Moral Responsibility to be Intelligent.

[Reggie Miller]

Again, the Christ concept is a religious one, and being a Christian is not by any means a requirement for being a moral person.

You again misunderstand. Christ Himself is the moral standard. No one can achieve that standard. As a result we are commanded to trust in Him to be saved by His grace since we cannot be saved any other way.

It has nothing to do with religion but I guess it does depend on how you look at it. Since you don't believe in Christ you see it as religion, perhaps as religious hogwash.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Why are you making this personal? I don't appreciate that, and I'm not going to answer your question from that standpoint.

One of the things that the discipline of psychology studies is human decision-making. It is well known that on the whole, human decision-making (ethical or otherwise) is grounded in heuristics. That's basically a fancy way of saying we use intuition and common sense, or quick rules of thumb to make decisions. We have these heuristics because the vast majority of the time, we have to make decisions quickly and either do not have access to or are unable to obtain the so-called "facts." Put another way, basic human decision-making and day-to-day living bears little to no resemblance to scientific methods that are fact-gathering tools. Fact-based decision-making is the exception to the rule with respect to human behavior. As it should be, given the analysis paralysis of demanding factual decision-making would be very problematic for most day-to-day tasks and living.

"Why are you making this personal?"

How on Earth can I possibility do that? I don't know enough about you to make it personal; my guess is you took it in a personal manner and now you are blaming me for doing so. Relax, it was just a question from some nobody on the web. I was merely trying to frame the question in a different manner, and it was never meant to imply anything negative about you.


"human decision-making"

A moral frame of mind is not made on the spot, as it is built over a life time. Do we sometimes act impulsively? Sure, but not always, and many times ethical dilemmas are something that have a long life in our personal and collective conscience.

As far as I am concerned, the link between good decision making and being informed is common sense. Had I asked, "Do you buy a used car without know anything about it, or should you try to learn as much as you can, so you can make an informed choice?" This would not be much of a debate.

I think people have a mental block here, because it ties science to ethics, and people seem to want to limit science from that scene. But being ill-informed when it comes to tough ethical dilemmas is just irresponsible and unethical. The truth is if you have a tough ethical conclusion to draw, and you don't turn to science when able and when it could help you reach the best possible conclusion, you are acting unethically.

.

 

[Quintessence]

I was merely trying to frame the question in a different manner, and it was never meant to imply anything negative about you.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, then. Might I suggest avoiding "you" language in the future? It usually comes across as being personal or at times accusatory. It definitely read that way to me, but if that was unintentional, cool beans.

A moral frame of mind is not made on the spot, as it is built over a life time. Do we sometimes act impulsively? Sure, but not always, and many times ethical dilemmas are something that have a long life in our personal and collective conscience.

Ah, I didn't mean to imply heuristics are impulsive. Moral behaviors are basically a type of heuristic humans have. Heuristics are built up over a life time too, and are based on life experiences. There are other folks who know a lot more about this than I do, though. I only know about it because I took a fair amount of psych coursework in undergrad and managed to remember quite a bit of it.

I think people have a mental block here, because it ties science to ethics, and people seem to want to limit science from that scene.

There are good reasons for that. Ethics involve value judgements, which are normative or prescriptive in nature. The sciences on the other hand are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Can you use scientific data to make ethical judgements? Yes, absolutely. If you have a particular normative prescription or outcome in mind, you can use scientific data to assess what behaviors are most likely to produce that desired outcome. However, it is important to remember that while we can certainly utilize the sciences in such decision making, the sciences themselves do not make normative proclamations.

As an example, the sciences are pretty darned clear on the issue of human-induced global climate change. The sciences do not prescribe what, if anything, to do about it from an ethical standpoint. That's not the domain of sciences, but of fields like philosophy. Many days I wish the folks in my country understood that better. A lot of climate change denialism has to do with the "what should we do about it" which is normative and non-scienific in nature. I wish people could learn to better distinguish between the descriptive nature of sciences and the prescriptive policy propositions they might disagree with. But oh well.

But being ill-informed when it comes to tough ethical dilemmas is just irresponsible and unethical. The truth is if you have a tough ethical conclusion to draw, and you don't turn to science when able and when it could help you reach the best possible conclusion, you are acting unethically.

I don't see how that follows, but okay. This sure sounds an awful lot like the Christians who say "if you don't turn to Lord Jesus Christ (or whatever) you are acting unethically." I tend to not react well to those sorts of sales pitches. Sorry.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, then. Might I suggest avoiding "you" language in the future? It usually comes across as being personal or at times accusatory. It definitely read that way to me, but if that was unintentional, cool beans.



Ah, I didn't mean to imply heuristics are impulsive. Moral behaviors are basically a type of heuristic humans have. Heuristics are built up over a life time too, and are based on life experiences. There are other folks who know a lot more about this than I do, though. I only know about it because I took a fair amount of psych coursework in undergrad and managed to remember quite a bit of it.



There are good reasons for that. Ethics involve value judgements, which are normative or prescriptive in nature. The sciences on the other hand are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Can you use scientific data to make ethical judgements? Yes, absolutely. If you have a particular normative prescription or outcome in mind, you can use scientific data to assess what behaviors are most likely to produce that desired outcome. However, it is important to remember that while we can certainly utilize the sciences in such decision making, the sciences themselves do not make normative proclamations.

As an example, the sciences are pretty darned clear on the issue of human-induced global climate change. The sciences do not prescribe what, if anything, to do about it from an ethical standpoint. That's not the domain of sciences, but of fields like philosophy. Many days I wish the folks in my country understood that better. A lot of climate change denialism has to do with the "what should we do about it" which is normative and non-scienific in nature. I wish people could learn to better distinguish between the descriptive nature of sciences and the prescriptive policy propositions they might disagree with. But oh well.



I don't see how that follows, but okay. This sure sounds an awful lot like the Christians who say "if you don't turn to Lord Jesus Christ (or whatever) you are acting unethically." I tend to not react well to those sorts of sales pitches. Sorry.

"The sciences do not prescribe what, if anything, to do about it from an ethical standpoint"

Never even suggest it did, but you will not be able to figure out the most appropriate response if you don't study the science.


I have to be honest, the connection between being well informed and making good decisions is crystal clear, and at this point I have to believe you are just auguring for the sake of arguing. I don't believe that you truly believe ignorance is a proper approach to an ethical dilemma.

 

[Quintessence]

Never even suggest it did, but you will not be able to figure out the most appropriate response if you don't study the science.

How do we decide what the "most appropriate response" is, and why would the sciences be necessary for this "most appropriate response?" Maybe with your value system, you define "most appropriate response" as requiring scientific information? If others don't share this particular value of yours, is it fair to tell them that their way of approaching things is inappropriate?

I have to be honest, the connection between being well informed and making good decisions is crystal clear, and at this point I have to believe you are just auguring for the sake of arguing. I don't believe that you truly believe ignorance is a proper approach to an ethical dilemma.

I think there's been some poor communication here if that's what you've been getting from my words. Not sure how to resolve that.

 

[Milton Platt]

I think faith and science enlighten each other. Science questions can we, faith questions, should we.

Religion has alternately obstructed and ignored science. Science does not "question can we", science examines the natural world and formulates explanatory theories which fit the facts.