Can science answer moral questions?

[Dr.Drock]

mostly, yes.


science (and logic and reason) can answer MOST moral questions

it can certainly answer most moral question better than MOST religions can

q: what moral questions?

homosexuality?
sex outside of marriage?
divorce?
drinking? smoking pot? snorting cocaine?
discriminating against identifiable groups of people?
slavery?


science can certainly provide BETTER ANSWERS to these moral questions

ummmm, hold on...





.. ok, how do I want to say this?



...



Yup, everything you just said is pure, unadulterated bullshit.



Carry on.

i'd be interested to hear the scientific take on slavery.


i could use a laugh.

We saw what religion's take was on slavery for thousands upon thousands of years. Only a tiny minority of human's time on earth have certain religions had a moral issue with slavery.

I don't science could judge that much worse than religion has over time, don't know if it's possible.

 

[Lyte]

This guy is totally wrong for one simple reason.... His entire concept of what morality IS/SHOULD BE is totally incorrect. He seems to have some ridiculous idea that morality is about making people happy, healthy, and positive. That's not what Morality is about at all. It's about RIGHT and WRONG. Life is not about happiness, health, or positivity. Life is about RIGHT and WRONG. Just because something makes people happy, healthy, or improves their life doesn't mean it isn't WRONG. Likewise, that which makes one miserable, unhealthy, and uncomfortable may be the absolute RIGHT thing.

Yes, temporarily making one miserable, unhealthy and uncomfortable may be the absolutely right thing to do. This is what he addresses in the very last point in his talk (23:30 or so).
His point was that you have to view the problem in a larger context. Making someone unhealthy miserable and uncomfortable is the right thing to do if in a larger context it results to something more right. Making someone unhealthy miserable and uncomfortable just to make us all go to hell - is really hard to justify from a moral standpoint.

In itself, making someone miserable, unhealthy and uncomfortable can never be good.

 

[Anachronism]

Yes, temporarily making one miserable, unhealthy and uncomfortable may be the absolutely right thing to do. This is what he addresses in the very last point in his talk (23:30 or so).
His point was that you have to view the problem in a larger context. Making someone unhealthy miserable and uncomfortable is the right thing to do if in a larger context it results to something more right. Making someone unhealthy miserable and uncomfortable just to make us all go to hell - is really hard to justify from a moral standpoint.

In itself, making someone miserable, unhealthy and uncomfortable can never be good.

On that point we will have to disagree.

As someone who can honestly say that there is little to no pleasure, fun, or positivity in his life, if THAT is what life is truly about then I might as well eat 230 grains of .45 ACP JHP this evening, because that is not something my life is ever likely to have much of.

 

[OneOfMany]

The events occurring in the world have moved me to share a truth. Gadaffi is not an enemy, and we're handling him all wrong. He is our brother. I have seen such an innocent face as Gadaffi; he is only a child. ("Age" has no influence on that.) Gadaffi is not evil, or stupid, and surely not uneducated. You see, us humans are born of two principles. Of innocence and confusion. The innocence is who you are and the confusion is who you become. I believe Gadaffi is only innocent and confused. At the same time you might be thinking, "But he's done such evil things", I look not at that, but ask why. There's a reason for it all. And I do not label Gadaffi's actions as evil, or malice. His life was influenced greatly. His experiences made him who he is. He must have experienced so much hate, and for that i sympathize with him. He grew more and more confused as he experienced more and more hate. Everyone on this planet can relate. We are all just like him. And do not take that statement out of context. "We are all just like him." We all have endured emotions along with the experiences we dealt with. We all have an reaction to an action. And a cause for every effect we make. He is only doing what in his mind is right. So we cannot preach any more hate for this pour soul. Hate breeds more hate. We cannot destroy anything he has. We must preach him good, wise actions. We must set a wise example for him because he surely hasn't experienced one. We must love this man; show this man we are not afraid of him, and that we accept who he is. Accept he is only human. We need to let him know he must learn from his actions. If you stop him by force of destruction, that will be all he sees. And he will learn from it, destruction. These thoughts have led me to develop a theory.


