- This topic has 4 voices and 9 replies.
-
Posts
-
Science of Morality, Anyone?Where, in American culture, is the domain of knowledge that we would identify as morality studied and taught? I suspect that if we do not quickly develop a science of morality that will make it possible for us to live together on this planet in a more harmonious manner our technology will help us to destroy the species and perhaps the planet soon. It seems to me that we have given the subject matter of morality primarily over to religion. It also seems to me that if we ask the question ?why do humans treat one another so terribly?? we will find the answer in this moral aspect of human culture.The ?man of maxims? ?is the popular representative of the minds that are guided in their moral judgment solely by general rules, thinking that these will lead them to justice by a ready-made patent method, without the trouble of exerting patience, discrimination, impartiality?without any care to assure themselves whether they have the insight that comes from a hardly-earned estimate of temptation, or from a life vivid and intense enough to have created a wide fellow-feeling with all that is human.? George Eliot The Mill on the FlossI agree to the point of saying that we have moral instincts, i.e. we have moral emotions. Without these moral emotions we could not function as social creatures. These moral emotions are an act of evolution. I would ague that the instinct for grooming that we see in monkeys is one example of this moral emotion.We can no longer leave this important matter in the hands of the Sunday-school. Morality must become a top priority for scientific study.
Welcome to Western Civ!I don't think you can teach morality like a science, because it's not science. There is only speculation, i.e. no proof at all, that morality is a product of evolution.In every society throughout history religion has been the key motivating factor for morals. Why is this so hard to accept nowadays? Also in every society there has been war...and in many cases, brutal war. That's just a fact of life and mankind.
I would ague that the instinct for grooming that we see in monkeys is one example of this moral emotion.
I would argue against that and say it's just instinct. Morality - knowing right and wrong and knowing WHEN to do what's right - is solely a human trait. Are there any humanitarian organizations in the monkey world? In the animal (non-human) kingdom, it's about survival of the fittest. In humans, it's about the strong helping the weak. Granted, that is not always the case, but it is what humans strive for. We don't kill out poor or handicapped, we help them.
We have inherited certain moral instincts from our non human animal ancestors. These moral impulses are essential for our social harmony and for our survival as a species. We have allowed religion to take command of these matters and have failed to focus our rational abilities on these matters. A study of our history shows the disaster that has resulted. We have developed a technology that places great power in our hands and we lack the sophistication, especially in matters of morality, to control such great power.We have the ability to perform a systematic and disciplined study (science) of any domain of knowledge. I am aiming for a science of morality and thereby to remove the impression that this is a responsibility only for theologians and priests. If we do not get a handle on this matter we will surly self-destruct before long.The human brain is capable of a systematic and disciplined study of any domain of knowledge. One reason that we have so much difficulty with moral judgments is because no one knows any thing about these matters beyond what they learned in Sunday school or from their parents who are ignorant of such matters also. Religion is not morality. We have allowed religion to take over this domain of knowledge and thus many of our wars that are fought in the name of religion.
We have developed a technology that places great power in our hands and we lack the sophistication, especially in matters of morality, to control such great power.
Collectively, we have enough firepower to blow up the whole earth 500 times over. Why aren't we doing it if we're so lacking in sophistication?
We have the ability to perform a systematic and disciplined study (science) of any domain of knowledge. I am aiming for a science of morality and thereby to remove the impression that this is a responsibility only for theologians and priests. If we do not get a handle on this matter we will surly self-destruct before long.
I'm not saying it's the responsibility of theologians and priests. What I meant is that religion is a very strong motivating factor for human morality. That is a fact.
One reason that we have so much difficulty with moral judgments is because no one knows any thing about these matters
So are you saying humans don't know right from wrong? What about those who haven't attended Sunday school or church and who are generally moral?
We have allowed religion to take over this domain of knowledge and thus many of our wars that are fought in the name of religion.
It "appears" wars are fought over religion, but if you look deeply at many of these religious war, it's more about power, control, and in many cases freedom, than it is about religion.Morality is not a field of science. It is more sociology asnd philosophy. It cannot be studied using scientific methods because we don't know how monkeys feel and think.
Science of Morality, Anyone?Where, in American culture, is the domain of knowledge that we would identify as morality studied and taught? I suspect that if we do not quickly develop a science of morality that will make it possible for us to live together on this planet in a more harmonious manner our technology will help us to destroy the species and perhaps the planet soon.
Attempts to make systematic and scientific inquiries into morality have been going on for over the past 200 years. Part of the problem is that people disagree on the very basics of the discussion, making a moral system which is universally agreed upon to be very difficult to attain.
It seems to me that we have given the subject matter of morality primarily over to religion. It also seems to me that if we ask the question ?why do humans treat one another so terribly?? we will find the answer in this moral aspect of human culture.
