Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Science can answer moral questions?

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Science can answer moral questions?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

I watched a video from TED and this guy believes that science can answer moral questions.

TED video
"Questions of good and evil, right and wrong are commonly thought unanswerable by science. But Sam Harris argues that science can -- and should -- be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life."

Do you agree?

@platorepublic,

Dunno how scientific it is, but I must agree with most of the conclusions.

@platorepublic,

Some moral statements make scientific assumptions (or their justifications do).

@Jebediah,

Yes. Hook up all politicians and cabinet-members to a lie-detector. Ambassadors too.
:bigsmile:

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;160123 wrote:

Some moral statements make scientific assumptions (or their justifications do).

Oh, then communism was a huge sientific masterpiece, it sounded sooo good on paper!

@platorepublic,

Interesting talk. I find myself largely in agreement with it.

He seems to be advocating a very pragmatist view of morality. He recognises higher states of happiness that come from meditation and mentions the Dalai Lama. I can't really take issue with him.

I have a feeling he is missing something very important but as it stands, a good talk.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;160241 wrote:

He seems to be advocating a very pragmatist view of morality. He recognises higher states of happiness that come from meditation and mentions the Dalai Lama. I can't really take issue with him.

I have a feeling he is missing something very important but as it stands, a good talk.

Dalai Lama may be a master within spiritual matters, but a total flop within specific moral/ethical matters, such as "what is your view on GW Bush invading Iraq?" in the interview he sat and was totaly clueless, any western person would have a far better chance to answer that question in a reasonable intelligent way.

Sure such spiritual ways has it's advantages as buddhist monks could stay sane even after years of isolation in chineese prisons, where normal people would go insane.

@HexHammer,

HexHammer;160242 wrote:

Dalai Lama may be a master within spiritual matters, but a total flop within specific moral/ethical matters, such as "what is your view on GW Bush invading Iraq?" in the interview he sat and was totaly clueless, any western person would have a far better chance to answer that question in a reasonable intelligent way.

Sure such spiritual ways has it's advantages as buddhist monks could stay sane even after years of isolation in chineese prisons, where normal people would go insane.

How do you know "normal people" would go insane?

@platorepublic,

platorepublic;160274 wrote:

How do you know "normal people" would go insane?

http://www.prisoncommission.org/statements/grassian_stuart_long.pdf

Also in the conflicts between Isreal and Palestine, water tank torture where the victim would get a diver suin on, and be let in this water tank in total darkness, no sound, no movement, no smell, no light ..no nothing, when all the senses are being deprived from stimulation, it is considerd some of the worst form of torture.

Also lonely people get depression from their solitude.

@platorepublic,

platorepublic;160046 wrote:

I watched a video from TED and this guy believes that science can answer moral questions.

TED video
"Questions of good and evil, right and wrong are commonly thought unanswerable by science. But Sam Harris argues that science can -- and should -- be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life."

Do you agree?

I have not yet (?) looked at the video, and it would depend on how Harris argues for his conclusion. But certainly, you cannot rationally arrive at moral beliefs without knowledge of the facts. Hume argued that science can tell you what moral options are open to you, how those options can be achieved, and what the likely consequences of those options are, so that you can make a rational moral choice. And this is clearly true. But (Hume points out) science cannot (after it has given you all of this necessary, and even vital information) actually show which of the options is the rational one. That is why Hume wrote in a famous dictum, "Reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions". For, he argued, in the end, it is up to you to choose the option you prefer. And that, he argued, can be only an emotional decision, not a rational one.

@kennethamy,

So what is the scientific answer to the morality of say "abortion"?
Not that there are not scientific facts to be taken into account but answers?

@prothero,

prothero;160383 wrote:

So what is the scientific answer to the morality of say "abortion"?
Not that there are not scientific facts to be taken into account but answers?

It depends on what question you are asking. Many people feel that it is not immoral to abort a small clump of cells, but immoral to abort a fetus a week before it is due to be born. The question for those people is "when does the fetus become human", to answer that they would need a lot of scientific knowledge.

It seems like we start out with a lot of "answers" (instinctively). And then many of the questions left over need scientific information. It's easy to say "science can't tell you if murder is wrong" but that is seldom a question.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;160405 wrote:

It depends on what question you are asking. Many people feel that it is not immoral to abort a small clump of cells, but immoral to abort a fetus a week before it is due to be born. The question for those people is "when does the fetus become human", to answer that they would need a lot of scientific knowledge..

Although I think scientific facts and knowledge play an important role in making value and ethical decisions, ultimately it is not a "scientific question".
For instance "when does the fetus become human?"
When the heart beats?
When it responds to pain?
When the brain reaches a certain point of development?
and even when science answers these questions it can not answer questions about
The value of the life of the mother versus the infant.
Should severly deformed or genetically altered fetuses be "aborted".
Ultimately these are questions of "values" which do not have a primary scientific answer.

@platorepublic,

Yes. But aren't the ultimate questions unanswerable? They generally start with an assumption. Or usually our instinctive feeling.

I think the basic issue here is one of rhetoric. Whether you agree that "science can answer moral questions" really comes down to your own opinions about the relative worth of religion and science. I say this because I saw this video debated on another forum. Science certainly can answer moral questions, and often they are the questions being asked--like "when does a fetus reach my already conceived notion of human". But some of the people who are firmly in the religion over science camp say that science can't answer moral questions because they would need a starting point.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;160445 wrote:

Yes. But aren't the ultimate questions unanswerable?

I am not sure what an ultimate question would be, nor why it would be an ultimate question unless it were unanswerable, but letting that go, why would you think that the morality of abortions is an ultimate question?

I hope you can tell me whether the fatalism is true or false is an ultimate question, but I can tell you that fatalism is false, and can be shown so.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;160472 wrote:

I am not sure what an ultimate question would be, nor why it would be an ultimate question unless it were unanswerable, but letting that go, why would you think that the morality of abortions is an ultimate question?

It doesn't seem like an ultimate question, I'm not even sure what I was thinking about with "ultimate question". Prothero said something about the morality of abortions being a question of values, ultimately. You have to have an axiom at some point I think.

@platorepublic,

if science can answer moral questions, does that imply morals are objective?

@Amperage,

Amperage;160482 wrote:

if science can answer moral questions, does that imply morals are objective?

That would be "science can answer all moral questions", wouldn't it?

@Amperage,

Amperage;160482 wrote:

if science can answer moral questions, does that imply morals are objective?

If, but not only if.

@Jebediah,

Jebediah;160486 wrote:

That would be "science can answer all moral questions", wouldn't it?

true. But l if it could answer any...wouldn't that at least imply that some morals are objective?

Philosophy Forum
» General Discussion
» Science can answer moral questions?

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Science can answer moral questions?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know