Science can answer moral questions

[poolerboy]

MYTH:

"Science and religion are not in conflict, for their teachings occupy distinctly different domains."
— Stephen Jay Gould​

While many notions of morality abound, it is quite clear that there are nations, cultures and individuals profoundly confused about what exactly it relates to.

Morality necessarily relates to conscious creatures. In fact, morality is simply our best effort to try to maximize the well-being and flourishing of conscious creatures.

These two concepts – consciousness and well-being – are not purely arbitrary. Concerning the first, there is simply no alternative that could possibly matter to us. Values – that is, ways of thinking about the domain of possibilities of maximizing well-being – will bear some relationship to the actual or potential experiences of conscious creatures. It might be tempting to suggest that because moral facts pertain to our experience (in other words, are subjective) they therefore are relative, merely personal or a whimsical opinion. However, there are many ways we can talk about objectivity and subjectivity; we can speak about both either ontologically or epistemologically. When we say we are being "subjective" we merely mean it in the epistemological sense of being biased, merely personal, etc. But ontological subjectivity refers to more personal experiences (i.e. first-person), like when a person experiences ringing in their ears. This ringing, of course, can be communicated to a doctor who might take a look at your cochlea to find damage. The kind of subjectivity in morality is of this latter variety: it involves first-person experiences but there are also third-person correlates. This does not, in any sense, make morality "relative".

The second, well-being, encapsulates all that we could possibly care about. While members of the Etoro tribe organize their tribes to sodomize young children for their supposed own good and societies adhering to any one of the three main Abrahamic faiths follow the supposed commands and "moral" edicts of a creator deity, all these approaches rest on the endeavor to seek well-being regardless of whether or not their practices really approach it. If religion gets certain things right with respect to morality, it seems it is merely by accident. That is because how many religions approach morality as a list of rules to follow with no real reason or justification behind them other than "might makes right" – in this case the "might" relates to the "Almighty".

It is possible to be confused about how the universe works and therefore possible to have the wrong values. Because science is defined with reference to the goal of understanding the processes at work in the universe, it can in principle (even if difficult in practice) answer questions about how to maximize well-being or diminish misery (given that conscious creatures depend on states of the world and states of our brains).



Common objection: But you haven't said why well-being of conscious creatures OUGHT to matter to us?

Why should empiricism and respect for evidence matter to us? Why should logical coherence matter to us? Or parsimony? Or any of the other myriad of values we accept in science? To the above-mentioned definition of science I gave, can we justify said goal scientifically? Of course not. But all of the IS's of science rest on implicit OUGHTS that never present a problem until the discussion is turned to morality. Then people seem to think that because someone can articulate a difference of opinion, we are at a stalemate. Just remember, people can also articulate a difference of opinion with respect to biology, chemistry or physics (e.g. Creationist "scientists") and no one in their right mind thinks that the failure of science to silence these dissenters poses any problem nor has any significance.


Thoughts?




Sam Harris takes full credit for the above-philosophical idea. I just summarized his thoughts from his new book. I hope it will spark discussion.

 

[AsianDream]

We are each alone in our own universe – what we describe going on in our own minds is what we think of as “consciousness”.

In fact I think that Science and religion are not actually in the same in domain at all.

Science is broadly ideas which can be proved to be true beyond most reasonable doubt while religion is ideas you have “faith” in without any need for any evidence to prove these.

Science is an often flawed and inaccurate groping after reality – religion mostly means following ideas with no grounding at all in reality.

But maybe it is better for people to live their lives believing there is some God given purpose – rather than know the truth,

 

[poolerboy]

But maybe it is better for people to live their lives believing there is some God given purpose – rather than know the truth,

I think it's better in the long run to have your beliefs track reality than to be delusional. This is why so many religious folks are profoundly confused with what is moral and not moral (e.g. taboo foods, homosexuality, thought crimes like 'lust in your heart', etc.).

 

[poolerboy]

This is a preposterous notion. Faith, by definition, requires something to be rooted in. Faith without evidence, ie conviction, is useless and empty. We've allowed (as I've shown in another thread) a bastardization of what it really means to pit it against supposed "rational thought." Faith "comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." That by it's nature tells us that hearing is one avenue towards faith. It's not any different than the confidence perhaps an atheist comes to through his thinking it's just a difference of the interpretation of evidences.

