Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Topher, Apr 12, 2010.

  1. Topher

    Topher allo!

    Sam spoke at the 2010 TED Conference about the subject of his new book.

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

    His basic thesis is that morality is fundamentally about human wellbeing and that there are certain things that we can say, scientifically and factually, about behaviour and human wellbeing.

    He responds to various criticism/responses to his talk here:
    www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/moral_confusion_in_the_name_of_science3/

    I completely agree with his argument.

    It seems absurd to deny that morality relates to human welling, human happiness, and the avoidance of suffering. It seems that humans really do share a universal desire to be happy rather than miserable. And there clearly are behaviours, which under certain circumstances, can cause suffering and others which can cause happiness.

    Given this, a scientific morality would be about:
    (1) observing the human condition, e.g. that happiness is a universal desire.
    (2) observing the consequences of our actions, e.g. how our behaviour can affect human wellbeing.

    From this we can arrive at clear conclusions about whether certain behaviours or ideas are right or wrong, based on the impact they will have and whether that impact will conflict with what we want most of all.

    To use one example Sam mentioned in his talk: would it be moral or immoral to add cholera to the water supply? We can answer this: If it is a fact that humans want to avoid suffering, and if it is a fact that adding cholera to the water supply would increase suffering, then it would be a fact to say that adding cholera to the water supply would be ethically wrong.

    Many people may say that science cannot tell us what we ought to desire. This is a common response to these type of arguments, however this misses the point of what is being proposed. It's not about science telling us what we ought to desire, rather it's about science telling us what we already DO desire. Once we know this, we can empirically build a moral system which is based on the evidence and which will fulfil this universal desire.

    Here's a similar presentation on why morality ought to be scientific: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dce8mE0q4zA
     
  2. Kwajman

    Kwajman Penguin in paradise....

    Well you could take the morality argument a million times farther. There are those who say we should never send military or food aid to africa. If the continent cannot, or will not support itself then it should die out for those who can't maintain themselves. Others say the world population should be halved, others even more, so that those remaining can live a decent life. Who's to say whats moral and immoral.....
     
  3. Talyn

    Talyn Reality Hacker

    Recently had a discussion about this TED talk on another forum.

    I think there is one quote that I can pull which exemplifies the problems with most people's ideas of moral subjectivism: "The fact that there are many right answers to the question, 'what is food?' does not tempt us to say that there are no truths to be known about human nutrition." He then goes on to talk about the distinction between objectivity in morality being conflated with the notion of "No exceptions!"

    The best definition I've seen used in practice, i.e. used in actual philosophy, is that morality is subjective, while ethics are objective. A moral code is the particular set of values that a person upholds, and let's not pretend that these are simple propositions like, "one ought not to steal" or "one ought not to kill", because that's an adolescent's view. Propositions such as "one ought to give precedence to closest friends and family over strangers" and "closest friends are those friends who have demonstrated true loyalty over time" are also moral propositions (the latter can be phrased as an ought proposition, but it needn't be, as moral propositions have no requirement of oughtly linguistic construction so long as the memetics are appropriate).

    Ethical propositions are often codified into laws, i.e. state-enforced prohibitions of behaviour, and our moral compasses sometimes take these into account if we have personal intuitions or considerations on them; but that need not be the case, if the ethics are not relevant to us personally- a millionaire will be less concerned about petty theft compared to a working class person. Added to this is a meta-guideline for future considerations, not necessarily a guide on how to act, which is where things like deontology, virtue ethics and consequentialism are placed within our moral spheres.

    Which one of these we choose is typically a matter of nurture, but also playing a role is our old friend relevance. Primary school teachers for instance, should be less concerned with consequentialism and more concerned with virtue ethics; that is not to say that they shouldn't have consequential concerns, simply that those concerns are less relevant with instilling in children the idea of objective ethics that we ought to follow. There is often a conduct-belief bleed, so upholding oneself as per the moral theory they are propagating means that it will be easier to teach because appropriate behaviour will follow.

    We had a fairly big confusion on the other forum about the idea of him being a Muslim basher. His comments about Muslim women's treatment is not based on Muslim-bashing, but on the objective notion of human well-being that he has soundly backed-up earlier in the lecture. Murdering your daughter out of shame because she was raped is hardly a cultural practice that should be encouraged or accepted- religion doesn't even matter in this and many other instances. Earlier he pointed out that the USA has shortcomings also, especially those such as "don't spare the rod" with regards to beating schoolchildren. After talking about Muslim women he then went on to talk about the west's treatment of the female body and how it is not really any better.