People are programmed in various way, there is physics behind our behavior. Physics is the science of matter and it's motion. And our brains are always in motion --physically, no -- but through our thoughts. Thoughts are very much in this world, matter. Though matter pertains to physical objects which contain atoms, thoughts are matter. Because soon those thoughts become matter. It's all around us, every invention we made, every house we've built, all people, were created by thought.
Matter exists, and all matter has a force. The world contains our forces and the forces act upon their purpose; their influence. Different influences collide and breed an effect, similar as that of the forces influence, but now with a reaction. The reaction however is dependent on the second force I'm certain all of the world's mysteries can be answered by this theory; That all matter has a force and all forces have an influence, which breeds an effect and a reaction. Or simply, when there is a force, it has an action; the action has an effect which sparks a reaction. Every reaction of the world was, is, and always will be dependent of a forces' will. And this innocent world is filled with many different kinds of forces. And that is why everything is what it is now.
We humans are an exception to laws of physics. The mystery remains of why we can have such incredible force. We have both physical and mental force in this world and we should put it to good use. Each of us are an all powerful being, are forces are great, but everyday there are restrictions to our mental force which can thus alter our physical force, and vice versa. People we need to know this. We have the ability to create a pefect society. We are all better than this. We allow so much destrution. So much sadness. And so much inprisonment of the potential of mankind. We are gods in a sense, descendants of great beings. And the future depends on how you use your force: for the extinction, or for the creation. We must trust, respect, appreciate, help, and love the fact that each of us are the same, no matter the race, gender, or any variation of the human imprisonment. We are all brothers and sisters here, in the least corniest way possible. It is true; we bleed through similar veins. We all think with similar brains. And everyone must simply accept we are superior beings, with none being more superior than the other.

 

[Lyte]

On that point we will have to disagree.

As someone who can honestly say that there is little to no pleasure, fun, or positivity in his life, if THAT is what life is truly about then I might as well eat 230 grains of .45 ACP JHP this evening, because that is not something my life is ever likely to have much of.

I know I go a bit semantic here, but what life is about and moral truths are two different things.

Ultimately we are discussing about what we ought to value. Does the cheap labor and low manufacturing costs justify slavery? Is Halal butchering moral even though the animal suffers more? Does my right to pursue happiness justify me sleeping around? -questions like that.

Harris claims that we can make factual claims about these questions, dissect them into elements and facts are something science is equipped to deal with.

Honestly, is Harris right? I'm not sure, but I am interested of his approach enough to follow the debate he has with his critics.

 

[westwall]

Morals vary.
Science doesn't.

Morals vary.

Ethics don't.

Science is merely an observer and an explainer. Science is systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. To try and make science do more leads to eugenics and all sorts of horrible things that have occured in the name of "science".

 

[Anachronism]

I know I go a bit semantic here, but what life is about and moral truths are two different things.

I completely and totally disagree. In my mind Life is about nothing more than moral truth, because it is only through living a life based around moral truth that we can ever hope to achieve the enlightenment necessary to move on into the next life.

Ultimately we are discussing about what we ought to value. Does the cheap labor and low manufacturing costs justify slavery? Is Halal butchering moral even though the animal suffers more? Does my right to pursue happiness justify me sleeping around? -questions like that.

Yes, we are discussing what we should value. Though I think the particular questions you mention are on the lower end of my list of things that we should be questioning.... What are the proper roles of Men and women in society? What are the proper limits and boundaries of personal freedom in society? What are the proper punishments for those who exceed those roles or boundaries in society?

Harris claims that we can make factual claims about these questions, dissect them into elements and facts are something science is equipped to deal with.

Which I agree with him on, if you are talking about looking at things from a spiritual, historical, and sociological point of view. I don't think these things can be viewed in the same way though straight science.

