Can science reconcile different moral positions?

[MikeF]

I wanted to get opinions. I’ve had several conversations on line on the subject of morality. There are so many philosophical positions one can hold and many seem to be exclusive, on their own accounts, and have ardent defenders. Is morality neural and societal simultaneously? Subjectively, our thoughts are intangible and, in a manner of speaking, come from nowhere. Objectively, we can show that thoughts are the result of neural processes that are observable. Is the ANS and PSNS, their effects on brain chemistry, and their evolutionary traits sufficient to explain the origins of moral objectivity and subjectivity? Can science reconcile the differences in philosophical positions on morality? Can biological and psychological altruism account for both objective truth and subjective value judgment? Or are they mutually exclusive? Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Understanding ethics and morality requires understanding human behavior, and understanding human behavior requires science, not philosophy. Science does not reconcile different philosophical positions, it shows which philosophical positions either conflict with our scientific understanding of human behavior or are simply not supported by our scientific understanding of human behavior. Historically, philosophy has made many claims about human cognition and the mind with little to no understanding of how the central nervous system even works. I'm not sure how anyone can make a definitive claim without an understanding of how the CNS functions and is influenced by its environment.

Given our current scientific understanding of all life on earth, the values of any one human being is influence by a multitude of factors and is malleable. The values of an individual are subjective and informed by that individuals specific physical biology and the environment in which the individual develops. Morals and Ethics are simply the values or behavioral standards, either imposed or mutually agreed to, that allow us to exist in communities greater than one individual.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Understanding ethics and morality requires understanding human behavior, and understanding human behavior requires science, not philosophy. ...

Well, yes in some sense. And no, in another.

You can't using science alone understand if killing or helping another human is good or bad What you as you call that kind of understanding, is your choice, but to me it is not science.

 

[MikeF]

Well, yes in some sense. And no, in another.

You can't using science alone understand if killing or helping another human is good or bad What you as you call that kind of understanding, is your choice, but to me it is not science.

We can certainly use science to provide objective information upon which to evaluate and examine our value choices, the value choices of others, or the value standards that may be set by the society in which we live.

What we certainly do not want to do is create value standards that are justified by artificial constructs of reality that claim immunity from evaluation and verification.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We can certainly use science to provide objective information upon which to evaluate and examine our value choices, the value choices of others, or the value standards that may be set by the society in which we live.

What we certainly do not want to do is create value standards that are justified by artificial constructs of reality that claim immunity from evaluation and verification.

What "we" is that? I can find no objective information about that "we". To me it is your subjectiveness claiming there is a "we". I don't think you should claim a "we", that is an artificial construct.

I mean using evaluation and verification, it appears that your "we" is not objective and not based on science. What is the scientific theory of we and what facts are it based on?

 

[MikeF]

What "we" is that? I can find no objective information about that "we". To me it is your subjectiveness claiming there is a "we". I don't think you should claim a "we", that is an artificial construct.

I mean using evaluation and verification, it appears that your "we" is not objective and not based on science. What is the scientific theory of we and what facts are it based on?

**< sigh >**

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

**< sigh >**

Yeah, that is not objective nor science.

Here is what you do in general in some of your posts:
You state facts and then you switch to subjectivity and what ought to be done. The second part as what ought to be done is not science. And as long as you are apparently unable to understand in effect the is-ought problem, this will continue.

You are not and you will never be a "we" for what we all ought to do. Nor am I that "we", but I don't claim that.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Well, yes in some sense. And no, in another.

You can't using science alone understand if killing or helping another human is good or bad What you as you call that kind of understanding, is your choice, but to me it is not science.

The problem this is defini9ng good and bad.
Good or bad for what or whom.
That leads on to considering the Greater Good.
When doing so that is usually Bad for the Minority.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The problem this is defini9ng good and bad.
Good or bad for what or whom.

Well, there are 2 versions of defining. One is to claim authority and by fiat define that this is how the world is, because I define it so. The other is to explain how good and bad work.

