Can science reconcile different moral positions?

[infrabenji]

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

God bless.

That was beautifully said. Thanks. Hope you have a great day on the forum.

 

[Magical Wand]

Like Schrodinger's cat. In the thought experiment the cat ends up both dead and alive at the same time, right?

That's only true in the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. The cat ends up alive in one world and dead in another as the wave-function branches. But that's not true in other interpretations. For example, take the Copenhagen interpretation: before the wave-function collapses, the cat is in a superposition of possibilities (alive and dead). It only becomes dead or alive once the wave-function collapses.

Do you think morality can be objective such as in the case of biological altruism

It is not objective like the existence of the moon because it is mind-dependent.

Can an objective altruism be applied independently of a conscious driven observer?

Not if you reject the idea that mind-independent morality obtains. The concept of altruism is just a process in the mind (or biology) of organisms.

Maybe moralism is simply a reflection of evolutionary traits existing as facts in reality among all organisms?

Therefore being contingent/dependent on organisms and not objectively real, i.e., not independent of minds or organisms.

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?

Why should they care about that?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

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.

Fantastic dodging of the question. Do you think it's a moral and ethical law?

 

[rational experiences]

Morality is a lived happily man experience defined by change.

As natural instinct survival exists first.

Why talking makes little progress when subject to religious morality that imposes chosen human laws. As crimes.

Why science owning subjectivity state a human life is first one equal self expressing diversity is overlooked in religious dogma.

Hence imbalanced thin king proves it was introduced.

 

[blü 2]

Some experiments in the field of science tried to prove determinism, I mean scientifically, not philosophically.

I'd argue it this way. First of all, there are some things that can't be demonstrated to be correct without first assuming they're correct (a point which as far as I'm aware was first made by Descartes). For this reason I'm forced to assume three basic things in particular:

that a world exists external to me
that my senses are capable of informing me about that world, and
that reason is a valid tool.​

(Descartes' list is slightly different.) Fortunately for me, everyone I know implicitly agrees (even @Mikkel, though he sometimes says he doesn't).

Next, science is based on empiricism and induction. Hence all of its conclusions are tentative, since nothing protects them from unknown unknowns. That is, science is not vindicated by making absolute statements. It's vindicated by the fact that it works, and by its relentless self-criticism as part of scientific method ─ transparency, publication, peer review, open debate &c.

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.

Fair point. But credit to reasoned skeptical enquiry (of which science is a part) for being self-consciously explicit about the assumptions it makes.

Science does not work in establishing facts.

That, I think, depends on which definition of 'fact' we use. I'd say a 'fact' was in essence an accurate statement about reality.

But since there are no absolute statements about reality, what is 'accurate' ─ what is 'true' ─ changes with our understanding. It was once accurate / true to say the world was flat and the heavenly bodies went round it. It was once accurate / true to say that fire was due to the presence of phlogiston in flammable materials. It was once accurate / true to say that light propagated in the lumeniferous ether. It was once accurate / true to say that the Higgs boson was a hypothetical particle. Now none of those things is true.

That is, truth is retrospective but it's never absolute.

 

[firedragon]

I'd argue it this way. First of all, there are some things that can't be demonstrated to be correct without first assuming they're correct (a point which as far as I'm aware was first made by Descartes). For this reason I'm forced to assume three basic things in particular:
that a world exists external to me
that my senses are capable of informing me about that world, and
that reason is a valid tool.(Descartes' list is slightly different.) Fortunately for me, everyone I know implicitly agrees (even @Mikkel, though he sometimes says he doesn't).

Next, science is based on empiricism and induction. Hence all of its conclusions are tentative, since nothing protects them from unknown unknowns. That is, science is not vindicated by making absolute statements. It's vindicated by the fact that it works, and by its relentless self-criticism as part of scientific method ─ transparency, publication, peer review, open debate &c.

I was referring to Benjamin Libets experiments. Also, I did not condemn anything. Thus, I agree with you.

Fair point. But credit to reasoned skeptical enquiry (of which science is a part) for being self-consciously explicit about the assumptions it makes.

Yep.

That, I think, depends on which definition of 'fact' we use. I'd say a 'fact' was in essence an accurate statement about reality.

But since there are no absolute statements about reality, what is 'accurate' ─ what is 'true' ─ changes with our understanding. It was once accurate / true to say the world was flat and the heavenly bodies went round it. It was once accurate / true to say that fire was due to the presence of phlogiston in flammable materials. It was once accurate / true to say that light propagated in the lumeniferous ether. It was once accurate / true to say that the Higgs boson was a hypothetical particle. Now none of those things is true.

That is, truth is retrospective but it's never absolute.

Great.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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 provides us with a toolset by which we can answer many questions, but it has nothing to offer us in the way of moral teaching. That is way outside of it’s remit.

I suspect you only ask this question because you have made science your religion. Doing so is, imo,an erroneous application of scientific purpose.

 

[Clara Tea]

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.

The law defines "prurient" locally. Thus, lewd behavior in one location might be acceptable in another. Pornography might be fine in one location and not fine in another.

So it is with morality.

In some cultures, it is fine to marry many women. In some cultures one may even marry a close cousin.

Isn't it odd that Christians often consider Gays to be immoral for having consensual sex, yet, found no reason to prosecute child raping priests. To me, war is even more immoral than improper sex. It is wrong to kill.

 

[gnostic]

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.

This is dependent on which types of sciences you are talking about.

In Physical Sciences or Natural Sciences, then the answer is “no”.

In some fields of Social Sciences, like the studies of psychology, behavioral sciences, cultures, law and political science, then possibly, yes.

Laws, ethics and morals can only be studied from social stance points.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Sure. There's an undeniable correlation between brain activity and thought patterns.
So much so that depending on which area's are active, you can predict aspects of the thoughts a person is having.

We are even already taking the first baby steps into mind reading devices, where software attempts to visualize what a person is thinking by reading the brainwaves.

That is some real solid evidence for how the brain produces thoughts.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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 has absolutely nothing to say about morality. It's simply not the function of science to determine moral truths.

Science can tell us a heck of a lot about the natural world, how the universe sprang from a singularity, how life has evolved on our planet, how we are basically walking on the dry scum that floats on a molten earth, its continents ever being torn apart and crashed together. I love science with all my heart because it gives me tech that makes my life easy and fun, and it has resulted in modern medicine, meaning that I will suffer a lot less and live a lot longer.

But science has no inherent ethical values. It explores for the sake of exploring. Indeed this is sometimes a problem, because scientists will continue to engage in experimentation even when its abhorrent, such as the harming of animals in order to make a new mascara, or growing disembodied brains that appear to think (they produce brain waves) -- I mean, would you like to be a disembodied brain?

Nor can science appeal to nature to find out what is ethical. For example, it is moral to help the poor, the sick and injured, the orphan, the oppressed. Nature does NOT do that. Nature wants them dead.

If you want to study ethics, if you want to be a more moral person, you do not go to science. You go to religion.

 

[paarsurrey]

Can science reconcile different moral positions?

Ethics, morals and spiritual are not subject of science, I understand. Therefore, reconciliation of science to morals is not of much importance.
Regards