Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[popeye1945]

Subatomic,
Obviously, there is not agreement across the board on these socially instructive mythologies/religions or there would not be so much divisiveness and violence among the various religious/mythological systems. Personally I do believe that people need mythology but one capable of guiding us into a reasonable future. We must ask ourselves what really is the subject of any mythology? It is the welfare of the life and well-being of its subjects, its believers, but the old ones are just non-sense. They are promising everlasting life and claiming to know what is quite impossible to know. We must be prepared to face reality if we are ever able to create a healthy mythology that would reflect a healthy mind. At present that is not what we have. Biology is indeed where it begins, but it has gone astray into a fantasy world. The subject of a new mythology must first be about the biology that creates it. Science can lead the way, just as modern medicine as a science lights the way.

[Sculptor1]

I don't know what you exactly mean by morals, so I'll assume you'll mean a socially established wide belief of what's "right" and what's "wrong?" If so, then yes, I believe that science can explain that.

Can science explain why slavery was "right" for most of human history; yet "wrong" in the 20th century, gaining only a majority opinion during the 19thC.

This also relates to why people still believe in religion and God. Nowadays, we have technology and science, and yet we still find that many people believe in religion, because we need a point in life and we need something to tell us what to do and what not to do. Humans regulate their community by having a big social belief, and that's exactly what God and morality are, we have always done this (even in prehistoric times), and even if I don't know the specific science behind it (I'm more of a physics person), I'm sure there is a behavioral biology concept about it.

[Sculptor1]

Frequently, a viewpoint I find that Sam Harris has, is that science is able to explain morals to us. I personally disagree. I know this may seem cold but looking with purely what we have, in the nature of it, there is nothing wrong with me killing someone. The opinion that it is wrong solely derives from Judea- Christian influence. This is clearly indicative of moral relativity which shows that morals can't exist. Despite this, he makes the fair argument that the very thing which makes science, science (controversy), is what we are using to 'debunk' morals. Despite this, I think that due to the element of objectivity in science, it outweighs this argument. It is like saying that we should be able to find out which country God supports in a war, even though both countries are saying that God is on their side. There is no evidence for which we can say that this set of morals is correct. We can't simply ask God which country he supports in the same way we can't just check our moral list. We can do that in science through a much longer process of experimentation, which can't be done on something which isn't physically definable as of now. I say as of now as 30 years ago dreams were not physically definable, however we now can almost map someone's dreams. Despite this, we already knew there was an organ that our faculties derive from. We are like Homo Erectus (Praying I got this right so that I don't get lynched by my peers) discovering fire in our knowledge of the brain.

Despite this, I do strongly believe that although morals themselves do not exist, its origin, moral intuition does. Moral intuition derives form conditioning and other factors, but it shows that we are still able to have a moral compass without believing in the things themselves. I do in no way believe that morals exist, however I still have a natural moral intuition that will pop up at certain times. Can science discover this? I think certainly so. Can science discover morals? That is up for debate, and what is this website for? Tell me below!

I think Sam Harris is dead wrong.
Anyone with a sense of history and knowledge of cultural anthropology will be able to tell him that moral systems are shockinly diverse and obey their own historically contingent cultural logic.
The fact is that science is not generally explicatory. It is more like a descriptive system which reveals, categorises and demonstrates nature and natural systems. "Explanations" imply that there are underlying reasons and purposes, and science explicitely denies this sort of teleological approach.
IN the end characters like Harris and Pinker tend to end up stating the most banal and obvious trends from evolutionary psychology which anyone could also state without a PhD in a science subject.
Science can be relied upon to show us some of the most basic neural and cranial structures. What is shows is that the brain we are born with has a very limited structuration, and that the capacities and capabilities such as they are can vary from baby to baby. But when culture and experience begins to full out the open parts of that structure we find that living experience can mandate (from the same baby) a caveman, a Moslim, Christian , Atheist, hunter-gatherer, space age scientist. And only historical and cultural studies can throw any light on that.
Maybe you could help the debate by stating what sort of amazing insights into morals has his science provided.

[LuckyR]

Depends if you believe psychology and sociology are sciences.

[popeye1945]

Reason can explain and create morals, and science is the refinement of the processes of reason.

[Tegularius]

Depends if you believe psychology and sociology are sciences.

If they can be empirically studied and examined, then they are a part of science. Morality, being mostly a matter of judgment, remains excluded being a subject for philosophers.

[LuckyR]

Depends if you believe psychology and sociology are sciences.

If they can be empirically studied and examined, then they are a part of science. Morality, being mostly a matter of judgment, remains excluded being a subject for philosophers.

Well, many if not most psychologists and sociologists believe their fields can be empirically studied and examined and are thus sciences. Do you agree?

[Tegularius]

Depends if you believe psychology and sociology are sciences.

If they can be empirically studied and examined, then they are a part of science. Morality, being mostly a matter of judgment, remains excluded being a subject for philosophers.

Well, many if not most psychologists and sociologists believe their fields can be empirically studied and examined and are thus sciences. Do you agree?

I do!

[LuckyR]

Depends if you believe psychology and sociology are sciences.

If they can be empirically studied and examined, then they are a part of science. Morality, being mostly a matter of judgment, remains excluded being a subject for philosophers.

