Morals....

[NatsuTerran]

Obviously psych is going to need to extrapolate something from the data, but the data is still there.

I am not saying the articles I presented are conclusive proof that I am right. Just showing that I am not alone, and that it is not rare to think that Psych is not a science, these were the first three articles from google search, I wasn't trying to pick ones that specifically supported me. And yes, three is a very small sample set.

I have no doubt that psych utilises some scientific method in order to gather data.
If the data gathering is asking people for their opinion, then it has much subjectivity in it, it is not discrete measurements made by reliably accurate measuring equipment, (do they include +- attributes to account for the degree of inaccuracy of the measuring equipment?)
In science, given the same data, the scientists will come to the exact same conclusions unless of course the theory is wrong or ambiguous. Inconsistencies either prove that the test was faulty or that at least one of the conclusions was faulty.
With regards to psych it is more than likely the conclusions will be different because of the subjective assessment and interpretation.

I think a lot of people read older things from Psychology like Freud or Skinner and then extrapolate that all modern psychology does is more of the same. No, we actually do rule out all traces of subjectivity in Psychological research, participants are very often lied to for studies. One criticism that I will admit is that what Psychology demonstrates applies only to the time period and people it affects, because obviously things can change about people and the environment. But this doesn't make it less of a science than chemistry or physics which has laws that will never change. It just means we have to keep all the variables in mind. Psychology does indeed isolate variables to the best of its abilities, uses empirical approaches, and yes we do use standard deviation in our graphs and charts to indicate variability. As for your critique of the "subjective assessment and interpretation" I don't really find that to be the case. You can't just point out something about some data and expect it to be taken seriously.

I read an article that I have in paper only from another class. It covers a lot of misconceptions about science in general. One of the first points it made, if I may summarize, is that all the different subjects of science like physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, etc. "are really just branches of one single science."...."any discipline that uses empirical methods is a branch of science." The point it tries to make is that many things that science deals with are interdisciplinary. For example, psychology studies the brain and behavior, which must comply with biology, which in turn must comply with the laws of physics and chemistry, etc etc. All of these things interwoven are what science is. Psychology isn't a "religion" just isolated off in its own world making blatant assumptions. In psychology we very often draw evidence from other disciplines to make sure all the pieces fit. It seems like the people who are saying psych isn't a science are only looking at the older research and some erroneous assumptions on data, while forgetting about all the cross-examination going on. Psychology shouldn't be viewed as an isolated person doing research and drawing conclusions. That is just half of one jigsaw piece. The other half comes from peer-review. And Psychology as a whole is all of the pieces put together in conjunction with pieces from other disciplines.

And as for the moral thing in your last post, you are kind of taking that too seriously. It was meant to be a quick example of how science can show what is, but not make a value judgement. I was saying that using this basis, we can then use our rationale to make decisions for our societies what should go. I thought the example was obvious, but I didn't care to get into the gnitty gritty and define "choice" etc.

[Stevil]

And as for the moral thing in your last post, you are kind of taking that too seriously. It was meant to be a quick example of how science can show what is, but not make a value judgement. I was saying that using this basis, we can then use our rationale to make decisions for our societies what should go. I thought the example was obvious, but I didn't care to get into the gnitty gritty and define "choice" etc.

Its not obvious to me. I have no belief in morality, no belief in right and wrong. I have no belief in free will.
I absolutely believe that all events have a physical cause.

I would be keen to know what the scientific proof of morality is, what objective test can be applied?
I would actually be quite keen to know what the objective definition of morality is.
If a black widow spider eats her mate how can we know conclusively that this was a moral or immoral action?

[NatsuTerran]

There is an objective "idea" about morality though, which gets some discussion in evolutionary psychology. The things you ask are trying to dig too deeply in my opinion. I see where you come from but I think everyone has some sort of idea of right and wrong. I was prescribing my own the best I knew how, by first establishing an objective basis for human morality on a societal level.

[Stevil]

There is an objective "idea" about morality though

Yes, there is a concept ("idea") of morality, just as there is a concept of god/s.

I am less concerned about the concept and more interested in the actual existence. It seems to me this concept does not have an underlying physical system, hence I have no belief in its existence.