Honestly, is Harris right? I'm not sure, but I am interested of his approach enough to follow the debate he has with his critics.

No, He isn't.

 

[Gadawg73]

Morals vary.
Science doesn't.

Morals vary.

Ethics don't.

Science is merely an observer and an explainer. Science is systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. To try and make science do more leads to eugenics and all sorts of horrible things that have occured in the name of "science".

Ethics vary by culture and religion.
Ethics are moral principles so explain how they do not vary.

 

[manifold]

Seriously, this...

Can science answer moral questions?

...is quite likely the dumbest intellectual exploration ever pondered.

But far be it from me to discourage anyone from exploring whatever they fancy, even if all they're likely to get for their efforts is being dumber than they were before they started.

 

[OneOfMany]

Don't you guys get it. It's physics. We exert forces from our internal forces through our physical forces. Our physical force depend on those morals or values of our internal forces.

 

[Lyte]

I know I go a bit semantic here, but what life is about and moral truths are two different things.

I completely and totally disagree. In my mind Life is about nothing more than moral truth, because it is only through living a life based around moral truth that we can ever hope to achieve the enlightenment necessary to move on into the next life..

I was hoping you wouldn't have tackled this - I have to give this one to you as now when I think about it, life thrives to improve itself constantly - that is what evolution is. I believe we are just biological machines, part of life, therefore claiming that our moral values is something else is not really defendable even from my point of view.

Ultimately we are discussing about what we ought to value. Does the cheap labor and low manufacturing costs justify slavery? Is Halal butchering moral even though the animal suffers more? Does my right to pursue happiness justify me sleeping around? -questions like that.

Yes, we are discussing what we should value. Though I think the particular questions you mention are on the lower end of my list of things that we should be questioning.... What are the proper roles of Men and women in society? What are the proper limits and boundaries of personal freedom in society? What are the proper punishments for those who exceed those roles or boundaries in society?.

Yes, those were just simple examples off the top of my head to illustrate the kind of questions science can answer. I did notice though that all of your examples need to be asked differently in order to be answered in a scientific way. Is mans role as a hard working earner dad morally more right than Mans role as a stay-at-home-dad? (my English is failing here). Is my right to free speech morally more right than someone's right for his private life? etc.. In order to answer moral questions through science, two or more claims have to be compared against each other - dissected into factual claims so that we can come to a conclusion. I understand you don't accept "well-being" being the ultimate goal of morality, a lot of his critics have made this argument. Sam Harris answered his critics in here about it (yes I know it is a long response - he tackles many issues raised by many people)

Harris claims that we can make factual claims about these questions, dissect them into elements and facts are something science is equipped to deal with.

Which I agree with him on, if you are talking about looking at things from a spiritual, historical, and sociological point of view. I don't think these things can be viewed in the same way though straight science.

Here we disagree, I don't see why these issues cannot be viewed through science. Facts are facts and if we know the ultimate goal (of "well-being" - I know you don't accept it)
then logical steps to that goal can be found out with the scientific method.

 

[Lyte]

Seriously, this...

Can science answer moral questions?

...is quite likely the dumbest intellectual exploration ever pondered.

But far be it from me to discourage anyone from exploring whatever they fancy, even if all they're likely to get for their efforts is being dumber than they were before they started.

Yet you still haven't given one argument why it is the "dumbest intellectual exploration ever"? I know why that is, If you make an argument, you have to defend it. I think you are one of those guys who don't have the balls to debate the issues, you just satisfy making remarks so that you don't have to actually argue your point.

 

[westwall]

Morals vary.
Science doesn't.

Morals vary.

Ethics don't.

Science is merely an observer and an explainer. Science is systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. To try and make science do more leads to eugenics and all sorts of horrible things that have occured in the name of "science".

Ethics vary by culture and religion.
Ethics are moral principles so explain how they do not vary.