If there is evidence there seems to be no need for faith. Faith is more a feeling of truth leading to trust, absent of evidence. This is why people believe there is a God rather than know. But since this thread addresses the question of morality, what amount or type of faith could possibly corroborate religious moral assertions of dietary laws, homosexuality, thought crimes, nonbelief, etc.? Just on taboo foods alone one should see the obvious moral confusion held by a believer.

Anthropologically science may be able to explain what moral codes exist and why they've come to exist but the bigger issue is that it can't validate them, only observe them. So if say one tribe feels that men should be put to death at 40 to keep their men youthful who is to say that killing is wrong? Science certainly cannot. It can only explain that this construct exists, how it came to be possibly, and why a particular group finds it useful.

I feel I have sufficiently addressed this under 'Common Objection' but please elaborate what was unconvincing about that part of my post. David Hume's is-ought problem is more a confusion by Hume than an actual problem.

In the end one moral code becomes no more useful than another. Jeffery Dalmer becomes no more or less moral than Mother Theresa. Therein lies the flaw of scientific morality.

The possibility of differing opinions, like I mentioned above, is not a problem for science. Sure, you could listen to a Creationist "scientist" say that his or her definition of, say, physics isn't to objectively, dispassionately and neutrally understand matter and energy in the universe but simply to match the Book of Genesis as a sort of confirmation bias. The fact that this differing opinion can be articulated in no way makes science "relative."

Jeffrey Dahmer's idea of a life well lived was to kill young men, have sex with their corpses, dismember them, and keep their body parts as souvenirs. It seems sufficient to notice that in any domain of knowledge, we are free to say that certain opinions do not count. In fact, we must say this for knowledge or expertise to count at all. Why should it be any different on the subject of human well-being?

 

[Telstra]

the new golden rule should be:

there shall not hurt anyone ...

 

[bankside]

jubhug, that relativistic "who is to say?" stuff is so outlandish, i'd sooner swim with ayn rand objectivists.

 

[zoltanspawn]

In case anyone missed the previous threads devoted to this topic, they are

here
http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=306172

and here
http://www.justusboys.com/forum/showthread.php?t=300403

 

[poolerboy]

You accept a false definition and understanding of "faith" upon which your whole argument hangs. I don't know what more can be said.

Then justify your definition. Reasons, not mere assertions, are contageous.

As for Dahmer, I stand by the premise. "In any domain of knowledge" is your declarative? What makes anyone's idea that he's wrong of any more importance than his own idea? "Any domain?" Who's? What group's domain is better than anyone elses and if not then what is wrong with Dahmer? Only by collective acceptance but that is essentially all it would be. A given group accepting this or that.

So gravitation or plate tectonics is true but only to the extent of consensus? Are you that much of a relativist? How is a statement like "science can answer moral questions" any different than saying "science can answer nutritional questions"? What if I were to come to you and say, "but you still haven't justified why we ought to be healthy!" This expresses nothing but confusion. You might as well ask why a perfect circle must be round.

But you want to stand by the idea that because Dahmer can say something like, "The only peaks on the moral landscape that interest me are ones where I get to murder young men and have sex with their corpses" that this presents a problem for a science of morality. Observe the double standard in place regarding the significance of consensus: those who do not share our scientific goals have no influence on scientific discourse whatsoever; but, for some reason, people who do not share our moral goals render us incapable of even speaking about moral truth.

That said, there are aspects of faith that science can't test

If someone were to claim that "Divine Being X exists in an inaccessible realm of reality" they'd be making an attempt to argue either for the impossible or the unknowable. While logic alone can refute impossible beings it cannot, even in principle, show that possible beings actually exist, without evidence.

The term 'faith' must be justified not just in terms of utility like acting as a placebo for personal consolation, but that it reliably leads to uncovering reality (like moral reality).

The issue I have with this sort of rational mindset is that 'well-being' and 'misery' are subjective, emotional, socially based experiences for most people. Science can't judge which opinion is more righteous, which is ultimately what morality is about.

That the term "well-being" may be somewhat ambiguous is, of course, correct. However, words like "health" and "life" are also ambiguous and arguably more so. The science of biology thrives dispite such ambiguities.