This is dissimilar to the concept of the mind. The mind is a concept, you cannot poke it, prod it, or measure it. As with all things conceptual the mind is unobservable, however the mind does have an underlying physical system, the brain, the mind is a conceptual model of the workings of the brain. I believe in the mind as we can observe the physical workings of the brain.

[NatsuTerran]

But morality is a part of consciousness in higher level species. To say you don't believe in morality is similar to me as disbelieving in consciousness. There is clearly some observable behavior to be had that showcases altruism. This is an existing type of behavior and the construct of "morality" captures it.

[Stevil]

But morality is a part of consciousness in higher level species. To say you don't believe in morality is similar to me as disbelieving in consciousness. There is clearly some observable behavior to be had that showcases altruism. This is an existing type of behavior and the construct of "morality" captures it.

The mind is a concept of the workings of the brain.
Consciousness is an aspect or conceptual property of the mind.

Morality is a concept of adherence to right and wrong. Hence morality is a conceptual protocol.
Right and wrong are....   the byproduct of some conceptual rule which sorts actions into a right list, a wrong list and a neutral list.

But what does right actually mean?, what does wrong actually mean?
Of this, I have no idea.

Without knowing what right and wrong are, I cannot subscribe to the morality concept which is based on right and wrong.

How does the morality conceptual protocol relate to consciousness? The mind might form a belief in right and wrong, it might then form a belief in the morality protocol and suggest that decisions ought to be based on what is believed to be right and wrong.

Does this make morality exist?

Lets say the mind forms a belief in god and then forms a belief in gods law and suggest that decisions ought to be based on what god's law dictates as being right and wrong.

Does this make god's law exist? Does that mean that god exists?
Or does it simply point to the existence of a belief within the conscious mind?

[ablprop]

Not long ago, almost everyone in the western world believed that slavery was moral. Today, almost everyone in the west believes that slavery is immoral. There were lots of factors in this turnaround, but one of them surely was the finding of science that we humans are a single, closely-related species. In this way, scientific evidence contributed to a movement from bad morals (based on a bad explanation of what humans were) to better morals (based on a better explanation).

[technolud]

Wow.  Log off for a few hours and you all really take off.

I have to agree with Natsu Terran on this:  But morality is a part of consciousness in higher level species. To say you don't believe in morality is similar to me as disbelieving in consciousness. There is clearly some observable behavior to be had that showcases altruism. This is an existing type of behavior and the construct of "morality" captures it.

Cannot "Morality" be a construction of consciousness?  Name it Altruism?  Some stuff is tough to call, if your a carnivore is eating another animal immoral?  Maybe not.  But I still think torturing kittens is.

I too have the great fortune/misfortune of being married to a psychologist, she a neuropsychologist, sort of more about brain function the "why my parents hate me".  I can't get her to sign on, but she agrees that psychology is a science still in its infancy, with this statment:

Criticisms of psychological research often come from perceptions that it is a "soft" science. Philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn's 1962 critique[63] implied psychology overall was in a pre-paradigm state, lacking the agreement on overarching theory found in mature sciences such as chemistry and physics.

Many things not yet known.  But definitely still following the scientifc method.  Definitely, definitely not a religion.

My problem lies with this example:

Lets say the mind forms a belief in god and then forms a belief in gods law and suggest that decisions ought to be based on what god's law dictates as being right and wrong.

I believe we can each conjure up right and wrong.  We don't need a belief in god or god's laws.  Just do no harm to others, or as little as possible.  Same thing as treat others as you wish to be treated.  Sometimes it is hard to figure out the right course.  But you gotta try.

[Stevil]

My problem lies with this example:

Lets say the mind forms a belief in god and then forms a belief in gods law and suggest that decisions ought to be based on what god's law dictates as being right and wrong.

I believe we can each conjure up right and wrong.  We don't need a belief in god or god's laws.  Just do no harm to others, or as little as possible.  Same thing as treat others as you wish to be treated.  Sometimes it is hard to figure out the right course.  But you gotta try.

I'm not saying that right and wrong must come from a god. I was merely pointing to a belief in god and god's law as an analogy.

