Can science reconcile different moral positions?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ah, if only the world would submit to my subjective will.

Yeah, good joke.
Now if you by any chance are dead serious, you might consider asking for professional help. But I do think, you know the limits of your subjectivity and that you are not humanity or the authoritative standard of it.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Why? What understanding does philosophy alone bring to the table?

Quite a bit for things of this regard. Morality is an intangible measure. Science is an exploratory method that sets out to understand the natural world. Ethics and morality is not a thing that science can measure and verify.

 

[MikeF]

So where do philosophers exist? In non-reality?!!

Again, I would simply ask you to think not carefully. Does what I have said preclude the existence of philosophers?

 

[MikeF]

Yeah, good joke.
Now if you by any chance are dead serious, you might consider asking for professional help. But I do think, you know the limits of your subjectivity and that you are not humanity or the authoritative standard of it.

Correct.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again, I would simply ask you to think not carefully. Does what I have said preclude the existence of philosophers?

How anthropocentric of you. Reality exists independent from the existence of philosophers or anything they may say on the subject.

So if reality exists independent from the existence of philosophers, where do philosophers exist?

 

[MikeF]

Quite a bit for things of this regard. Morality is an intangible measure. Science is an exploratory method that sets out to understand the natural world. Ethics and morality is not a thing that science can measure and verify.

Your statement presupposes there is, or can be, a world other than "the natural world", whatever that means to you.

Since morals and ethics are simply value standards for Homo Sapiens behavior, determined and set by Homo Sapiens, it would seem a scientific understanding of Homo Sapiens would be required to form any kind of informed opinion on the matter.

After that, it seems to be a matter managing competing needs, wants, and desires in a way that promotes social cohesion and stability. This seems to require a multifaceted understanding of human behavior, both on the individual psychological level and group or social behavior and psychology. You seem to be under the impression that science is only quantitative in method, but it is in fact, both qualitative and quantitative in it's inquiries.

I'm seeing lots of need for science and not a whole lot of need for philosophy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your statement presupposes there is, or can be, a world other than "the natural world", whatever that means to you.

Since morals and ethics are simply value standards for Homo Sapiens behavior, determined and set by Homo Sapiens, it would seem a scientific understanding of Homo Sapiens would be required to form any kind of informed opinion on the matter.

After that, it seems to be a matter managing competing needs, wants, and desires in a way that promotes social cohesion and stability. This seems to require a multifaceted understanding of human behavior, both on the individual psychological level and group or social behavior and psychology. You seem to be under the impression that science is only quantitative in method, but it is in fact, both qualitative and quantitative in it's inquiries.

I'm seeing lots of need for science and not a whole lot of need for philosophy.

Yeah, all for your version of social cohesion and stability.
You really don't understand how science can't do qualitative assessments.

 

[MikeF]

So if reality exists independent from the existence of philosophers, where do philosophers exist?

Reality is not dependent on philosophers, which is what you implied. If every human being were to die tomorrow, reality would still exist, just absent any living humans. And from what we can gather about the history of the cosmos, reality has only had human beings running around for a relatively short time.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Reality is not dependent on philosophers, which is what you implied. If every human being were to die tomorrow, reality would still exist, just absent any living humans. And from what we can gather about the history of the cosmos, reality has only had human beings running around for a relatively short time.

Yes, but where do the philosopher exist, if reality exists independent of them? You still haven't answer that?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Your statement presupposes there is, or can be, a world other than "the natural world", whatever that means to you.

No. But let me try to make it clear for you: Science works only in what it can physically and tangibly verify. You cannot scientifically prove if Rembrandt is better than Michelangelo, or if AC/DC is a better band than Led Zepplin. We can scientifically track and show what happens when someone is in love (or more accurately, lust), but we can't prove why as easily or as tangibly.

Science has no application in regards to morality and ethics.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. But let me try to make it clear for you: Science works only in what it can physically and tangibly verify. You cannot scientifically prove if Rembrandt is better than Michelangelo, or if AC/DC is a better band than Led Zepplin. We can scientifically track and show what happens when someone is in love (or more accurately, lust), but we can't prove why as easily or as tangibly.

Science has no application in regards to morality and ethics.

The joke about the natural world, is that I say that is too simple, it is a part of the natural world.
If everything is natural, then everything is the same, because all is natural.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

By "Natural World" it is meant what is physical, tangible, measurable. We can't measure dreams and emotions, even if they are observable and natural. "Science" as a method of measuring and understanding the natural, physical world, is as ill-equipped to explore the issues and topics of ethics and morality as it is to try and be applied to faith and religion.

 

[Magical Wand]

Do you see objective morality and subjective morality as mutually exclusive?

To say morality is objective is simply to say that it exists or obtains independently of what humans think or feel; it is mind-independent. As an example, the moon doesn't depend on what I think or feel in order to exist.

The opposite of this is subjective, which means it is mind-dependent. So, even supposing that every human being on earth shares the same moral values and duties, morality is still subjective since it is dependent on their minds existing and properly functioning (even though it is not relative).

 

[MikeF]

No. But let me try to make it clear for you: Science works only in what it can physically and tangibly verify. You cannot scientifically prove if Rembrandt is better than Michelangelo, or if AC/DC is a better band than Led Zepplin. We can scientifically track and show what happens when someone is in love (or more accurately, lust), but we can't prove why as easily or as tangibly.

