Can science answer moral questions?

[Lyte]

PS: Mathematics does not reside outside the physical world either.

For example: If I have 5 bananas and I eat one, I'm left with 4. Nothing abstract about that mutley.

Math is an abstract construct which relies outside physical world. Because math is objective it has a lot of uses in the physical world, but it is a pure product of thought. Strictly speaking, any correspondence between mathematical constructs and reality is pure coincidence. There is no inherent relationship with math and physics. This comes evident when you study pure mathematical constructs, let say infinite dimensional Lie groups. How do you build one with bananas?

"as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Albert Einstein

You can write down a number, another, and do math with them. You can replace the numbers with bananas and do the same thing.
You can write philosophy with letters, you can replace the letters with letters made out of whole bananas.
You can test your philosophy with banana letters, and come to some conclusion with banana letters.

If bananas is all what it takes to transport something outside physical world to reality, then we can conclude that - yes we can answer questions of morality with science, we just need a shitload of bananas.

 

[Newby]

if neither liberals nor conservatives are allowed to enact moral laws then I will be happy


because there will be no laws against divorce, sex before marriage, polygamy, homosexuality

if neither side is allowed to enact moral laws then liberals win!

I can accept that

No taxes to pay for poor people, unempolyed people, healthcare for other people... no regulations on pollution, my toilet can flush as much water as I want it too, my furnace can run as much as I want it too... no taxes or 'credits' for 'global warming', etc... Sounds good to me...

Because you want the State to recognize your morality?

It's not like you have a right to your money, life, or property... after all. 'rights' are a moral argument and we're talking about leaving morality out of it

Hence, the only right you have to anything is what you can take. Might is the only Right...

Sweet, sweet, Social Darwinism...

I'm not talking about leaving morality out of it, I believe the others were. If they can pick and choose which morals can be left out, then so can I. But, I understand where you're going JB, good comments.

 

[Newby]

if neither liberals nor conservatives are allowed to enact moral laws then I will be happy


because there will be no laws against divorce, sex before marriage, polygamy, homosexuality

if neither side is allowed to enact moral laws then liberals win!

I can accept that

No taxes to pay for poor people, unempolyed people, healthcare for other people... no regulations on pollution, my toilet can flush as much water as I want it too, my furnace can run as much as I want it too... no taxes or 'credits' for 'global warming', etc... Sounds good to me...

"no regulations on pollution"
So I can open a toxic waste dump next to your home.
Great idea.

Yeah, that precludes 'morals'. You don't get to pick and choose which morals are enforced and which are not. And these are all 'morals'.

 

[manifold]

Once the existence of an absolute, objective moral standard has been scientifically proven and established, I'd like to see them tackle the age old debate of chocolate versus vanilla. Some folks say chocolate tastes better, others insist that vanilla is the superior flavor. Wouldn't it be nice to finally know who is right?

 

[editec]

Subjectivity is the motive.

Objectivity is merely a tool.

 

[Lyte]

Once the existence of an absolute, objective moral standard has been scientifically proven and established, I'd like to see them tackle the age old debate of chocolate versus vanilla. Some folks say chocolate tastes better, others insist that vanilla is the superior flavor. Wouldn't it be nice to finally know who is right?

Once the existence of an absolute, objective moral standard has been scientifically proven and established, we might find out that preference of chocolate over vanilla allows the most rewarding human experience a human being could have, while preferring vanilla did not. It would be morally important to help people overcome this defect in their sense of taste - in the same way we currently treat people with curable forms of blindness.

 

[JBeukema]

If they can pick and choose which morals can be left out, then so can I.

We all do. To pretend otherwise is dishonest (*looks to the Left*). Some oppose taxation and the social safety net because they feel it's immoral to take a man's wealth from him. Some of us feel it is more immoral to let people starve who would work if they could. At its root, the debate will always remain one of morality and values.

Similarly, the abortion debate is wholly an issue of values- do we value biologically human life or something else like the 'personhood' of a sentient mind? Do we value the child (either either as human life or as a distinct 'person') more or less than a woman's liberty to act as she pleases?

Homicide and rape and rape are unethical and illegal not only because of our mutual interest in agreeing to enforce such laws, but also because most of us find such acts morally abhorrent and feel those values outweigh the value we would place on total liberty.

The reality of the situation is that great many laws or, at least in part, driven by our morality and ethical codes. It's not a matter of one side trying to legislate morality and the other opposing that; it is a matter of each side holding a different moral/ethical position that they want to see enforced.

I believe there was a thread about this some time back; Agna threw a fit

 

[JBeukema]

You don't get to pick and choose which morals are enforced and which are not

I disagree. I feel it is immoral to cheat on your partner, but that doesn't mean I'd see it elevated to the status of Law and enforced by the State. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that the entire 'culture war' is nothing more or less than adamant disagreement over moral and ethical norms and their enforcement.

Edit: well, mostly. Some of it does seem driven by pure lust for power and taxes, especially when it comes to legislating what I may eat, although there may be a certain moral quest in that, as well

 

[manifold]

Once the existence of an absolute, objective moral standard has been scientifically proven and established, I'd like to see them tackle the age old debate of chocolate versus vanilla. Some folks say chocolate tastes better, others insist that vanilla is the superior flavor. Wouldn't it be nice to finally know who is right?