What I am saying is that right and wrong are beliefs and hence morality is a belief.
If you start trying to objectively measure other people or other animals against a specific morality then your measurements are fundamentally flawed. Whose moral believe system are you going to use to measure behaviours against?

There was once an article claiming that a survey proved atheists were more likely to be immoral than theists. And of course the moral standard was a religious belief in morality hence actions such as viewing pornography was classified as immoral behaviour.
Well if an atheists was allowed to set the moral standard for the survey then the atheists would likely have fared better, with theists failing on actions such as respecting homosexuals.

If we humans try to observe animals with regards to adherance of a moral standard, then whose moral standard are we to use? If we use a theistic standard then animals will be deemed as amoral, given that theists belief animals are amoral. I too would provide a moral standard containing a blank sheet thus the animal observations would produce amoral results. Now depending on which atheist you choose to define the moral standard, the results will all be different. The idea of measuring morality is ridiculous.
Morality doesn't even exist.

[NatsuTerran]

It's not about measuring morality, but about analyzing a unique behavior called altruism and extrapolating from that a concept in the brain.

[Stevil]

It's not about measuring morality, but about analyzing a unique behavior called altruism and extrapolating from that a concept in the brain.

Altruism

Pure altruism consists of sacrificing something for someone other than the self (e.g. sacrificing time, energy or possessions) with no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct, or indirect (for instance from recognition of the giving).

Altruism is fundamentally flawed

The statement "with no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct, or indirect (for instance from recognition of the giving)" certainly cannot be determined on behalf of someone else, especially not on behalf of a non human animal.

We cannot ask the animal if it had an expectation of any compensation for its actions.

Some people help others because:
- that is the type of society they want to live in and they realise that such a society will benefit themselves in the long run.
- they believe it will improve their chances of getting to heaven or being reincarnated in a favourable way.
- it is Status Quo as they have been taught to behave in this way.
- supporting society might be a genetic hard-wiring improving survival chances of the group.

None of this has anything to do with moral choice or personal knowledge of right and wrong

[En_Route]

I guess I was suggesting that "morality" can be defined as doing no harm to others.  Thereby torturing kittens is immoral.  

So why is it wrong/immoral to do harm to others?

[technolud]

Stevil,  if you point is that all morality is conciousness based rather then absolute or dictated by some higher authority, I must concede and retract my earlier statement concerning "objective morality".

However, if one accepts that morality is a human created precept I think its fairly easy to arrive at workable definitions of right and wrong and moral and immoral.  And as sentient beings and all part of a larger society I believe this is a necessary exercise.

[En_Route]

However, if one accepts that morality is a human created precept I think its fairly easy to arrive at workable definitions of right and wrong and moral and immoral.  And as sentient beings and all part of a larger society I believe this is a necessary exercise.

Maybe you can postulate a set of rules which would lead to an optimal outcome for this "larger society" of which you speak (though I beg to doubt it).Even so, would such rules have any claim to embody right and wrong as opposed to being rules which if followed would conduce to the greater good (however that is defined) ? In what sense would it be "wrong" to break them?

[NatsuTerran]

http://www.philosophynow.org/issues/82/Morality_is_a_Culturally_Conditioned_Response?ref=list

Stealing this idea from this article, it kind of sums up what I feel about morality:

"For example, some sets of values are more consistent and more conducive to social stability. If moral relativism is true, morality can be regarded as a tool, and we can think about what we'd like that tool to do for us and revise morality accordingly."

I've always thought about it as a tool. But when I say objective morality, I guess I do kind of make a common sense appeal in some way. When I say objective morality, I don't mean an exact value, but more like a general value. There are some things that are *clearly* not conducive to any goal that any sentient being would want. There are just some things that hurt social stability in general and it's just inarguable. You could always argue that someone may have that desolation as their moral goal, but philosophically it just makes more sense to assume anyone could be in anyone else's position, and to strive to treat people like equals. This moral relativist even makes that point in the end. When it comes to objective well-being, there's going to be a right or wrong answer. I am simply saying that much of morality should (common sensically, I know) be based on that.