 

[blü 2]

No, you've just got them on Ignore.

Not quite. Mikkel will know what I mean.

 

[Secret Chief]

Not quite. Mikkel will know what I mean.

Twas but jesting.

 

[MikeF]

Yeah, that is not objective nor science.

Here is what you do in general in some of your posts:
You state facts and then you switch to subjectivity and what ought to be done. The second part as what ought to be done is not science. And as long as you are apparently unable to understand in effect the is-ought problem, this will continue.

You are not and you will never be a "we" for what we all ought to do. Nor am I that "we", but I don't claim that.

Thank you for clarifying. Yes, it is my personal, subjective opinion that we, all Homo Sapiens, should not base our, Homo Sapiens, value standards on artificial constructs of reality.

 

[firedragon]

I wanted to get opinions. I’ve had several conversations on line on the subject of morality. There are so many philosophical positions one can hold and many seem to be exclusive, on their own accounts, and have ardent defenders. Is morality neural and societal simultaneously? Subjectively, our thoughts are intangible and, in a manner of speaking, come from nowhere. Objectively, we can show that thoughts are the result of neural processes that are observable. Is the ANS and PSNS, their effects on brain chemistry, and their evolutionary traits sufficient to explain the origins of moral objectivity and subjectivity? Can science reconcile the differences in philosophical positions on morality? Can biological and psychological altruism account for both objective truth and subjective value judgment? Or are they mutually exclusive? Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Maybe in the future, science will have more advancements and have much more insights into this matter. But philosophically, there maybe some grey areas. Science is not everything. For example, most studies in sociology are study based. You take a sample of a particular geographical area, try and minimise the error margin, try to achieve statistical validation in case of a generalisation, do a quali study, come up with a hypothesis, test it, then gather assumptions based on it. Thats not cutting up a brain, its asking and thinking.

So there are some who believe science answers everything. Thats called scientism. Rather, one has to be rational and realistic.

Some experiments in the field of science tried to prove determinism, I mean scientifically, not philosophically. The experiments were profound, and the findings were fantastic. But other scientists disagreed with some of the assumptions. Without going much into detail, do you know why some disagree? Because these are assumptions, not fact. Science does not work in establishing facts. There are many people who get very offended when someone uses the word assumption. Some dogmatic people are like that. But this is how science works.

Now you said "we can show that thoughts are the result of neural processes that are observable". Is that a fact? Please explain if you have time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thank you for clarifying. Yes, it is my personal, subjective opinion that we, all Homo Sapiens, should not base our, Homo Sapiens, value standards on artificial constructs of reality.

Yes, and that is an artificial construct and not an objective fact.

Your artificial construct is to deny all other artificial constructs, while ignoring that you are doing the same.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe in the future, science will have more advancements and have much more insights into this matter. But philosophically, there maybe some grey areas. Science is not everything. For example, most studies in sociology are study based. You take a sample of a particular geographical area, try and minimise the error margin, try to achieve statistical validation in case of a generalisation, do a quali study, come up with a hypothesis, test it, then gather assumptions based on it. Thats not cutting up a brain, its asking and thinking.

So there are some who believe science answers everything. Thats called scientism. Rather, one has to be rational and realistic.

Some experiments in the field of science tried to prove determinism, I mean scientifically, not philosophically. The experiments were profound, and the findings were fantastic. But other scientists disagreed with some of the assumptions. Without going much into detail, do you know why some disagree? Because these are assumptions, not fact. Science does not work in establishing facts. There are many people who get very offended when someone uses the word assumption. Some dogmatic people are like that. But this is how science works.

Now you said "we can show that thoughts are the result of neural processes that are observable". Is that a fact? Please explain if you have time.

Good post. The bold one is where the fun is.