Religion has provided much deeper roots to questions of morality than areas outside religion. Further, not all religions provide moral frameworks in which believers are supposed to live. Christianity has provided one of the deepest moral frameworks (if not the deepest) of any mainstream religion. If you go back into American history, even at the early 20th century people were generally unified in their moral direction. This is not to say they agreed on the details, but on the basics I would say this was much more the case than it is today. Today we have a plurality of voices and the Christian framework is being challenged by other frameworks. This has significant consequences for culture, and therefore to morality as well. For morality to work all people need to fall back on the same essential truth - Protestants of different churches may disagree with each other but share the same general religious understanding; Protestants and Catholics disagree but also share a common understanding of Christianity. Christians and Muslims share a common understanding in God (at least to some degree). Religious believers and atheists may share a common understanding in the supremacy of truth. But what happens when people don't even share a common understanding in the supremacy of truth?
We have developed a technology that places great power in our hands and we lack the sophistication, especially in matters of morality, to control such great power.
Collectively, we have enough firepower to blow up the whole earth 500 times over. Why aren't we doing it if we're so lacking in sophistication?
We have the ability to perform a systematic and disciplined study (science) of any domain of knowledge. I am aiming for a science of morality and thereby to remove the impression that this is a responsibility only for theologians and priests. If we do not get a handle on this matter we will surly self-destruct before long.
I'm not saying it's the responsibility of theologians and priests. What I meant is that religion is a very strong motivating factor for human morality. That is a fact.
One reason that we have so much difficulty with moral judgments is because no one knows any thing about these matters
So are you saying humans don't know right from wrong? What about those who haven't attended Sunday school or church and who are generally moral?
We have allowed religion to take over this domain of knowledge and thus many of our wars that are fought in the name of religion.
It "appears" wars are fought over religion, but if you look deeply at many of these religious war, it's more about power, control, and in many cases freedom, than it is about religion.Morality is not a field of science. It is more sociology asnd philosophy. It cannot be studied using scientific methods because we don't know how monkeys feel and think.
The fact that X has been predicted but X has not happened does not justify the conclusion that it won't happen.Relgion is a strong motivating factor war.Humans know little about morality. That is why a science of morality is so important.Any domain of knowledge is a field for systematic, disciplined, and empirical study.
When we attempt to solve problems in physics we have the logic (principles) of the prevailing paradigm to direct our efforts. We have a single logic (set of principles) to guide us.When we encounter an ethical problem we almost always have to deal with economic considerations, religious considerations, perhaps legal considerations, etc. Each one of these domains of knowledge has its own set of principles, its own logic.Thus in solving problems in a normal science, one with a paradigm, we have a monological problem. When we deal with many other types of problems that we encounter in living we must deal simultaneously with several domains of knowledge each with its own logic, thus we have multilogical problems.Monological is single logic, multilogical is more than one logic.In the past we have allowed religion to express our morality and a casual interest in history will convince, I think, most people that this has proven to be a great error.We have not managed to kill off the human species mostly, I suspect, because we have lacked the technology to do so. We obviously have that technology available today.If those who have studied the art and science of good judgment cannot reverse this course then I can see little possibility that we can survive much longer.
Religion is a strong PROPOGANDA factor for wars. But when studying particular wars that are wrongly (IMO) classified as religious wars such as The Troubles, The Arab/Israeli War, The War on Terror, one can see that they are not really about religion; they are about control of land resources and other economic factors, freedom from imperialism, autonomy, or national security.
Humans know little about morality.
I just cannot agree with this. Humans know very much about morality because it is a concept invented (for lack of a better word) by humans. Just as Phid mentioned, the arguments come from our different definitions of what constitutes morality. Some people don't have moral issues concerning abortion or stem cell research. Others do. Scientific research cannot answer the why of this. Generally, sociology can try to answer the "why" questions by looking at different economic, social, or cultural backgrounds, but there are far too many exceptions to make it scientific.
We have not managed to kill off the human species mostly, I suspect, because we have lacked the technology to do so.
We most certainly do have the technology to carry this out. The United States has enough nuclear arsenal to anhilate every person and nation on earth. And what about the ability to manufacture biological weapons where just one can easily kill 100,000 people if placed correctly? Even in ancient warfare, some had the technology and skills to completely destroy the enemy. I present the Athenian navy as evidence.
Simple, Morality is not knowledge. No two different groups agree on a common moral code therefore there is no universal moral truth. Unlike in physics, in morality one person thinks killing is justified and another does not; gravity is there whether you believe in it or not. Debating a universal morality is a circular exercise because everyone will never agree, unlike true science where experiment verifies observation. Any supposed science of morality is a pipe-dream.
Simple, Morality is not knowledge. No two different groups agree on a common moral code therefore there is no universal moral truth. Unlike in physics, in morality one person thinks killing is justified and another does not; gravity is there whether you believe in it or not. Debating a universal morality is a circular exercise because everyone will never agree, unlike true science where experiment verifies observation. Any supposed science of morality is a pipe-dream.
Thus spake Sunday school morality.
Simple, Morality is not knowledge. No two different groups agree on a common moral code therefore there is no universal moral truth. Unlike in physics, in morality one person thinks killing is justified and another does not; gravity is there whether you believe in it or not. Debating a universal morality is a circular exercise because everyone will never agree, unlike true science where experiment verifies observation. Any supposed science of morality is a pipe-dream.
Thus spake Sunday school morality.
Sunday school morality is lets all hug and make up and if we turn the other cheek the bad guy will too. I thought the debate was whether morality is amenable to scientific treatment. I contend it is not because it is not observable or universal in nature.
