Science Can Answer Moral Questions?

[Sophus]

Sam Harris clarified some misconceptions of his recent TED talk, which made headlines on CNN. He's writing a book on how science can answer moral questions now. I don't really like where he's going with this so I'm very skeptical. Very. Skeptical.
Nonetheless should be interesting, because I have no idea how science can answer moral questions, unless he were to mean by that, how our sense of morality works. But he's not. Seems to me like he is branching off into the realm of philosophy.

[AlP]

But he's not. Seems to me like he is branching off into the realm of philosophy.

I rather liked his talk. I've been waiting for a while to see it. Thanks for posting it.

Maybe it comes down to this. I think science is a kind of philosophy. Briefly, this is because I think science is concerned with epistemology and ontology. Do you disagree? If so, why?

With regard to morality, I have learned a lot about it from psychology research. See the Milgram experiment for example.

[curiosityandthecat]

My first, knee-jerk reaction to how science can answer moral questions would probably be to assume some sort of watery Utilitarianism, but the Milgram experiment is a good idea, too. Maybe something like the prisoner/guard experiments they did, too.

[Whitney]

Maybe it comes down to this. I think science is a kind of philosophy.

Didn't science branch from philosophy?

[Sophus]

You're right. But what I meant by that was, one can philosophize about anything one wants because, typically, it doesn't demand to be proven in the way modern science does. Many philosophers I find to be biased on a number of things. They argue from their beliefs rather to them. Descartes and Pascal are good examples, but it doesn't just happen with religious philosophers. Science corrects itself overtime and benefits from scrutiny. Often in philosophy, its "truth" is subject to one's personal credulity.

So perhaps Harris can prove there's a Right and Wrong way to behave. But I really doubt it.

For instance, with the Milgram experiment, the data produced is scientifically proven but any conclusions about what is Right or Wrong is going to result from a lot of personal interpretation. The only way one can reach this goal is if he defines what qualifies as a Right or Wrong action, and of course not everyone is going to agree with him there. If he's going to argue the majorities conformity was not a wrong doing, then it's no longer the deed that was wrong but the motive. If he argues that they acted Wrongly for "violating their deepest moral beliefs" then:
A - This is only a statistic. It has yet to prove a Universal Right and Wrong. Why should deciding the truth behind morality be democratic?
B - Feelings of shame and guilt aren't always the product of reason. In fact some will argue it never is. What makes a person's immediate reaction, founded on emotion, a superior moral guide than one's own ideals which may differ, founded in their reasoning?

Hopefully he'll take into consideration sociopaths and the like too.

[AlP]

Didn't science branch from philosophy?

I think it's a branch of philosophy. I don't think it separated from it. It's still concerned with philosophical questions like "what is this and how can I know?"

My first, knee-jerk reaction to how science can answer moral questions would probably be to assume some sort of watery Utilitarianism, but the Milgram experiment is a good idea, too. Maybe something like the prisoner/guard experiments they did, too.

I was thinking along the same lines. I think it's utilitarianism but using science to measure what John Stuart Mill simply called happiness. Mill's hedonism has problems with relativism. I think Harris is trying to actually quantify human wellbeing. So in a sense I think it's less watery because he's trying to measure something but also more watery in the sense that he hasn't tried to justify how people should act based on human wellbeing. He just assumed it.

You're right. But what I meant by that was, one can philosophize about anything one wants because, typically, it doesn't demand to be proven in the way modern science does. Many philosophers I find to be biased on a number of things. They argue from their beliefs rather to them. Descartes and Pascal are good examples, but it doesn't just happen with religious philosophers. Science corrects itself overtime and benefits from scrutiny. Often in philosophy, its "truth" is subject to one's personal credulity.

So perhaps Harris can prove there's a Right and Wrong way to behave. But I really doubt it.

In a sense he's challenging Hume's Guillotine. Hume's argument was that you can't, with logic alone, justify an "ought" from an "is". What's interesting to me about Harris' idea is that he's actually experimenting on real brains. He isn't necessarily relying on some kind of philosophical idealism. At the same time, he didn't have much in the way of evidence in the talk. He expressed his enthusiasm for the idea and demonstrated his atheist bias and that was about it.

For instance, with the Milgram experiment, the data produced is scientifically proven but any conclusions about what is Right or Wrong is going to result from a lot of personal interpretation. The only way one can reach this goal is if he defines what qualifies as a Right or Wrong action, and of course not everyone is going to agree with him there. If he's going to argue the majorities conformity was not a wrong doing, then it's no longer the deed that was wrong but the motive. If he argues that they acted Wrongly for "violating their deepest moral beliefs" then:
A - This is only a statistic. It has yet to prove a Universal Right and Wrong. Why should deciding the truth behind morality be democratic?
B - Feelings of shame and guilt aren't always the product of reason. In fact some will argue it never is. What makes a person's immediate reaction, founded on emotion, a superior moral guide than one's own ideals which may differ, founded in their reasoning?