Nonetheless, you've illustrated the very confusion I outline in my initial post regarding subjectivity and objectivity. While morality is subjective in the ontological sense (i.e. first-person experience), this does not make it any less of a fact in the epistemological sense (i.e. biased, merely personal, whimsical impression, etc.). If someone has tinnitus and experiences ringing in their ears we all know the ringing is ontologically subjective (i.e. experienced only by the person with the condition) but it is still as "objective" a fact as you can get in science.

I'm probably just saying things he already considered.

You're actually saying things I've actually addressed in my initial post, FYI.

 

[bankside]

jubhug, the difficulty you have is with the concept of "evidence." Centuries of laboriously and lavishly documented religious speculation are not evidence.

 

[poolerboy]

Not exactly. Rather that your assertions on moral truth are simply that, yours.

But it isn't a mere assertion. Morality relating to a) consciousness, and b) well-being isn't arbitrary.

For one, there is no alternative with consciousness. What is the alternative? I invite you to try to think of a source of value that has absolutely nothing to do with the (actual or potential) experience of conscious beings. Take a moment to think about what this would entail: whatever this alternative is, it cannot affect the experience of any creature (in this life or in any other). Put this thing in a box and what you have in that box -- would seem, by definition -- the least interesting thing in the universe.

As for well-being, this needs less justification than our concern for, say, health. The notion that we ought to care about well-being is simply an extention of our concern for conscious creatures (discussed in the above paragraph). Science insists we ought to care for respecting evidence and logical consistency or about our goal of understanding the processes at work in the universe. Imagine someone being a relativist like you entering a discussion and saying something like, "[Y]our assertions on [valuing evidence and logical coherence] are simply that, yours." What could a scientist ever say to a person who doesn't value science's values?

 

[bankside]

Is it speculation that the Philistines existed? The Hittites? That certain alliances were made between these nations? That various people mentioned in the scriptures are evidenced both in the Bible and in other ancient texts? Historical data is still data. And when validated it lends credence to scripture. To what extent is up to the reader. To say there is no evidence in the Bible is simply not true. Whether there's evidence for certain assertions can be debated.

Yeah, there's evidence that Lamarck existed too. His existence isn't evidence that creatures inherit acquired characteristics.

 

[bankside]

Nor does the existence of the Hittites mean that God exists. It's merely evidence that the Bible contains evidence of something. Once has to take evidences and either deduce that they are a building block towards a trust or not. For some it won't for others it will.

Okay and now we're back to relativism. Evidence is the sort of thing that is highly apt to produce consensus when used to support a coherent theory.

Reasonable people may disagree about something, particularly something difficult to collect evidence for. One area of disagreement is the question of life on Mars. We have very little evidence, and it has been examined in great detail because of the interest in knowing the answer to that question. Some of the evidence would support the idea of past life. Other evidence would not. All in all it is inconclusive.

But no one says, to draw the inference from your position, that for some people there is life on mars and for some people there isn't.

Yes, everyone who has looked into the question is generally satisfied that those who disagree with them are raising reasonable objections that need to be looked into in greater detail. Everyone is generally aware that they would need to marshall more evidence either for or against the assertion that life was once on Mars. Everyone is reasonably annoyed that we aren't pursuing more data with greater interest and larger budgets. But no one thinks the answer to that question has two simultaneous solutions. Either there was life, or there wasn't, (or maybe there still is). And with enough new data, everyone in that debate would agree that a consensus would emerge around just one of those answers being a certainty or approximating a certainty.

This idea that evidence can mean one thing to some and another thing to someone else is itself indicative that the item in question is probably not evidence for the thing asserted by it. And the idea that a consensus will not emerge is empty.

 

[bankside]

If that were true then there would be no disagreements in any field. Evidence does often lead people to different conclusions. What killed the dinosaurs comes to mind.

I think I've addressed that in a previous post, but I'll try to clarify. When people have different conclusions about things like dinosaurs, they don't say "Oh well. It means different things to different people. We value 'different ways of knowing.' All those conclusions are true and equally valid."

Instead they say "Why do you think that? Show me the evidence. Ahh! But what about this though! Here's why I think you're wrong. Oh! I hadn't thought of that!" and they argue about it until they work their way toward a common understanding. In the end, they value the evidence the same way and draw the same conclusions from it. Making up some relativist "who is to say?" excuse is really just another way of saying "I don't have to learn anything."