    The best quote on the video that summarises concisely why I hate the recent fad of moral subjectivism is the following:

    "How have we convinced ourselves that in the moral sphere there is no such thing as expertise? Or moral talent? Or moral genius? How have we convinced ourselves that every opinion counts? Or how every culture has a point of view on these subjects that is worth considering? Would we listen to the Taliban about physics? No. How is their ignorance any less obvious on the subject of human well-being?"

    It's not about excluding people's opinions in favour of others', but in giving appropriate weight to certain peoples' based on expertise.
     
  4. Smitfire

    Smitfire Cactus Schlong

    Sam Harris is flat out the best "New Atheist" out there IMHO.
    So logical and reasonable.
    Dennett is too academic.
    Hitchen's is too abrasive and can come across as a confrontational drunk (but I like that!).
    Dawkin's unfortunately has a persona that some people interpret as strident and preachy (although I don't personally).
     
  5. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    I think most people can work out what is good or bad for them with common sense ie. a form of logical reasoning.

    take your example about the water. I'm not sure what it has to do with Science per se.

    We would already do this so don't quite understand what there is to get excited about. I don't think applying science to morality will make people any happier than the methods we currently use to arrive at our moral compasses. People already know what makes them happy and what makes them miserable. Science just has the capacity to explains our feelings and behaviour with its method. You have said as much.

    From that basis any application of morality is just a matter of quite basic reasoning and weighing up any pros and cons, it isn't really Science in my opinion. What did the water example really need any Science for ?

    Why would we want people to get sick ?

    It's common sense.

    You could run any number of moral issues through Science and Super Computers, but the final decision would still come down to what we feel is best for us, under a given set of circumstances.

    Like your water example and abortion for another example.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2010
  6. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    Huh? Wasn't this done 2500 years ago??

    All I see is Harris repackaging someone else's discoveries, and claiming credit for them. :eek: :confused:
     
  7. Talyn

    Talyn Reality Hacker

    Maybe it needs to be done fresh for people to listen again.
     
  8. Topher

    Topher allo!

    Once we have empirically established the parameters of morality (i.e. what morality is all about; what are it's goals) then we could empirically begin to answer such question. We may never get definite answers, and there may never be just one answer, however such an approach is surely better than the 'everyone decide what's moral for themselves' approach.

    In the second video I posted Carrier argues that:
    The correct moral philosophy must integrate all three of these theories [teleological, deontological, and virtue ethics]. The goodness or badness of an act is measured by the sum of it's predicted consequences, which include not only material consequences to others, so, Mill [teleological ethics] was partly right, but also the existential consequences to yourself, in other words, the sort of person you become when you act a certain way is a consequence of that act, which in turn has further consequences to your psychology and self-respect, so, Kant [deontological ethics] was partly right. And obviously it really comes down to who you are, your moral characters. Most would agree that someone who merely acts compassionate is not really a good person, whereas someone you generally is compassionate, will, for that very reason, always act as compassionately as they are able, so we consider them good people even when they fail, so Aristotle [virtue ethics] was partly right.
     
  9. Topher

    Topher allo!

    Done by whom?
     
  10. Topher

    Topher allo!

    It's certainly not valid to build a moral philosophy from common sense. You actually need to give people a reason to obey some moral imperative rather than another. Saying, "well it's common sense" is not a reason, indeed if it were that simple then there would not be so many moral systems.

    There are two things that are required to develop a sound moral philosophy: (1) knowledge of the facts (facts about the human condition, about human desires, about the consequences of human behaviour, etc), and (2) the analytical skills to reason correctly.

    To quote Carrier again from the video I posted:
    My hypothesis is this... all moral truth breaks down to this one single statement: 'you ought to do, what you would most want to do, if you were reasoning correctly and aware of all the facts.' ... Now I'm saying there is nothing you ought to do but this; there's no greater moral commandment than this, and I'm also saying you only ever fail to do this for either of two reasons: either you are reasoning fallaciously or incoherently, or you were ignorant of some of the relevant facts. If you knew what the full and true consequences of your actions would be, upon you as well as others, you would only ever do what's right, so when people act immorally it's always the result of ignorance; it could also be the result of error since if we know everything there is so know we could still invalid conclusions by reasoning incorrectly, but this is just a special case of ignorance, since if you know you were using an invalid or fallacious way of thinking you would correct yourself, unless you're completely bonkers.

