Can science define morality?

[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.

[denominator]

Morality is culturally defined. Sure, religion carries huge weight when defining morality, but ultimately it is culturally defined. This is why issues such as same sex marriage, abortions, and legalization of recreational drugs are so different in different parts of the world.

Continuing that one step further to evolution, morality is selected for in communal settings. There is always an aspect of cheating in a community, where Individual A will help out Individual B on the assumption of later reciprocation that is never returned (B profits at A's expense) but long-term cheaters tend to be negatively impacted in the community. In the long run, the most moral individuals are selected for and the least moral are selected against.

If we posit for a moment that all religions are false (that is, take an atheistic position and assume that there are no gods or divine beings or creators), we can conclude that all religions are invented by humans. That is, if there is no creator giving us moral absolutes, the morals in any religion ultimately originate with some person or group of people. So where did those morals come from? They must have evolved by being selected for under the above theory for a long period of time.

So while no, science cannot define morality (as it is a cultural construct), it can at least describe it and detail its origins.

[BigBallinStalin]

"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."

Sure, but the problem is that science is often complicit in supplying the ammunition for planners to control people's lives. Even if the scientists intend on only supplying information but the outcome of their action results in that forced choice, then they're partly responsible for the outcome.

[mrswdk]

I guess scientists and academics will be up against the wall come the revolution then.

[DoomYoshi]

Better Question: Can non-scientists prove that morality exists?

[mrswdk]

my dick is immeasurable

pix

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

Oh God I remember everything

[muy_thaiguy]

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.

Wouldn't the moral thing to do in that situation, would be to not cheat in the first place?

I know it was only an example, but maybe not the best one to pick from.

[patches70]

Extrapolate as one wishes-

Moral Behavior is any behavior that ensures the continuation of one's species. Any action that contributes to the species so that the species doesn't go extinct, is moral.

For if a species is extinct it cannot be moral or otherwise because the individuals of that species no longer exist!


There is no point arguing with theologians or philosophers on this because they all have different answers, so it helps to define moral behavior and then go from there.

Continuing the species is an obvious choice because if any individual creature isn't even bothered enough to survive, the best thing it could do is to go crawl off and die so that it doesn't spread it's genes through the population.

Now we can apply this to all kinds of things. Nuclear weapons, the use of them would be considered immoral would they not? At least that's what I hear all the time when people go off about how the US nuked Japan all so long ago. But full scale nuclear war would quite probably lead to the extinction of our race.
Who would argue that such a war could ever be moral?
And if we no longer exist then the whole case of morality is a moot point anyway. Is it not?

On the individual level, if a car is sinking into the river and inside is a child, it is moral for the mother to dive into the waters in an attempt to save her child. Even if the mother fails and the child drowns (along with the mother even), the action itself is still moral.

On the other hand, who would argue that a mother who purposely drowns her children by bailing from her car as she drives it into the river with her child strapped to the back seat?


Morality is summed up simply by "Women and Children first". That is that the women and children in a species are the most important. The human race could lose tomorrow 90% of the male population and we as a species would still be able to battle back from the brink because our females and children survive.

One absolute thing we should all be able to agree about is that if the human race becomes extinct then the human race no longer can be moral, act moral or even ponder about morality because the human race would no longer exist.

Thus, the most moral thing we can do as a species and as individuals is to contribute to the continued existence of our species. There are many ways to do this, on the individual and the societal levels.
Who would argue that an individual spending his/her life in a drug induced stupor would be living a moral life?

Who would argue that the cold blooded murder of a human being by another human being as moral? Not talking about self defense, or accident, but simple cold blooded murder. Few would argue that it was moral.

Science has given us not only the tools and the knowledge needed to assist keeping the species surviving, it's also provided all the tools and knowledge necessary that we actually destroy ourselves as well.

But it's individuals who apply these tools and knowledge. With this in mind, if science can define morality, then why in the world would science have ever developed the very things that will eventually kill every last man, woman and child on the planet?

Science is just the pursuit of knowledge, and that can lead to all sorts of bad roads as well as benefits. The morality of what science accomplishes is not considered until long after. I doubt seriously that science can best determine what is actually moral or not.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, the Moral Directive of Humanity is to continue perpetuating itself?

How does science* indicate which is the best way?

*Yeah, 'trial-and-error' counts as basic science. The problem is about maximizing human growth and not simply sticking your dick in a vagina.

And even if an extinct species can no longer discuss morality--and there's no other sentient enough creatures in the universe to continue philosophy, then why does the Moral Directive of Humanity follow?

For example:
if the human race becomes extinct then the human race no longer can be scientific, act scientifically or even ponder about science because the human race would no longer exist.

Thus, the most moral thing we can do as a species and as individuals is to contribute to the continued existence of our species.

We can't conduct, behave, or think about a lot of things if we're all dead, so why is "continue breeding" the most moral goal?

[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.

Wouldn't the moral thing to do in that situation, would be to not cheat in the first place?

I know it was only an example, but maybe not the best one to pick from.

Assuming he has already cheated, what is the moral thing to do?

Or, if it makes you feel better, what if you are a friend of theirs who discovers what has happened?

[Maugena]

It's just a social code.
The underlying concept of morality is that you value your own life and wish others to respect your life.
The trade-off being that you must return this sentiment.
Ultimately, morality is based off of what is valued.
The extent to which an act is deemed (to some extent arbitrarily) acceptable or unacceptable and what is valued depends on the society.

[kuthoer]

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.

Does anyone really understand what the heck he's typing? Or is it necessary to use words and phrases that "normative" people don't understand?

[kuthoer]

Science by the way has NOTHING TO DO WITH MORALITY.

[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.

Does anyone really understand what the heck he's typing? Or is it necessary to use words and phrases that "normative" people don't understand?

You can try asking better questions, or you can try convincing yourself to use a dictionary/wikipedia. Good luck.

Brief words reflect particular concepts--e.g. normative. The normative is about value-judgments--e.g. "we shouldn't murder people (because murdering people is bad)."

If I defined every other word I used, I'd have a post that's 3x as long. It's simpler for you to just ask.

[BigBallinStalin]

Science by the way has NOTHING TO DO WITH MORALITY.

Oh, how so?

[DoomYoshi]

Moral Behavior is any behavior that ensures the continuation of one's species. Any action that contributes to the species so that the species doesn't go extinct, is moral.

For if a species is extinct it cannot be moral or otherwise because the individuals of that species no longer exist!

So if I make genetically engineered corn that has all my favorite genes in it, and that corn takes over most of the world, and my genes continue without humans around I still can't morally genocide the whole world?