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

Sunstone · #1 02-13-2007, 05:08 AM

Can truly moral decisions be made nowadays without taking into account what science has to say on an issue?

For instance: Would it be likely for a person wholly ignorant of biology to make a truly moral decision about whether to allow or prohibit stem cell research?

Again, would it be likely for a person wholly ignorant of biology to make a truly moral decision about whether to allow or prohibit abortion?

Again, would it be likely for a person wholly ignorant of sociology, psychology, and human sexuality to make a truly moral decision about whether to allow or prohibit abstinence only sexuality eduction in public schools?

Last, would it be likely for a person wholly ignorant of climatology to make a truly moral decision about whether and how to combat global warming?

What are the odds that a person ignorant of science can make truly moral decisions nowadays?

What, if anything, are the advantages and disadvantages of a firm grounding in relevant science when making moral decisions?

eudaimonia · #2 02-13-2007, 05:23 AM

The examples you list all clearly have to do with science. Are you suggesting that all moral decisions touch on scientific issues? I don't see why this should be so.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Sunstone · #3 02-13-2007, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eudaimonia

The examples you list all clearly have to do with science. Are you suggesting that all moral decisions touch on scientific issues? I don't see why this should be so.

eudaimonia,

Mark

I'm not suggesting that all moral decisions touch on scientific issues, but it does seem to increasingly be the case that many moral decisions do.

FatMan · #4 02-13-2007, 08:17 AM

People wholly ignorant on any subject should defer to those who are knowledgeable regarding the subjects.

MaddLlama · #5 02-13-2007, 08:19 AM

It seems to me the examples are less moral issues than they are political ones. All of these issues that you could give as an example seem to stem from the idea that science and religion are at war with one another, which is why I suspect that not many people on the religious side take the time to really look at scientific evidence.

I think that it is better to say that it is wrong to make any decision on a topic having something to do with science (of any kind), when you don't even know what the "scientific method" is.

eudaimonia · #6 02-13-2007, 08:24 AM

Fair enough.

Since moral decisions take place within a real world context, where the goal of the decision is to achieve some state of affairs beneficial to human beings, and since science may be necessary in some cases to fully grasp this context, then science would in these cases be a valuable input to the process of decision-making.

Can one do without science? Sure, but then one must resort to greater uncertainty about one's decisions. Why do this when science can help one arrive at higher quality decisions?

eudaimonia,

Mark

jacquie4000 · #7 02-13-2007, 08:27 AM

It is not truely known how we make moral decisions. Their is much study by science to determine how we come to make moral decisions. I would not base it on any one area.

Booko · #8 02-13-2007, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Can truly moral decisions be made nowadays without taking into account what science has to say on an issue?

In order to make the best moral decision, the knowledge concerning the subject at hand should be taken into account.

Scientific knowledge often gives us key information that should be taken into account. I'm not sure all moral decisions involve matters of the physical world that science explores, though.

For instance: Would it be likely for a person wholly ignorant of biology to make a truly moral decision about whether to allow or prohibit stem cell research?

I would also point out that while we should take into account any scientific knowledge pertaining to some moral decision, we should not do so without keeping in mind that science is a human endeavor that is constantly moving - expanding and shifting knowledge. What we knew a few centuries ago is not what we know today. To view all science as if it's static would be a mistake.

Quote:

What are the odds that a person ignorant of science can make truly moral decisions nowadays?

The more information there is to look at, the better the decision may be. I say "may" because evidence, even scientific evidence, can be open to interpretation. Also also, sometimes what is advanced as evidence was not arrived at by very good means, so...GIGO.

Quote:

What, if anything, are the advantages and disadvantages of a firm grounding in relevant science when making moral decisions?

We are all called on to make moral decisions every day of our lives, but we cannot all be scientists, and many of us can't even make time in our daily lives to educate ourselves on what current thinking in the scientific community is.

So we do the best we can with what we have.