Can science tell us the answers to moral questions? Sam Harris thinks so. Please watch this video of his TED talk on the subject. Do you think Harris is correct that science can answer moral questions? Why or why not?
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can Science Answer Moral Questions?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
A lot of nothing. Science can make moral decisions but no real explaination of how. A group of specialists will decide for the rest of us.
One of his examples is corporal punishments of students as wrong. I don't agree with agressive corporal punishment but do not support time outs and no corporal punishment as an answer.
His other example is how woman are forcibly made to wear potato sacks in the arab states and wearing nothing in the elightened states. Both are wrong and we probably need to mandate a different standard for both. Good luck.
He even admits that science may not be able to resolve all conflicts and that there may be multiple resolutions to some.
In summary, let's let science replace religion even though it won't be perfect just better. No description of how he plans to do it. No discription of how it is going to work. Its not possible and not even a good idea.
As a side I don't like how he looks away from the audience all the time and that he stares at the floor so much. It gives me the impression he's hiding something.
One of his examples is corporal punishments of students as wrong. I don't agree with agressive corporal punishment but do not support time outs and no corporal punishment as an answer.
His other example is how woman are forcibly made to wear potato sacks in the arab states and wearing nothing in the elightened states. Both are wrong and we probably need to mandate a different standard for both. Good luck.
He even admits that science may not be able to resolve all conflicts and that there may be multiple resolutions to some.
In summary, let's let science replace religion even though it won't be perfect just better. No description of how he plans to do it. No discription of how it is going to work. Its not possible and not even a good idea.
As a side I don't like how he looks away from the audience all the time and that he stares at the floor so much. It gives me the impression he's hiding something.
MSizer
MSizer
I absolutely do not. If you were on trial for something, would you like to have the judge replaced by a psychopath to make the decision as to whether and how you would be punished?
Morality is hard to nail down. Do I think everyone's opinion is appropriate, NO. But unlike most I believe corporate punishment necessary especially criminals. I like a lot of the Arabic punishments. The only thing I would change is there court system(I like innocent until proven guilty) and corporal punishment would only happen on a second offense. I also support the death penalty again after a second offense. Like a drug dealer convicted of selling drugs released after serving time murders someone if convict deserves death. He has proven he can't be converted.
Now must would say my morals aren't right are yours. I accept certain variances and changes as the group changes. If the variance is to big I will fight it. Most people will fight the changes a scientific group forces us to accept.
MSizer
MSizer
What does frequency of offence have to do with it? If your daughter were schizophrenic, and she somehow couldn't get her meds, say because there was a national shortage of the drug, and while off her meds she repeated an offence that she had once commited before prior to being diagnosed, do you think we should put her in the electric chair?
I certainly don't.
Death would be reserved for murder
Chopping off hands for stealing
Geneital mutilation for rape. ETC.
I said most people won't agree with me. But I find it odd that you can kill a 100 people or rape a 1000 people and have the tax payers support you the rest of your life.
I only say after the second offense to minimize mistakes and bigotry.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
I haven't watched the video just yet, but I personally think that the large majority of "Morality" is subjective, with the objection to some universal (atleast amongst most Humans) "rules" that we should rightfully hold as objective reasonable Moral stances and protocols. For example, torturing of any being, or unprovoked and unneccessary murder, or rape etc etc.
So personally, with the exception of some obvious "ground rules" I think neither Science nor Humans can answer Moral questions - hence why our species is in such dire situations all the damn time.
I do however, think that science and learning more about animals and brain/CNS functions can help influence greater understanding between Human/Human and Human/other animal, and thus may contribute to improve kindness and consideration towards others.
Besides, even if science couldn't answer moral questions, the very last thing we need is bloody religion attempting to shove it's nose into everything, thinging it's some "divine Morality". Pffft.
So personally, with the exception of some obvious "ground rules" I think neither Science nor Humans can answer Moral questions - hence why our species is in such dire situations all the damn time.
I do however, think that science and learning more about animals and brain/CNS functions can help influence greater understanding between Human/Human and Human/other animal, and thus may contribute to improve kindness and consideration towards others.
Besides, even if science couldn't answer moral questions, the very last thing we need is bloody religion attempting to shove it's nose into everything, thinging it's some "divine Morality". Pffft.