If that is how people choose to marginalise themselves, so be it.

 

[poolerboy]

Much as I want to agree, I don't understand why this might be 'impossible'. And if something is unknowable, it's definitely not possible to use science to come to any conclusions about it. And, conveniently for them, a lot of Christians would tell you that knowing/comprehending God is not possible. So how exactly are you going to scientifically disprove the existence of such a God?

I take full responsibility for your misunderstanding since the subsequent sentence that you omitted in your quote should have been part of the first. What I meant to say is that, "If someone were to claim that "Divine Being X exists in an inaccessible realm of reality they'd be making an attempt to argue either for the impossible or the unknowable because logic alone cannot show that possible beings exist without evidence. Logic alone can, however, refute impossible beings if, say, they lead to logical contradictions. Herein lies the distinction between a priori versus a posteriori * knowledge."

The bottom line is that you can't use science to definitively disprove a nontestable belief--like God, or like a belief that is held to be true by an individual based solely on personal experiences.

We need not worry about non-falisifiable beliefs as the onus is very much of the person communicating them. Fortunately, it isn't our job to go around disproving the myriad of absurdities that people put out there in the world.

Good question, and unless I miss a rhetorical answer, how do you propose to deal with these people? There's plenty of people who simply don't accept the scientific method as a legitimate explanation for cosmology, evolution, history, geography...A young earth creationist may reject science in favor of the literal interpretation of the Bible. And yet this same person still has a moral code, directly from the Bible. If your moral conflict is with this person, how are you going to convince them using evidence from science they don't believe in?

This thread argues for a science of morality. If people haven't been fully persuaded to adopt scientific values and goals there is little more I can say to bridge that divide, but I need not go there. All I'm saying is that given a scientific acceptance (and even religious zealots agree with the idea of tracking reality, even if they are confused about how to do so) there is no need to set the goalpost higher for a science of morality any more than any other branch of science.

Likewise, I'm still not understanding how you reconcile your first example with the Etoro and Abrahamic faiths. Sodomy is right for the Etoro and wrong for the Abrahamic faiths. Both have their own understandings of morality; there are two conflicting moral codes here. If both are convinced that their side promotes well-being and the other side undermines it, how exactly is the scientific method going to help determine which is right? It's going to depend on whatever definition of well-being you use; your conclusions are constrained by the model you ultimately choose to use, by the things you choose to value in your work. I might be missing some sort of absolute morality you're proposing that could be used as a scale here--unless it's like what you said at first, that both sides are seeking ultimate 'well-being', which we agreed was ambiguous.

I think you're conflating two different things here. Let me see if I can illustate this by analogy.

Health, as we spoke of earlier, is a pretty ambiguous term much like well-being. There isn't one type of food nor one style of exercise that can get you to a healthy state, but certainly there is a clear difference between health and disease, infirmity or even pure confusion.

Now say someone in Los Angeles thinks that going to the gym for moderate exercise and conditioning, minimizing red meats and maximizing fruits and vegetables in her diet, and taking occassional vacations and retreats from her stressful job constitutes an approximation toward "healthiness."

However, someone from a tribe from Papua New Guinea thinks "health" simply means trying to get as many tattoos and piercings on your body as well as finding better ways of having as much unprotected sex with multiple partners in one night as possible. Would the differences in these two examples be due to: a) the fact that "health" is a bit vague and open to continuous changes, or b) people's obvious disconnect from reality? If you answered "b" keep in mind the same applies to well-being, irrespective of how difficult the word is to pin down in as much the same way as "life," "death," or "health" certainly are.

 

[hotatlboi]

My only point is that, and we disagree which is fine, scientific morality attempts to make science something it isn't. My other contention is that without God morality is relative. You don't have to agree.

The disagreement you have here is over the particular morality you hold to.

I take it that you are one of those people who believes in an absolute morality, that God sets morality and it is fixed.

The problem with this is that no one will ever agree on which set of precepts codifies this absolute morality. Some Christians say it is the Bible, which is of course hogwash since they will easily reject some of the more absurd things there like slavery which society has progressed on. Muslims will say it is the Koran, which is equally absurd. Most muslims don't really practice all of the more objectionable things in the Koran in the same way that Christians don't with the Bible.

So you see that no one thing will never get us to any agreed upon definition of morality.

