Can Truly Moral Decisions Be Made Without Science? (abstinence, abortion)

[MaddLlama]

Originally Posted by Booko

Um, I wish luck to anyone doing a scientific exploration of how people make moral decisions. I've no idea how you look at a subject that involves fuzzy epistemology like "inspiration."

It would be interesting to look at the methodology, though.

It may not be a biological science, but something like that would certainly fall under the realm of psychology. There are ways to test how people make decisions, including moral ones.

[James the Persian]

I note that a number of the OP's moral dilemmas are actually related to the morality of science. As such science can never really be used to judge their morality, surely? This must take into account some other source.

Science really can only tell us about utility, in any case, rather than morality. Now, for some people this may be one and the same thing (though I find the utilitarian model of morality less than convincing) but it certainly isn't for others, and it certainly cannot be made to cover all possible moral dilemmas.

I'd say that it is perfectly possible to come to a moral decision with no knowledge of science and, in fact, certain moral decisions are unlikely to be affected by science at all. There are, of course, other areas where a knowledge of the relevant science can help but it is not vital for, as Booko said, those who lack the knowledge can always choose to trust those who do not. Ultimately, though, I don't believe science is really very involved in us making moral decisions at all. It's quite often, on the contrary, the subject of them.

As an example, in what way exactly, can science really inform a moral decision on abortion? Surely only by providing us with certain facts. Is the foetus alive? Is it well? Is the mother in danger? Etc. We then have to slot these facts into our moral framework and make a decision, but it's not a scientific one and I will come to a quite different decision given identical facts from, say, a pro-choice feminist. Knowledge, of any kind, scientific or not can help us inform our choices but I really don't think it has much effect at all on what is or is not moral, just helps us choose the most accurate response given our existing morals.

James

[jacquie4000]

Sharon I agree with many of your statements but it is interesting how science is trying to discover how we make moral decisions. Here are some sites.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=6636701
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0914074303.htm

Their is another site that lets you partake in the research I will see if I can find it.

[MaddLlama]

Originally Posted by Booko

Really? I viewed them all as both moral decisions and political issues. At least, I think global warming is a big moral issue. Failure to deal with the matter will harm billions of people in a big way, which puts it into the realm of morals.

I'm not saying that they aren't moral issues at all, I just think that because they are also political, it is all the more important to consider the evidence before making a decision.

I don't share your pessimism about religious people having so largely bought into the false dichotomy of science vs. religion. There are some vocal elements who have, and then there are the rest of us.

Of course. I guess my comment was a little too general. What I should have said was "The people who don't consider the scientific evidence at all before making such a decision likely believe that science is the enemy of religion". Otherwse I don't see what reason there is to not consider the evidence.

Even some of the irrelegious do not look at the scientific evidence, if they believe they will be called on to sacrifice to do the moral thing.

And, it's also true that Americans are lazy, and often don't go looking for information any further than what the mainstream media tells us. Hell, I've fallen into that trap a lot. Which is why I suck at politics.

So, someone who is wholly ignorant of scientific method, but knows that the scientific community is squarely behind the idea that global warming is happening and the results will be devasting to the planet should not make a decision on the topic?

I'm not saying that people should know the whole process of proving a theory in order to be able to make a decision, I'm just not sure that you can claim to support a scientific idea without at least knowing that science itself is based mostly on observable evidence. Maybe I'm thinking too highly of people, but that's like, 5th grade material.

[religion-science]

I agree with what some others have already said; to make an informend and intelligent decision on any issue you have to be....well.....informed. With science evolving as it is and at the rate it is there will be many issues involving science, therefor to make an informed moral decision you have to know the facts, it just so happens with these issues they are scientific in nature. There are many which arn't however. I'm from Australia so what about our policy on mandatory detention? Not much science there still a very big issue.