Hopefully he'll take into consideration sociopaths and the like too.

I don't think he's looking for a universal right and wrong or anything of that sort. I think he's looking into how morality works in the brain. That has all kinds of applications.

[Sophus]

I don't think he's looking for a universal right and wrong or anything of that sort. I think he's looking into how morality works in the brain. That has all kinds of applications.

Perhaps so. Maybe his little video blurb from CNN saying "It's not our job to not judge it and say, 'Well, to each his own. Everyone has to work out their own strategy for human fulfillment.' That's just not true. There's people who are wrong about human fulfillment." rubbed me the wrong way. Either way I look forward to his next book to find out. I haven't actually read anything of his before.  

[Whitney]

Here's a you tube of Harris presenting his science of morality views for the first time:

[youtube:5wqc78x1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrA-8rTxXf0[/youtube:5wqc78x1]
(I haven't watched most of it yet)

[Heathen's Guide]

I'd say science if the proper place for morality.  To leave ethics and morality in the hands of the religious elite is to leave it at the whims of bias and fantasy.  In many nations it is "moral" to beat your wife if she won't wear a burka, or to kill your own child if he or she changes faith.  

Morality, under the objective light of reason, is really just that which benefits society the most.  Science is able to examine the cause-and-effect of an action to determine its net effect on the world.  Religions weigh the actions against a slew of bizarre (and often contradictory) criteria set up in the holy books.

[AlP]

I'd say science if the proper place for morality.  To leave ethics and morality in the hands of the religious elite is to leave it at the whims of bias and fantasy.  In many nations it is "moral" to beat your wife if she won't wear a burka, or to kill your own child if he or she changes faith.  

Morality, under the objective light of reason, is really just that which benefits society the most.  Science is able to examine the cause-and-effect of an action to determine its net effect on the world.  Religions weigh the actions against a slew of bizarre (and often contradictory) criteria set up in the holy books.

Was that a false dichotomy?  

[Heathen's Guide]

"Good" and "Bad" have too long been under the domain of people who listen to spooks and fairies.

Was that a false dichotomy?  

[AlP]

"Good" and "Bad" have too long been under the domain of people who listen to spooks and fairies.

I agree with that.  

[Faradaympp]

Maybe it comes down to this. I think science is a kind of philosophy.

Didn't science branch from philosophy?

Yes, the greeks were one of the first to start measuring and verifying their preconceptions about the universe, people like Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras... All of the early mathematicians who started "philosophising" about natural laws and trying to use mathematics to quantify them.

Unfortunately religion was very potent in ancient Greece and Aristotle was banished under charges of "impiety".

[Heathen's Guide]

Happily, I would suggest that the idea that religion was not that important in Greece.  In my understanding of it, religion was mainly looked on as a diversion... allegorical stories etc.---  not dissimilar to the way we see horoscopes these days.

Aristotle was chased out of Athens by Eurymedon for political reasons (Eurymedon was anti-Macedonian, and with Alexander dead Aristotle's protection in Athens disappeared.)  He did use the charge of not holding the gods in esteem, but it was not a claim that the population took seriously.  Everyone pretty much knew the real accusation was Aristotle's connection to the Macedonian crown.  (Else every other philosopher would have been chased out as well).  

The same could be said of early  Rome.  The gods existed, but not like it is today.  There were a few zealous types that took it all too seriously, but on the whole Rome's early pantheon was more of an excuse for fun than servitude to a deity. (They did take manes worship seriously though... the "worship" of dead relatives/"ghosts".)

It really wasn't until the second century (when politicians came to understand the political power of religion) that it all got way too serious.

Just my 2 cents worth...

Maybe it comes down to this. I think science is a kind of philosophy.

Didn't science branch from philosophy?

Yes, the greeks were one of the first to start measuring and verifying their preconceptions about the universe, people like Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras... All of the early mathematicians who started "philosophising" about natural laws and trying to use mathematics to quantify them.

Unfortunately religion was very potent in ancient Greece and Aristotle was banished under charges of "impiety".

[dogsmycopilot]

I like Pinker's view in the Blank Slate.  Science can inform our morality but at some point it shouldn't. Some things (like whether homosexuality is a choice) no matter what we find out should be human rights universals. Some things (like rights for great apes) should be changed based on science. Allow science to move us forward only- never back.