Once the existence of an absolute, objective moral standard has been scientifically proven and established, we might find out that preference of chocolate over vanilla allows the most rewarding human experience a human being could have, while preferring vanilla did not. It would be morally important to help people overcome this defect in their sense of taste - in the same way we currently treat people with curable forms of blindness.

And then we can help U2 fans overcome the defect in their musical taste too.

 

[Lyte]

And then we can help U2 fans overcome the defect in their musical taste too.

See, the world would be so much better place.

Mathematics is an abstract construct which does not reside in the physical world, and it is objective. It cannot be ruled out that there isn't another abstract construct which does not reside in the physical world and it is objective as well. Morality might be that construct. If morality is objective then all of these moral standards we have are just our feeble attempts to reach the one true moral standard.

Is morality objective or subjective? Human sciences haven't yet proved it either way, but I choose to believe it is, because to me it would be better option.

 

[manifold]

Mathematics, like science, explains the physical universe.

Morality is an individual, subjective determination of right and wrong.

No amount of mental gymnastics is going to change that.

 

[Lyte]

Mathematics, like science, explains the physical universe.

Any correspondence between mathematical constructs and reality is pure coincidence. There is no inherent relationship with math and physics. We can use math to explain the physical universe and so much more.

Morality is an individual, subjective determination of right and wrong.

We disagree.

 

[manifold]

There is no inherent relationship with math and physics.

I'm actually starting to feel embarrassed for you.

 

[Lyte]

There is no inherent relationship with math and physics.

I'm actually starting to feel embarrassed for you.

So you don't believe me or Albert

"as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Albert Einstein

I am embarrassed for you.

 

[westwall]

There is no inherent relationship with math and physics.

I'm actually starting to feel embarrassed for you.

So you don't believe me or Albert

"as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Albert Einstein

I am embarrassed for you.

I am going to ascribe your misunderstanding of Einsteins quote to language differences. Mathematics is the language of physics. Without math there is no physics. That being said Einstein was referring to scientists getting locked in the laboratory. Too often black box scientists (as we refer to them) get so enamored of their formula's and computer models that they forget the real world and how it works. That is why he was referring to "reality" and not physics.

 

[Lyte]

I am going to ascribe your misunderstanding of Einsteins quote to language differences. Mathematics is the language of physics. Without math there is no physics. That being said Einstein was referring to scientists getting locked in the laboratory. Too often black box scientists (as we refer to them) get so enamored of their formula's and computer models that they forget the real world and how it works. That is why he was referring to "reality" and not physics.

No, as I explained in post #101 mathemathics is an abstract construct of thought, it has no inherent relationship with the physical reality. Pure mathematical constructs like the infinite dimensional Lie group has nothing to do with physical reality. Reality doesn't exist in an infinite dimensional vector space.

Here is a quote :

There is debate over whether mathematical objects such as numbers and points exist naturally or are human creations. The mathematician Benjamin Peirce called mathematics "the science that draws necessary conclusions".[6] Albert Einstein, on the other hand, stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."[7]

source

Where did you get that explanation for his quote Westwall?


Edit: changed "correlation" to "inherent relationship"

 

[manifold]

I sure hope that science proves that masturbation is moral.

*fingers crossed!*

 

[westwall]

I am going to ascribe your misunderstanding of Einsteins quote to language differences. Mathematics is the language of physics. Without math there is no physics. That being said Einstein was referring to scientists getting locked in the laboratory. Too often black box scientists (as we refer to them) get so enamored of their formula's and computer models that they forget the real world and how it works. That is why he was referring to "reality" and not physics.

No, as I explained in post #101 mathemathics is an abstract construct of thought, it has no correlation with the physical reality. Pure mathematical constructs like the infinite dimensional Lie group has nothing to do with physical reality. Reality doesn't exist in an infinite dimensional vector space.

Here is a quote :

There is debate over whether mathematical objects such as numbers and points exist naturally or are human creations. The mathematician Benjamin Peirce called mathematics "the science that draws necessary conclusions".[6] Albert Einstein, on the other hand, stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."[7]

source

Where did you get that explanation for his quote Westwall?

Mathematics is a mental construct that represents real world phenomena. The goal of any mathematician is to create a form of mathematics which has no use at all. Well at least that is what my friend the Ph.D. in Theoretical Mathematics tells me. Calculus was once classified as such but alas the real world figured out a use for it too and it is now used for calculating the orbits of planets and other useless things.

As far as the explanation goes I have read many works by Einstein and he had a pretty dim view of black box scientists (I'm a field geologist and have a similar view of those in my field as well, it's pretty universal) so was able to figure it out on my own.

Your problem is you are trying to ascribe subjective points of view to objective things. If the numbers or points didn't exist naturally then man wouldn't be able to discover them.
That is a basic problem with philosophy in general. The really big questions were asked thousands of years ago and then rehashed ad infinitum. Now they ask silly questions to try and validate their existence.