Who Says Science has Nothing to Say About Morality?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gila Guerilla on November 7, 2011 at 6:39pm

Yes it can. If you have a generic conception of what morality entails, then science can tell you some specifics about how to achieve a moral outcome. Suppose you view it as a moral imperative to conserve the planet for future generations. Exactly how to achieve that is a complex problem, and science can help in understanding which actions, (or inactions), will help to achieve, or will oppose that moral aim.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by booklover on November 7, 2011 at 7:08pm

We evolved to get along and work together so our species wouldn't die out?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Camilli on November 11, 2011 at 10:18pm

Nope, it can't. It is the place of science to question, experiment, and record observations. It is not the place of science to judge the value, meaning or preferentiability of observations because there is no known absolute parameter by which to judge them.

 

For example, science can wonder at the size of the moon, design tests and arbitrary units by which to measure, and observe the resulting arbitrary measurements of its experiments. But science cannot say that the moon is "big" or that it is "small." What would it be big or small in comparison to? The Sun? A human? It would have to be some arbitrary comparison because we do not know what the biggest or smallest things in existence are. We do not have absolute parameters by which to make absolute judgements. And if the idea of "morality" were to be a useful one, it would have to be based on absolutes, so that it could be applied to all people in all situations. Otherwise, morality remains relative to an individual, which defeats the purpose of moral judgement. I might say something is good, you might say something is bad, and we would both have an equal claim to validity.

 

As it is, humans use the principal of 'might makes right' and 'majority makes authority' to judge right and wrong. These are philosophically untenable positions to take, so they really mean nothing at all. It can be showed quite easily that the majority of people can be wrong, as well as supposed authorities, so we don't really have morality in this world. We just have a bunch of gangs asserting their gang mentality on people who disagree. People like to call it by nobler names, but it is what it is.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on November 15, 2011 at 7:40am

"It is not the place of science to judge the value, meaning or preferentiability of observations because there is no known absolute parameter by which to judge them."

 

That's never stopped a science of medicine from doing exactly that.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mthoreau on November 14, 2011 at 5:59pm

Science can tell us what we are evolved to be morally partial towards, but it can not tell us what is right or wrong.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John J Kelly on April 13, 2012 at 4:32pm

The scientific process is the most "moral" method anywhere. Scientific postulations, papers, theory and law are heavily scrutinized.  There's no room for lies there.  Can the same be said for any religious doctrine?  When George Carlin boiled down the Ten Commandments he ended up with one: You shall not lie.

• ▶ Reply