    Common sense can, and often does, lead to conclusions which may seem quite appealing and correct but really do not hold when seriously examined. Moreover, common sense is a rather vague foundation for anything and could be use to defend all sorts of behaviours under the pretence of common sense. Common sense seems to have value when it comes to many issues that are beyond obvious (e.g. don't walk up to that police officer and punch him in the face) but beyond this, where conclusions are less obvious (e.g. eating animals, abortion, racial profiling, etc) things become less clear.

    What would common sense tell us about eating animals, abortion, and racial profiling?

    That example was purely for illustrative purposes to demonstrate that moral proposition can have factual answers, based on the two relevant points:

    (1) What is it that human collectively want? What is morality about?
    (2) What effect do behaviours have on that collective desire?

    The water example was just to illustrate how we could say that something (in this case, adding cholera to the water supply) was wrong, not just subjectively or based on common sense, but factually wrong, and have actual empirical evidence to support it.

    It's not about making people more happier, it's about empirically demonstrating how one can best achieve happiness.

    Well evidently a lot of people do not, otherwise we would not get so many people behaving immorally, such as engaging in criminal behaviour. Although a criminal may think harming others and stealing makes them happy, I claim that they are ignorant of both the true consequences of their actions, and how happy they really could be if they behaved in a compassionate and honest way. In the second video (at around 40 minutes) Carrier outlines a risk theory:

    Happiness defeating behaviour:
    Social consequences - loss of trust and safety from family, friends, colleagues, and society. Social retaliation effect (you'll make enemies).
    Personal consequences - loss of personal satisfaction and contentment with yourself and with life; loss of emotional/physical/mental health; increase anxiety and disappointment.
    Practical consequences - self destructive behaviours; increased labour of concealment/deception and flight/defence (e.g. if you tell lies you have to remember what lies you told and to whom and tell more lies to cover other lies, whereas if you always told the truth then you always know what you told people. It's much easier to live as an honest person than a dishonest person); you have to hide your crimes, deceive people, flee from the law.
    Costs vs. benefits - material things rather than psychological needs; short term benefits at long costs; could be postponing hurt.

    Happiness seeking behaviour:
    Social consequences - increase trust and safety from family, friends, colleagues, and society. Social support effect.
    Personal consequences - gain satisfaction with life; becomes more contented; improve emotional/physical/mental health; decrease anxiety and disappointment.
    Practical consequences - self improving behaviours; decreased labour of concealment/deception and flight/defence.
    Costs vs. benefits - might lose material things but meet psychological needs; may suffer long term difficulties but gain long term payoffs; might have to eat humble pie but who cares.

    This really hinges on how you define science. I claim that what I am describing is science. Science is nothing more than a method. In short it's about making observations, forming falsifiable predictions, carrying out experiments and conducting analytical analysis.

    Sam responds to this criticism in his response which I linked to. He says:
    Some of my critics got off the train before it even left the station, by defining “science” in exceedingly narrow terms. Many think that science is synonymous with mathematical modeling, or with immediate access to experimental data. However, this is to mistake science for a few of its tools. Science simply represents our best effort to understand what is going on in this universe, and the boundary between it and the rest of rational thought cannot always be drawn. There are many tools one must get in hand to think scientifically—ideas about cause and effect, respect for evidence and logical coherence, a dash of curiosity and intellectual honesty, the inclination to make falsifiable predictions, etc.—and many come long before one starts worrying about mathematical models or specific data.

    How do you define science then?

    Well what if the Nazi's had their own water supply. Would it be moral to add cholera to their water? This would require that we compare the possible suffering that the Nazi's would experience versus the suffering of the Jews and we would realise that, actually, adding cholera to a Nazi water supply would perhaps be the ethical thing to do since it would overall reduce suffering.

    Like Sam says, no one is suggesting that we could just consult a supercomputer to get an absolute answer. All that is required for Sam's argument to be true is that moral facts exist; that moral propositions have right or wrong answers. This doesn't require absolutism. Moral realism is not the same as moral absolutism. Consider his analogies to health and food. There are a range of states between healthy/unhealthy and between food/poison, but this does not mean there are no right or wrong answer about what food is or what being healthy is. Similarly, there may be a range of right answers to moral proposition.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2010
  11. Ranzan

    Ranzan Valued Member

    Topher you wouldn't happen to have a link to the "concept of health" he alluded to would you?
     