You're confusing ethics and morals. It is never ethical to murder someone but some societies consider it to be OK under certain circumstances, hence the term "moral relativism".

 

[manifold]

Seriously, this...

Can science answer moral questions?

...is quite likely the dumbest intellectual exploration ever pondered.

But far be it from me to discourage anyone from exploring whatever they fancy, even if all they're likely to get for their efforts is being dumber than they were before they started.

Yet you still haven't given one argument why it is the "dumbest intellectual exploration ever"? I know why that is, If you make an argument, you have to defend it. I think you are one of those guys who don't have the balls to debate the issues, you just satisfy making remarks so that you don't have to actually argue your point.

So you think scientific exploration of morality is an 'issue' huh?

In that case I humbly refer you back to my comment about this only making you more stupid than before you started.

 

[Anachronism]

I was hoping you wouldn't have tackled this - I have to give this one to you as now when I think about it, life thrives to improve itself constantly - that is what evolution is. I believe we are just biological machines, part of life, therefore claiming that our moral values is something else is not really defendable even from my point of view.

True. Nice to see someone willing to admit that they don't necessarily have an answer for something. That's a tact science doesn't often like to take.

Yes, those were just simple examples off the top of my head to illustrate the kind of questions science can answer. I did notice though that all of your examples need to be asked differently in order to be answered in a scientific way. Is mans role as a hard working earner dad morally more right than Mans role as a stay-at-home-dad? (my English is failing here). Is my right to free speech morally more right than someone's right for his private life? etc.. In order to answer moral questions through science, two or more claims have to be compared against each other - dissected into factual claims so that we can come to a conclusion. I understand you don't accept "well-being" being the ultimate goal of morality, a lot of his critics have made this argument. Sam Harris answered his critics in here about it (yes I know it is a long response - he tackles many issues raised by many people)

Your English is fine and much better than my Finnish, so we should probably stick with English.

I just noticed where you are from. Maybe this will help.... I see the world very much the way the Norse did. As a student of medieval history and of the Norse culture and Viking time period, I've always been a fan of one way I've read about Norse society being described....

The loving husband and wife stand arm in arm in the door of their longhouse, looking at the world which they are total masters of. He looks outward into His world and she looks inward into hers.

Here we disagree, I don't see why these issues cannot be viewed through science. Facts are facts and if we know the ultimate goal (of "well-being" - I know you don't accept it) then logical steps to that goal can be found out with the scientific method.

The problem is that, as you mentioned above, science wants to look at things by comparing two different things and determining which is better/worse based on a specific set of criteria. That's not how morality and values work. These are Principles of Faith, not necessarily mathematical equations. In these ideals, 1+ 1 often equals 11 instead of 2. Science doesn't like things of that sort, or deal well with them.

 

[Lyte]

So you think scientific exploration of morality is an 'issue' huh?

In that case I humbly refer you back to my comment about this only making you more stupid than before you started.

Again you are careful not to make a sound argument why it isn't an issue, why science cannot answer these questions. Notice your pattern? Never make an argument that can be contested - that way you don't actually have to debate the issue.

I can tolerate different points of view, I don't expect people to agree with me. But I do expect people to debate, to have a talk about the subject of my thread - if they bother to make comments in my thread. I have a ton of more respect of Anachronism than you atm, he doesn't agree with me, but he is willing to talk about why he thinks science can't answer these questions.

 

[manifold]

So you think scientific exploration of morality is an 'issue' huh?

In that case I humbly refer you back to my comment about this only making you more stupid than before you started.

Again you are careful not to make a sound argument why it isn't an issue, why science cannot answer these questions. Notice your pattern? Never make an argument that can be contested - that way you don't actually have to debate the issue.

I can tolerate different points of view, I don't expect people to agree with me. But I do expect people to debate, to have a talk about the subject of my thread - if they bother to make comments in my thread. I have a ton of more respect of Anachronism than you atm, he doesn't agree with me, but he is willing to talk about why he thinks science can't answer these questions.

