, going by a hard definition (men in white lab coats) is different from reasoning in some ways, but the processes of science in general and reasoning is largely the same (we have an idea, we test the idea, the ideas that pass the tests get accepted). If economics is a science and sociology is a science then there's no reason why morality can't be one too.

I'm still slightly stuck about how science defines the metrics we use to judge the morality of any given situation/context. That's the leap that was made in the video that I'm not really following. I can see that everything we base our moral judgements on is, in theory, perfectly measurable. If not with today's technology then certainly in theory as technology advances. I just don't see how science can define which standards are more important than others (Is happiness more important then well being? Is general utility more important than individual freedoms?)

[Symmetry]

Yes, I was leaving it alone back then because I didn't want to jump on the first reply, I wanted to see how the discussion developed from at least 3-4 replies. I thought you made a false divide between science and reasoning. Science, going by a hard definition (men in white lab coats) is different from reasoning in some ways, but the processes of science in general and reasoning is largely the same (we have an idea, we test the idea, the ideas that pass the tests get accepted). If economics is a science and sociology is a science then there's no reason why morality can't be one too.

I'm still slightly stuck about how science defines the metrics we use to judge the morality of any given situation/context. That's the leap that was made in the video that I'm not really following. I can see that everything we base our moral judgements on is, in theory, perfectly measurable. If not with today's technology then certainly in theory as technology advances. I just don't see how science can define which standards are more important than others (Is happiness more important then well being? Is general utility more important than individual freedoms?)

I certainly wouldn't argue that morality is perfectly measurable, but we do have scientific methods of measuring it, and certainly we have methods of measuring it through reason.

[crispybits]

Why not? (to the perfectly measurable statement)

We can already do active brain scans and tell if someone is thinking of a person or a place, we can tell what emotional state people are in from those same scans. If not emotion or intention what further metric we could use for morality judgements (whatever the standards end up being) is immeasurable?

[Phatscotty]

stealing money from future generations with no plan on paying them back and purposefully leaving them holding the bag is immoral.

How much they are stealing can be measured

Sorry Phats, but you have to be more specific. Yes money can be measured, but Republicans stealing the nation's wealth for the benefit of the wealthy is approved by The Lord Jesus Christ.

I wasn't talking about Republicans though, not sure you understood what I said well enough to have a clear opinion about what I said.

My point stands so far: Non-voluntary redistributioning of wealth from the future generation that is not even born yet is immoral, and the level of that specific immorality can be measured.

btw sorry for calling your attempts to label and define me as 'Stewarts', i should have been calling them 'Mahers'

[kuthoer]

stealing money from future generations with no plan on paying them back and purposefully leaving them holding the bag is immoral.

How much they are stealing can be measured

Sorry Phats, but you have to be more specific. Yes money can be measured, but Republicans stealing the nation's wealth for the benefit of the wealthy is approved by The Lord Jesus Christ.

I wasn't talking about Republicans though, not sure you understood what I said well enough to have a clear opinion about what I said.

My point stands so far: Non-voluntary redistributioning of wealth from the future generation that is not even born yet is immoral, and the level of that specific immorality can be measured.

btw sorry for calling your attempts to label and define me as 'Stewarts', i should have been calling them 'Mahers'

Wait a second....aren't the Republicans redistributing the wealth from the working class to the top 1% the last 30 years or so?

[Gillipig]

It can possibly determine what most people consider to be moral, that is we can use it to measure the frequency of held moral values in the human population, but it can't determine what is objectively moral, and that is largely because there is no absolut morality. Morality is subjective and even though one might think of reasons to why it's good that we follow a strict moral codex, it doesn't mean that it's anything other than make believe. A make believe with good consequences is still make believe.

stealing money from future generations with no plan on paying them back and purposefully leaving them holding the bag is immoral.

How much they are stealing can be measured

Sorry Phats, but you have to be more specific. Yes money can be measured, but Republicans stealing the nation's wealth for the benefit of the wealthy is approved by The Lord Jesus Christ.

I wasn't talking about Republicans though, not sure you understood what I said well enough to have a clear opinion about what I said.

My point stands so far: Non-voluntary redistributioning of wealth from the future generation that is not even born yet is immoral, and the level of that specific immorality can be measured.

btw sorry for calling your attempts to label and define me as 'Stewarts', i should have been calling them 'Mahers'

Wait a second....aren't the Republicans redistributing the wealth from the working class to the top 1% the last 30 years or so?

Apart from rhetoric has the Democrats not been doing the same thing?

[mrswdk]

Nope. It's a make believe with bad consequences. It restricts human endeavor to the confines of an arbitrary and meaningless set of values, undermines individual freedom and results in the persecution of those who do not conform to whichever version of morality is in vogue at any given point in time. As soon as 'morals' or 'principles' are dragged into the discussion, sensible debate becomes impossible and the baboons take over.