  12. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    Aye, and bookshelves are full of such writings, but, you know, they give credit to Buddha. What I'm saying is something like these quotes from the article cited above remind me too much of Buddhism, but without a line or two crediting Buddha, and that bothers me. Harris quotes or references so many other people. Why not point out the similarities with Buddhism? There might well be 1000 differences in the details, sure, but still, the similarities need to be acknowledged and a nod given to the originator.

    quoting the article cited above:

    "When I speak of there being right and wrong answers to questions of morality, I am saying that there are facts about human and animal wellbeing that we can, in principle, know—simply because wellbeing (and states of consciousness altogether) must lawfully relate to states of the brain and to states of the world."

    "In fact, I believe that we can know, through reason alone, that consciousness is the only intelligible domain of value."

    "Now that we have consciousness on the table, my further claim is that wellbeing is what we can intelligibly value—and 'morality' (whatever people’s associations with this term happen to be) really relates to the intentions and behaviors that affect the wellbeing of conscious creatures. And, as I pointed out at TED, all the people who claim to have alternative sources of morality (like the Word of God) are, in every case that I am aware of, only concerned about wellbeing anyway: They just happen to believe that the universe functions in such a way as to place the really important changes in conscious experience after death (i.e. in heaven or hell). And those philosophical efforts that seek to put morality in terms of duty, fairness, justice, or some other principle that is not explicitly tied to the wellbeing of conscious creatures—are, nevertheless, parasitic on some notion of wellbeing in the end (I argue this point at greater length in my book. And yes, I’ve read Rawls, Nozick, and Parfit)."

    "It seems rather obvious that fairness, justice, compassion, and a general awareness of terrestrial reality have rather a lot to do with our creating a thriving global civilization—and, therefore, with the greater wellbeing of humanity."

    "The moment we admit that consciousness is the context in which any discussion of values makes sense, we must admit that there are facts to be known about how the experience of conscious creatures can change—and these facts can be studied, in principle, with the tools of science."


    How is that different from 2500-year-old Buddhism? Maybe the details will be different but at this initial level they sure sound the same to me.
     
  13. Topher

    Topher allo!

    aikiMac

    Sam is talking about method, and this has little to do with Buddhism, indeed, Buddhism contains all sorts of ideas that would not get past the methodologies that Sam is proposing we apply to the subject of morality.

    As to the idea that Buddha originated these ideas, this is false. Sam is claiming that morals derive from truths about human nature and of course no person can claim ownership of that.

    Even if it were the case the there were similarities between Sam's ideas of morality and some of the ideas within Buddhism, it could indeed be the case that Sam arrived at them independently, through analytical thought rather than study of Buddhism. It seems that any realistic examination of morality makes it about wellbeing/happiness, so rather than Sam deriving his ideas from Buddhism it's more likely that both (assuming these supposed similarities) derive from the truth that morality is about wellbeing and happiness.

    Also, you say yourself that when you get down to the details there could be a lot of differences. On that basis don't you think that associating his arguments with Buddhism would suggest more of a relationship that there actually is, since I would think that if there are similarities, there are almost certainly going to be far more differences.

    Finally, I fail to see where Sam in taking credit for anything here other than making a case for an already established moral philosophy.
     
  14. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    That is not what I was suggesting. I was pointing out that common sense is a part and parcel of making decisions - do you disagree. Is it the only part or consideration ?

    Well no it isn't.

    You mean like, break the law and you'll go to jail sort of reason. Or how about how doing something makes you feel. What are the benefits one way or the other.

    What reasons where you thinking of ?

    Actually a bit of common sense might just be all the reason one needs - depends what it is.

    The example you gave about water is just common sense. That's just an illustration.

    We know quite a lot already about this, I would say as much as we really need to. What do you thgink is missing from the above. Most of it is common sense anyway. There loads of it to be found in Medicine, psychiatry, psychology. Logic and reason has been pretty well developed since the days of Socrates and further back. The consequences of human behaviour have been evident for millenia. We also have been self aware of our human condition and desires.

    So what changes does Science and technology make ?

    Better Information and technology, that's all I see changing - to base our decisions on.

    People have been trying to better the ignorant for centuries - so what's this guys secret weapon do you think ?