While I generally agree that one cannot arrive at morality from science, that's not really what this book/idea does.

The author starts with a pretty well defined concept of morality, it is something like the utilitarian concept, namely that the course of action which benefits the most people is the most moral. The science only really comes in when quantifying how many people benefit. Quantifying things is something that science can do, so I don't really see this as an incompatible use of science.

Basically, I don't really see this book as defining a morality based on science, just evaluating outcomes based on an existing moral concept using science.

 

[poolerboy]

My only point is that, and we disagree which is fine, scientific morality attempts to make science something it isn't.

Science is not an incubator of factoids. Science continually strives to provide explanations for the facts we collect about the workings of our universe. Giving an explanation for how to maximize well-being is no different that giving an explanation as to how to be healthy.

My other contention is that without God morality is relative. You don't have to agree.

We have several books on hand attributed to a myriad of Gods. Morality at the level of religion is already relative. And not only is it relative, but religion is often confused as to what morality is. How is eating pork but not chicken a moral fact? How is homosexual conduct a moral fact? How is thought crimes of "lust in one's heart" a moral fact? These are mere bullet points that scriptures provide with no justification and this blind obedience is what typically gets us into problems.

 

[poolerboy]

Precisely because of this, I agree that believers have no ground for imposing their beliefs on you.

But you also cannot use science to disprove their beliefs, and that's still a problem.

[...]

You can use science to provide evidence, for instance, that gay marriages produce families that aren't any different from straight families, but this isn't relevant for a believer. They have a godly mandate to defend marriage. The scientific method can't even test or evaluate that, so scientific evidence is useless in changing their minds.

[...]

So as a follow-up question, I'd like to know: what concrete, scientific steps you would take to convince the tribe that their behavior is immoral? Because I think you'd first have to convince them that your science is better than their current belief system for determining right or good behavior. Only after that would science be useful.

While differences in approach and conclusions may become evident, there is nonetheless an undeniable underlying goal of trying to track reality. While there certainly are things like wishful thinking and self deception, most people try not to apply this across the board especially to the detriment of others. The reason the aforementioned tribe is doing their ritualistic sodomy is because they genuinely believe they're tracking reality toward the path to well-being. All that needs to be done is to have them understand why it is that they're profoundly confused.

Even most believers understand their mere assertions of faith are unpersuasive to everyone else in the world who isn't a friggin' Christian. Thus, they make repeated efforts to try to appeal to the values of science -- even if they don't acknowledge it -- precisely because they recognize the utility of reason and evidence.

But again, this thread is meant to argue that most people who attack a science of morality commit the fallacy of moving the goalposts duplicitously. Reasons, justifications and evidence are contageous; mere assertions and appeals to authority aren't. History has shown this to be the case but we simply need to be more vocal about it and hold people accountable for what they believe, especially when they try to mobilize their beliefs into actions that affect everyone else.

 

[bankside]

With any kind of god, morality would be arbitrary.
The unconstrained whim of a god to would be no less arbitrary a basis for determining morality. This is a really key point here.

In contrast, you could hold that a god would be particularly gifted at creating a, well, moral standard of morality.

But the problem with that is of course that morality is now a greater abstract to which god must adhere when he/she/it sets down an "absolute" moral code for us to follow.

And of course morality need not be arbitrary just because there is no god to pontificate about this sort of thing. Morality can be functional. Organisms which evolve enough brain function to make choices involving foresight, with enough mental capacity to foresee the impact of their actions on themselves and also others, will probably benefit from effective moral strategies. Morality could be an evolutionary advantage.

 

[bankside]

Explain how Religion isn't grounded in Reality, please.

Gladly.

From all the information I have seen, religion could be based on real miracles, real divine messages, and a true supernatural dimension to the universe.

Or religion could be based on the greed of priests, bishops, popes, califs, rabbis, preachers, elders & quorum members, kings and holy emperors, witnesses, alms-brokers and tithe counters, who exploit the people around them to gain wealth and power. And all of the wonder, grandeur, compassion, and hope in the world truly comes not from some supernatural fraud, but from us struggling and making an effort to explore this incredible universe and make it a fit place to love and be loved.

From all the information I have seen, I think the first scenario is false. I think the second scenario is true.

 

[zoltanspawn]

^And not just religious people, either.