Well, many if not most psychologists and sociologists believe their fields can be empirically studied and examined and are thus sciences. Do you agree?

I do!

Well, the science of how folks come to their moral code (as opposed to the code itself) is the purview of psychology. How groups come to their ethical standards is the realm of sociology.

[Tegularius]

If they can be empirically studied and examined, then they are a part of science. Morality, being mostly a matter of judgment, remains excluded being a subject for philosophers.

Well, many if not most psychologists and sociologists believe their fields can be empirically studied and examined and are thus sciences. Do you agree?

I do!

Well, the science of how folks come to their moral code (as opposed to the code itself) is the purview of psychology. How groups come to their ethical standards is the realm of sociology.

That's certainly true though both disciplines are more complex then creating moral codes and ethical standards. Both are prime members of what's called the social sciences. As science, they can be empirically studied.

[Sculptor1]

If they can be empirically studied and examined, then they are a part of science. Morality, being mostly a matter of judgment, remains excluded being a subject for philosophers.

Well, many if not most psychologists and sociologists believe their fields can be empirically studied and examined and are thus sciences. Do you agree?

I do!

Well, the science of how folks come to their moral code (as opposed to the code itself) is the purview of psychology. How groups come to their ethical standards is the realm of sociology.

True. Anthropology also has a role to play in unpacking the ideosyncratic cultural logic that gives different cultures different moral codes. We could also say that art is a means of challenging those moral codes too.
Moralities are ever changing and the human "sciences" are slaves to fashion to accomodate an ever changing landscape of morality.
Biological science can describe (rather than explain) how moral tendancies have emerged in higher mammals including humans, but evolution cannot mandate specifically definable moral codes and there is nothing universal that is not clouded with multiple codisils and variations in moral thinking.

[Memaw18]

Morals are lessons, experiences, and beliefs. It is more of philosophy than science. However, it includes both. If we are talking about the brain learning how morals are inputted and how we use those morals in our everyday life then it is more of science. But if we are thinking of what moral or what lesson, therefore it is more of philosophy.

[Bradskii]

Maybe you could help the debate by stating what sort of amazing insights into morals has his science provided.

I think the proposal might be that we can empirically investigate certain acts to see what the consequences are likely to be, and then use the results of that investigation to determine if the act is 'morally right' or not. That's Harris's position from what I recall from reading The Moral Landscape.

For example, if someone says that sex outside marriage is morally wrong then we can ask what the likely consequences of it are likely to be and investigate to see if the claims are correct. Same with male or female circumcision. There may be medical benefits for male circumsicion so let's get the data and make the call.

There are circumstances where this approach won't work of course. You might think that having an abortion a week after conception is perfectly moral but definitely immoral a week before birth. Science isn't going to tell us exactly where it changes from one to the other. So the method has it's limits.

But I think it should be Step 1 in any discussion about whether something is morally acceptable or not. Investigate the claim and see if it holds up.

[Consul]

Frequently, a viewpoint I find that Sam Harris has, is that science is able to explain morals to us.

Harris argues that…

"[Q]uestions about values—about meaning, morality, and life’s larger purpose—are really questions about the well-being of conscious creatures. Values, therefore, translate into facts that can be scientifically understood: regarding positive and negative social emotions, retributive impulses, the effects of specific laws and social institutions on human relationships, the neurophysiology of happiness and suffering, etc."

(Harris, Sam. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. New York: Free Press, 2010. pp. 1-2)

He regards "is morally good" and "is conducive to well-being" as synonyms, thinking that there are physiological, psychological, and sociological facts about what promotes or realizes well-being and what doesn't. There undeniably are certain factual conditions of well-being, but it is highly questionable that "well-being" is a purely descriptive concept without any normative or evaluative aspects, because it seems that ethical values and ideals also play a role in states of well-being, and that these don't simply "translate into facts that can be scientifically understood", because science cannot tell us what values or ideals we ought to choose and pursue.

Well-Being: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/well-being/

[Sculptor1]

Maybe you could help the debate by stating what sort of amazing insights into morals has his science provided.

I think the proposal might be that we can empirically investigate certain acts to see what the consequences are likely to be, and then use the results of that investigation to determine if the act is 'morally right' or not. That's Harris's position from what I recall from reading The Moral Landscape.

For example, if someone says that sex outside marriage is morally wrong then we can ask what the likely consequences of it are likely to be and investigate to see if the claims are correct.

The correctness of moral claims is not empirical.
Killing a million homeless people would have a net beneficial effect on the economy and enhance a feeling of safety among those that fear indigents. It could be shown to reduce crime and would certainly reduce claims on the social services.
All these benefits could be proven, yet that would never make it a morally correct thing to do.
Hume says you cannot dervie an ought from an is.

Same with male or female circumcision. There may be medical benefits for male circumsicion so let's get the data and make the call.

Males babies have been routinely mutilated in the US using that argument, yet there is no unambigious benefits.
You seem to be missing a key point about the nature of morality.

There are circumstances where this approach won't work of course. You might think that having an abortion a week after conception is perfectly moral but definitely immoral a week before birth. Science isn't going to tell us exactly where it changes from one to the other. So the method has it's limits.

But I think it should be Step 1 in any discussion about whether something is morally acceptable or not. Investigate the claim and see if it holds up.

I really do not think you have made a case here.