    He also sound incredibly naive. Does he think everyone steals and robs because they just choose to or like to. People often have little choice, people live on the streets. Sometimes it's survival. Maybe as a scientist he should understand something about how animals survive. They do what they have to. If he wants to make the world a better place maybe he should get into politics rather than spouting this sort of meaningless idealistic junk.

    Well sure, common sense will get you so far. Some things are more complex and reqire more in depth reasoning to come to a conclusion. that's a given, but the basics of morality like reasons for why you shouldn't steal or start violence and any number of examples are "common sense".

    There's nothing "wrong" with eating an animal. We eat them for food - that's common sense. Certain reasons why we might want an abortion might be "common sense". Like a young girl still in school having a baby - it isn't genius to work out that having a baby at that age will create issues that may be regretable. Working things like that out is common sense - people do it all the time.

    As for racial profiling - I'm not that familiar with it.


    That we would not want to make ouselves sick is common sense.


    With the goal of what,

    Making people more miserable?


    "needs must" often get in the way of our common sense as well as our deeper feelings and reasoning.

    We know and do all of it already. If not do then at least advised to by certain proffessions and dictates already. The advice and information already exists, some of it for many years in other forms.

    No big deal.

    He should be smashing particles together instead.



    Doing Science, not applying the method to things like morality. Let scienctific information inform morality - that's all that need to be allowed to happen. All the other aspects will happen already. Let people like psychologists do their job - they already use the information to help the troubled teenagers and all the rest that have lost their way. Many many disciplines already use the scientific method as you have defined it, not just people like physicists. What do you think the world has been doing all this time ?

    Sure why not. If you were a Jew it would be a no brainer. In hindsight kill or be killed. Common bloody sense.

    :rolleyes:

    Reduce suffering? Would never have guessed.
    This is truly genius work. Einstein would be proud of this Science, I'll bet. Reducing suffering is just "common sense" to the majority of people.

    He's saying nothing new, people think he's repackaging stuff. maybe he thinks it will be a product he can sell? People buy all sorts of stuff these days don't they.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2010
  15. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    One wonders if this is more to do with "new atheism" than actual Science. I'll take Brian Cox over these guys any day. Smashing particles together beats trying to re invent the wheel.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2010
  16. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    Right, but you don't need Science to have a good sense of fairness. Maybe using a wide definition of science maybe IT IS a science to have a good sense of fairness, right and wrong etc.

    But that's about it.

    We already have all the tools. You can't force change, or enforce a new set of values on people just like that, but you can educate - people have to change and realise a more refined sense of "fair" for themselves in time (like practices of other culture we find unfair or wrong). There's nothing wrong with what we already do and how we approach this.

    The internet has already shown how small the world can be. Viral morality - maybe that's the future.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2010
  17. aikiMac

    aikiMac aikido + boxing = very good Moderator Supporter

    Indeed. Pretty bows and bright lights on a very very old wheel that isn't even properly science. Morality and questions of what you "should" do are a field of philosophy, not science.

    I give him credit for his business accumen, being able to sell this to people and getting people on an internet forum to talk about it, but this is nothing new. People have known this and discussed it for years -- 2500 years, if not longer!

    "Viral morality" -- the name makes me chuckle! :hat:
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2010
  18. Topher

    Topher allo!

    cloudz, can you start by defining exactly what you mean by 'common sense'?

    That wasn't your argument. You effectively said people could do fine with common sense.

    The law can be part of it however there isn't a one to one relationship between the law and morality. For instance, is it immoral to take drugs, specifically relatively safe drugs like cannabis?

    The sort of reason I'm thinking of is some fundamental desire, like happiness, which can be demonstrated that all people share. From this you can demonstrate that certain behaviours and lifestyles are good or bad.

    The problem with the idea of common sense is it simplifies the issue too much. It may indeed appear to be common sense not to punch a police officer or not to contaminate water, nevertheless there is still an underlining analytical process taking place (e.g. why is it wrong to punch a police officer? Why is it wrong to contaminate water?, etc) and although we may not have to overtly consider that for many issues, the point is we ought to understand that process as it will allow us to potentially solve certain moral issues which may not have clear conclusions.

    Well clearly we don't. Morality relates directly with happiness/wellbeing, which are in turn necessarily tied to the brain, yet it's virtually certain that what we know about the brain far outweighs what we don't know. So there is a lot to be known about the brain which in many ways makes a proper understanding of morality incomplete. I could also add our understanding of the morality of abortions is imperfect due to incomplete information about whether a fetes can feel pain. That's another issue which requires more scientific study.