Science has no application in regards to morality and ethics.

Philosophy cannot say or prove that Rembrandt is better than Michelangelo nor if AC/DC is better than Led Zepplin any more than science can. There is no better or worse except as measured by some arbitrary set of criteria (which science would measure and demonstrate) or simply in the subjective opinion of each individual observer. And the opinion of each observer is informed by their unique physical make-up and what their experience/exposure has been. No one can say what is universally better in these instances because there is no universally better.

But morality and ethics is about human behavior, and like all biological behavior, it is exhibited by physical and tangibly verifiable organisms, with tangible physical structures that control that behavior. Science helps us understand that human beings have pre-wired instinctual behaviors, that those instincts are not expressed uniformly and at the same intensity across all individuals. Science helps us understand how malleable human behavior is and what forces and conditions affect or create certain behaviors.

All this information must be considered when developing systems for managing group behavior, in observing and understanding the impacts of a value standard that may be applied to the group. An example of this would be the effect and repercussions of the Prohibition Act outlawing the sale and distribution of alcohol in the United States. With a narrow focus on one problem, the abuse of alcohol by some percentage of the population, a value standard was set that then created other, more significant problems.

Without a scientific understanding of the subject, Homo Sapiens, you cannot make informed decisions on setting group-wide value standards.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Philosophy cannot say or prove that Rembrandt is better than Michelangelo nor if AC/DC is better than Led Zepplin any more than science can.

Philosophy doesn't deal in facts, so... yeah. Those are things that cannot be proven factually, just like for the large part morals and ethics are not.

What would you say about the law "If a man wish to cast his son out of his house, and declare before the judge intention to cast out his son, then the judge shall examine into his reasons. If the son be guilty of no great fault, for which he can be rightfully put out, the father shall not put him out"?

 

[infrabenji]

To say morality is objective is simply to say that it exists or obtains independently of what humans think or feel; it is mind-independent. As an example, the moon doesn't depend on what I think or feel in order to exist.

The opposite of this is subjective, which means it is mind-dependent. So, even supposing that every human being on earth shares the same moral values and duties, morality is still subjective since it is dependent on their minds existing and properly functioning (even though it is not relative).

Do you think morality can be objective such as in the case of biological altruism which, like the moon, doesn’t need an observer and is then only subjective to us after the fact? It makes me think of objectivity and subjectivity as existing in a state of superposition. Like Schrodinger's cat. In the thought experiment the cat ends up both dead and alive at the same time, right? Because the existence of a cat that is both dead and alive at the same time is absurd and does not happen in the real world, it shows that a conscious observer is not needed. Can an objective altruism be applied independently of a conscious driven observer? Does perception alter reality outside of the spectators consciousness? I not, it seems to follow that objective altruism is not dependent of the perception of the observer. If, for example, the cat was dead does this state of reality exist independently and have the quality of being fact? It doesn't seem dependent on a conscious being to make a value judgement about its state to exist in that state. Maybe moralism is simply a reflection of evolutionary traits existing as facts in reality among all organisms? When value judgements are applied it doesn't seem to effect the de facto state of reality, but does seem to add modifiers in which the intangible contribution of data can be applied. It seems like objective precludes subjective and that subjective itself is just an evolutionary by product of an independent reality. Which also makes me wonder; if biological altruism is true wouldn't religious people want subjective morality to be true instead since it is, like god, intangible and can be made philosophically to fit any container? Just some alpo for thought. Always interested in your insight. Let me know what you think if you have time. Thanks.

 

[Workman]

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.

Science is the brains of all things…
but one! It is not from the heart(soul).
Morals are created from the heart.

God bless.

 

[MikeF]

Philosophy doesn't deal in facts, so... yeah. Those are things that cannot be proven factually, just like for the large part morals and ethics are not.

Best art or music can't be proven in any manner, factually or otherwise. You could do a scientific survey and sample a statistically significant segment of the population and provide data as to which artist or musician has more advocates. But such numbers would have no meaning to an individual. If they love and admire one over another, that is all that matters.

What would you say about the law "If a man wish to cast his son out of his house, and declare before the judge intention to cast out his son, then the judge shall examine into his reasons. If the son be guilty of no great fault, for which he can be rightfully put out, the father shall not put him out"?

What do you expect me to say other than it is a law much like any other that seems to set criteria for the responsibility of a father to a son, and vis versa, expressing the values of those who create laws in whichever society this law applies.

 

[MikeF]

Science is the brains of all things…
but one! It is not from the heart(soul).
Morals are created from the heart.

God bless.

But the heart can be fickle, jealous, cruel, cold etc. Do we want to rely solely on the whims of human beings?

 

[Workman]

But the heart can be fickle, jealous, cruel, cold etc. Do we want to rely solely on the whims of human beings?

Very True, and there is only one reason why all that happens…No morals.

The mind has a right and wrong..as well the heart a right and wrong..
If one does not know the hearts right and wrong..the mind ‘will’ take over..this is where agitation becomes within a human being.
Then Fear will start to ‘show’ the heart..fear came from the mind due to lack of belief in the heart.