 

[AlexanderG]

I wanted to get opinions. I’ve had several conversations on line on the subject of morality. There are so many philosophical positions one can hold and many seem to be exclusive, on their own accounts, and have ardent defenders. Is morality neural and societal simultaneously? Subjectively, our thoughts are intangible and, in a manner of speaking, come from nowhere. Objectively, we can show that thoughts are the result of neural processes that are observable. Is the ANS and PSNS, their effects on brain chemistry, and their evolutionary traits sufficient to explain the origins of moral objectivity and subjectivity? Can science reconcile the differences in philosophical positions on morality? Can biological and psychological altruism account for both objective truth and subjective value judgment? Or are they mutually exclusive? Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

No, science can't tell you what you should value. It can't tell you what goals to pursue in life.

However, once you do value a particular goal, science can objectively tell you the best way to advance that goal and live that value. After all, we can't achieve such things if we don't understand how reality operates.

 

[MikeF]

Yes, and that is an artificial construct and not an objective fact.

Your artificial construct is to deny all other artificial constructs, while ignoring that you are doing the same.

Not all value choices are justified by artificial constructs of reality. If I value regulating car traffic with signal lights to decrease the potential for car accidents, that choice is based on the objective reality that more accidents occur without traffic lights than occur when they are in use. Someone else may value traffic flow unimpeded by traffic lights more than avoiding the risk of potential accidents. That would be their subjective choice base on the realities of car traffic.

All value choices are subjective, not all are justified or rationalized by fiction.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not all value choices are justified by artificial constructs of reality. If I value regulating car traffic with signal lights to decrease the potential for car accidents, that choice is based on the objective reality that more accidents occur without traffic lights than occur when they are in use. Someone else may value traffic flow unimpeded by traffic lights more than avoiding the risk of potential accidents. That would be their subjective choice base on the realities of car traffic.

All value choices are subjective, not all are justified or rationalized by fiction.

Yeah, you are assuming that car traffic is good. Then you can apply science to avoid bad things as you subjectively understand it, but you are still doing subjective evaluation off whether we ought to be driving cars.

Try to understand this: You are in effect doing philosophy, because your subjective morality is phrased in effect as axiomatic assumptions about what we ought to agree on. But that is the problem, because there are other axiomatic assumptions possible, but you are special, right?!! Well, no!
Here is what you do in effect: Don't notice that I am doing philosophy, because then I can bash all other axiomatic assumptions possible, because I am not doing philosophy.

 

[MikeF]

Yeah, you are assuming that car traffic is good.

Where is there any assertion that car traffic is good? In my example, it is immaterial as to how anyone values the existence of car traffic.

Objectively, car traffic exists and car accidents occur. The value judgement is on whether or not to employ traffic lights.

I thought balancing competing value interests was called politics, not philosophy.

 

[infrabenji]

Maybe in the future, science will have more advancements and have much more insights into this matter. But philosophically, there maybe some grey areas. Science is not everything. For example, most studies in sociology are study based. You take a sample of a particular geographical area, try and minimise the error margin, try to achieve statistical validation in case of a generalisation, do a quali study, come up with a hypothesis, test it, then gather assumptions based on it. Thats not cutting up a brain, its asking and thinking.

So there are some who believe science answers everything. Thats called scientism. Rather, one has to be rational and realistic.

Some experiments in the field of science tried to prove determinism, I mean scientifically, not philosophically. The experiments were profound, and the findings were fantastic. But other scientists disagreed with some of the assumptions. Without going much into detail, do you know why some disagree? Because these are assumptions, not fact. Science does not work in establishing facts. There are many people who get very offended when someone uses the word assumption. Some dogmatic people are like that. But this is how science works.

Now you said "we can show that thoughts are the result of neural processes that are observable". Is that a fact? Please explain if you have time.

Yes, I believe it is a fact. If I remember correctly, we can demonstrate that thoughts are the result of neural processes through the use of brain imaging techniques. I don’t know what they all are called but there are a bunch.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, I believe it is a fact. If I remember correctly, we can demonstrate that thoughts are the result of neural processes through the use of brain imaging techniques. I don’t know what they all are called but there are a bunch.

Can you point to the study and its assumptions that says its "fact"?