    The point about logic and reason is not that we, collectively, have more to learn about it or that it requires further development, but rather than we, individually, have to learn how to apply it. Unfortunately most people lack that ability. Virtually everyone starts with their conclusions (based on preconceived ideas, desires, etc) and works backwards. That's just how humans typically work. Whilst I'm not advocating that people turn into Vulcans, I do think that when it comes to serious decisions, like how to vote, whether abortion is immoral, or whether we turn the life support off, that we take a step back and formally consider our facts and premises. We should certainly approach morality like this at an academic level.

    So my argument is that there is far more understanding to be made about the human condition (primarily relating to the mind/brain), and that even if we know all there is to know, we still have to reason correctly.

    It gives us actual evidence about, for instance, what it is we really want, and it can aid us in determining which behaviours and lifestyles can help us reach that goal.

    I don't how you reached this rather dismissive conclusion from the remarks in that quote. (Did you even listen to the whole talk, which adds context to his argument?)

    The problem with your response is that you assume that stealing, if your life depended on it, would be immoral. You also assume that stealing would be the only option available to such a person. If there were other options, then they may be the better thing to do. If, however, there are no other options, then stealing may not be immoral.

    By the way, he is a philosopher and ancient historian, not a scientist.

    I think you'll find that all of ethics is rather complex. People often like to think these things are nice and simple, but more often than not there is more to it.

    And here you refute yourself. Are theft and violence simple issues of morality? You seem to indicate that they are (by excluding them from those complex issues which require more in depth reasoning), yet in your previous paragraph you specifically state that Carrier was "incredibly naive" for, supposedly, treating immoral behaviour simplistically, and you went on to illustrate how theft and violence are in fact more complex that you felt he appreciated.

    Why is it not wrong?

    The purpose for why we eat animals is not a reason for why it is moral to do so

    Again, none of this address the actual issue of whether those reasons make the abortion moral.

    You're reading into this example far too literally. It's causing you to miss the point.

    The point is that approach to ethics would give us a factual foundation for moral imperatives. I chose the water example as an easy way to illustrate this. Even if it appears to be "common sense," that does not mean there is no empirical basis for it. Pointing out that empirical evidence may seem futile given that it is all apparently "common sense," but it wouldn't for a more complex issue.

    Clearly, achieving happiness is the desired goal here, however the direct use that science will have will be in highlighting how they can get there. Science is purely a tool.

    Clearly I am talking about those who engage in criminal activity for reasons other than survival, where stealing really is a last resort. I imagine that of all those that habitually steal, most are doing so for reason other than a need to survive. I don't think an honest and compassionate person would particularly want to commit a crime and would instead rather turn to other opportunities, of which there are often plenty.

    There's a specific reason for that list being in his talk. He's not pretending that it's new information. And it's fundamental to the proposed hypothesis.

    If you're not going to make serious comments then please, don't bother!


    So your definition of science is "doing science".

    Again, how do you define science?

    It seems like you distinguish "doing science" and "applying the scientific method." Why? What is the difference?

    Science is the scientific method, so how is using the scientific method not doing science?

    Why not? Why should it not be allowed. If the scientific method is the best method of discovery that we have, and if morality includes testable questions that can be empirically answered, why should the scientific method not be applied to them?

    I never said they didn't. I never said physicist are the only ones who use the scientific method.

    You seem to have a rather naive understanding of moral philosophy, cloudz.

    To you, if something appears to be "common sense" then any further analysis or discussion is completely pointless. That shows a profound lack of awareness of the intricacies of moral philosophy. If even something is "common sense" that does not preclude any further analysis, nor does it make it pointless.

    You state rather pompously that this is all common sense, yet for someone who subscribed to deontological ethics, it would be far from common sense.

    Repackaging whose stuff? Almost everything in philosophy had been discussed before at some point. Should people be banned from discussing things that have been previously been discussed?
     
  19. Topher

    Topher allo!

    The field of ethics, whilst a branch of philosophy, does contain testable propositions which have empirical answers. Science can answer them.

    You're right... we should just ban people raising issues that have been previously discussed or written about. :cool:
     
  20. cloudz

    cloudz Valued Member

    .
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2010

Share This Page