MSizer
MSizer
All people, no matter of culture or race agree that harm and fairness are moral matters. About half of us also agree that respect for authority, ingroup loyalty and personal purity are also moral matters. Essentially two types of moral disagreements exist (well, really 1 type and another in disguise). Either we disagree on the hierarchy of moral domains (harm, fairness, personal purity, respect for authority or ingroup loyalty) such as if I say "this is harmful to a person, but it's unfair to another, so I prioritize fairness" (of course most people don't actually think it out that thoroughly - they just go with their gut and flip flop back and forth). The second apparent moral disagreement type, which actually has nothing to do with morality at all, is mistaken facts. So for example I may argue that species X deserves certain rights, while another argues they don't. What may be the underlying cause is that I think they are sentient, while the other person thinks they are not, but that if they were, they then indeed would deserve the rights I argue for. That's actually not a moral argument, it's a case of correct/incorrect information.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
bobhikes said:
So then how's he gonna repay society for what he's done if he's got no hands and thus cannot properly be put to good use whilst in a Cell? Although I do actually agree with castration for Rapist, and I'm not toally willing to rule out the Death Penalty for murderers (the ones who do it not in self-defense etc). Also it's a corporal punishment that will affect him for the rest of his life! Just for stealing something?
I disagree with you on the hand-chopping for theives, it's a bit too SA for me.
Last edited:
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
MSizer said:
Which is why so many people like to separate "Humans" from "Animals" so that they don't have to consider the needs or impat we have on them. The Abrahamic religions atleast have the view that Humanity is the focal point of the entire Universe, and that we are the Stewards of the planet - how arrogant is that ey?
MSizer
MSizer
Yes, I agree. I don't want to comment further though, 'cuz it's a hotbutton for me and I'd end up derailing!
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
I think reasoned opinion is certainly important. But I don't think moral questions necessarily have answers--or at least correct ones.
I think a healthy dose of logic and emotion is important in making ethical decisions.
I think a healthy dose of logic and emotion is important in making ethical decisions.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
Oh yeah of course, this is about science and morality! I gotta learn to stop treated specific threads as casual random convos LOL!
How does Homosexuality, Abortion, Sexual deviancy fit into this and 50 percent respect the ingroups authority.
Who is this ingroup and I believe 100% of the people don't follow all of the current moral values of there culture. Morals are only followed 100% by few people in public. In private its another world.
MSizer
MSizer
It has nothing to do with culture. Culture motivates our behaviour. Moral judgement is motivated by emotions (in particular contempt for ingroup disloyalty and disrespect for authority and disgust for personal impurity). The "ingroup" is people with similar clothes, skin colour, language and so on. Moral values have nothing to do with culture. Culture strongly influences specific actions, but not moral judgments.
For example, take the pictures Sam Harris posted. In both the case of the women in veils and the women in bikinis, even though they appear to be from societies with different "morals", that is not so at all. In both cases society dictates that the body should not be fully exposed, yet in one case they decide that means covering up only a few bits with some thin straps, in the other culture it means covering the whole body altogether. That's not a difference of moral opinion, that's a difference of behaviour.
Last edited:
All societies do not dictates the people have to wear clothes. Children in many societies can go clothless. Nudists would disagree.
I am definately not understanding your definition of morals and believe I don't agree with it but can't be sure because it confuse's me greatly.
Interesting video. He raises some good issues, but I think that he's wrong at a fundamental level.
I think that science can inform the answers to moral questions, but at some level, we rely on moral precepts independent of science.
However, I noticed that he flip-flopped a bit in his terminology: he tended to use "morality" and "well-being" almost interchangably. I don't think they're equivalent. "Well-being" is a bit difficult to define, but once you do, it's an objective standard. I don't think the same can be held true of morality.
He touched on an idea near the beginning and then again near the end, that many religious and moral ideas are dependent on factual claims... I agree that's true: the morality of an act depends on the consequences of that act, and what those consequences will be is a matter of fact. However, morality also depends on value judgements about those consequences, and I'm not sure that science can necessarily tell us what we should value.
No. Some opinions of what is morally appropriate are demonstrably false, and therefore invalid. Some are based on factual claims that are unlikely to be true, and therefore less valid than opinions that are based on factual claims that are likely to be true. Science may not be able to dictate one's values, but once those values are given, science has quite a bit to say about what actions are consistent with those values.