Fine, I'll make it really simple for you. Science is about explaining the physical world. Morality is a philosophical construct and does not reside in the physical world, thereby making the question resoundingly retarded. Honestly, that should be obvious.

 

[Gadawg73]

Morals vary.

Ethics don't.

Science is merely an observer and an explainer. Science is systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. To try and make science do more leads to eugenics and all sorts of horrible things that have occured in the name of "science".

Ethics vary by culture and religion.
Ethics are moral principles so explain how they do not vary.

You're confusing ethics and morals. It is never ethical to murder someone but some societies consider it to be OK under certain circumstances, hence the term "moral relativism".

I am going by the definition of ethics in the dictionary:
"ethics: moral principles"
Someone else is confused.

 

[Gadawg73]

So you think scientific exploration of morality is an 'issue' huh?

In that case I humbly refer you back to my comment about this only making you more stupid than before you started.

Again you are careful not to make a sound argument why it isn't an issue, why science cannot answer these questions. Notice your pattern? Never make an argument that can be contested - that way you don't actually have to debate the issue.

I can tolerate different points of view, I don't expect people to agree with me. But I do expect people to debate, to have a talk about the subject of my thread - if they bother to make comments in my thread. I have a ton of more respect of Anachronism than you atm, he doesn't agree with me, but he is willing to talk about why he thinks science can't answer these questions.

Fine, I'll make it really simple for you. Science is about explaining the physical world. Morality is a philosophical construct and does not reside in the physical world, thereby making the question resoundingly retarded. Honestly, that should be obvious.

No, one's conduct is certainly part of the physical world. Behaviour is governed by an individual, societal or group code of morals. Behavior is not philosophical.

 

[rikules]

This is one of the TED talks which gave me a pause. I tend to believe what Sam Harris is saying here, that science not only can but it should start to answer these questions. Difficult questions of right and wrong can be examined scientifically and we can find a scientific answer to these questions which are hard to contest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

mostly, yes.


science (and logic and reason) can answer MOST moral questions

it can certainly answer most moral question better than MOST religions can

q: what moral questions?

homosexuality?
sex outside of marriage?
divorce?
drinking? smoking pot? snorting cocaine?
discriminating against identifiable groups of people?
slavery?


science can certainly provide BETTER ANSWERS to these moral questions

ummmm, hold on...





.. ok, how do I want to say this?



...



Yup, everything you just said is pure, unadulterated bullshit.



Carry on.

homosexuality;

according to the 2 major religions homosexuality is an abomination, homosexuals should not be tolerated, and homosexuals should be executed (making a joke of "all life is precious" and "don't kill")

however, science, reason and logic tells us that homosexuals are
decent and honorable people. They are our family, our friends, our neighbors, our co-workers. They contribute to society as much as anyone else. and they do NOT deserve to be discriminated against, outlawed or killed simply because they have sex with each other.

in this case; religion is illogical, irrational, and murderous.
And science is sane, logical , fair and rational

slavery;
according to the 2 major religions slavery is perfectly acceptable.
(any arguing with this will simply show you really don't know what you are talking about)
where-as science, logic and reason would argue that slavery is NOT a good thing

sex outside of marriage;
according to the 2 major religions sex outside of marriage is NOT permissable.

where-as science and logic and reason, especially in our times, where we can prevent most sexually related problems, show us that sex out side of marriage is normal, most people have sex outside of marriage, and people who engage in sex outside of marriage should not be punished for it

divorce;
the 2 major religions insist that divorce is bad.
but science, reason and logic tell us that it is ridiculous (BAD, even) for 2 people to remain in a bad marriage, and that it is better for people to get divorced so they can go on to lead happier lives

religious morals tend to be outdated, archaic, overly punitive and unhealthy


morals based upon logic and reason (and science) make much more sense