Can Science Explain Morals?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Bradskii
Posts: 12
Joined: November 8th, 2021, 5:25 pm

Re: Can Science Explain Morals?

Post by Bradskii »

Consul wrote: November 9th, 2021, 3:06 amThere undeniably are certain factual conditions of well-being, but it is highly questionable that "well-being" is a purely descriptive concept without any normative or evaluative aspects, because it seems that ethical values and ideals also play a role in states of well-being, and that these don't simply "translate into facts that can be scientifically understood", because science cannot tell us what values or ideals we ought to choose and pursue.
I think that Harris assumes - as do I, that we decide individually how 'well being' is defined. My definition might not be yours. We'll generally agree. But when we don't, then we put forward our reasons for holding to our positions and see if we can't reach an agreement. If not...then we don't.

It doesn't get any more complicated than that.
User avatar
AgentSmith
Posts: 108
Joined: January 29th, 2022, 1:55 am

Re: Can Science Explain Morals?

Post by AgentSmith »

I dunno if science can explain morality, but if it can we have a paradox:

Morality is the rein that controls science (bioethics: animal experimentation, genetic engineering, etc.). That would mean scientifically speaking, (some) science is off-limits. Sawing off the very branch one is sitting on, oui?
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Can Science Explain Morals?

Post by LuckyR »

AgentSmith wrote: February 1st, 2022, 7:01 am I dunno if science can explain morality, but if it can we have a paradox:

Morality is the rein that controls science (bioethics: animal experimentation, genetic engineering, etc.). That would mean scientifically speaking, (some) science is off-limits. Sawing off the very branch one is sitting on, oui?
I'm not seeing the paradox given your chosen wording. Morality is subjective, there are numerous objective scientific fields devoted to studying how subjective decisions are made.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
AgentSmith
Posts: 108
Joined: January 29th, 2022, 1:55 am

Re: Can Science Explain Morals?

Post by AgentSmith »

LuckyR wrote: February 1st, 2022, 4:13 pm
AgentSmith wrote: February 1st, 2022, 7:01 am I dunno if science can explain morality, but if it can we have a paradox:

Morality is the rein that controls science (bioethics: animal experimentation, genetic engineering, etc.). That would mean scientifically speaking, (some) science is off-limits. Sawing off the very branch one is sitting on, oui?
I'm not seeing the paradox given your chosen wording. Morality is subjective, there are numerous objective scientific fields devoted to studying how subjective decisions are made.
Perhaps we're using two different definitions of paradox.

Any way I was merely pointing out the self-refutation contained in science, if it explains morals, ultimately condemning some branches of science viz. biology (bioethics: vivisection, animal experimentation, gene tinkering, etc.). Isn,t that like a judge who declares himself unfit to be a judge?
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Can Science Explain Morals?

Post by LuckyR »

AgentSmith wrote: February 2nd, 2022, 1:32 am
LuckyR wrote: February 1st, 2022, 4:13 pm
AgentSmith wrote: February 1st, 2022, 7:01 am I dunno if science can explain morality, but if it can we have a paradox:

Morality is the rein that controls science (bioethics: animal experimentation, genetic engineering, etc.). That would mean scientifically speaking, (some) science is off-limits. Sawing off the very branch one is sitting on, oui?
I'm not seeing the paradox given your chosen wording. Morality is subjective, there are numerous objective scientific fields devoted to studying how subjective decisions are made.
Perhaps we're using two different definitions of paradox.

Any way I was merely pointing out the self-refutation contained in science, if it explains morals, ultimately condemning some branches of science viz. biology (bioethics: vivisection, animal experimentation, gene tinkering, etc.). Isn,t that like a judge who declares himself unfit to be a judge?
Not by my thinking. Of course, I view morality as personal opinion, thus the relationship of science to morals is not to develop them empirically, but to explain how humans come to their opinions.
"As usual... it depends."
popeye1945
Posts: 1110
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: Can Science Explain Morals?

Post by popeye1945 »

TigerNinja wrote: February 28th, 2018, 6:33 pm Frequently, a viewpoint I find that Sam Harris has, is that science is able to explain morals to us. I personally disagree. I know this may seem cold but looking with purely what we have, in the nature of it, there is nothing wrong with me killing someone. The opinion that it is wrong solely derives from Judea- Christian influence. This is clearly indicative of moral relativity which shows that morals can't exist. Despite this, he makes the fair argument that the very thing which makes science, science (controversy), is what we are using to 'debunk' morals. Despite this, I think that due to the element of objectivity in science, it outweighs this argument. It is like saying that we should be able to find out which country God supports in a war, even though both countries are saying that God is on their side. There is no evidence for which we can say that this set of morals is correct. We can't simply ask God which country he supports in the same way we can't just check our moral list. We can do that in science through a much longer process of experimentation, which can't be done on something which isn't physically definable as of now. I say as of now as 30 years ago dreams were not physically definable, however we now can almost map someone's dreams. Despite this, we already knew there was an organ that our faculties derive from. We are like Homo Erectus (Praying I got this right so that I don't get lynched by my peers) discovering fire in our knowledge of the brain.

Despite this, I do strongly believe that although morals themselves do not exist, its origin, moral intuition does. Moral intuition derives form conditioning and other factors, but it shows that we are still able to have a moral compass without believing in the things themselves. I do in no way believe that morals exist, however I still have a natural moral intuition that will pop up at certain times. Can science discover this? I think certainly so. Can science discover morals? That is up for debate, and what is this website for? Tell me below!
Science, particularly modern science, is better equipped to determine and establish a mode of morality than the archaic mythologies we have inherited from our ancestors. Try to remember that all of the creations of humanity are but biological extensions of humanity, expressions of humanity. The mythologies/religions of the past were biological extensions of the wisdom and ignorance of our ancestors, to try and live by them today is like treading water mid-ocean. Perhaps you think the populations of today are just too stupid to grasp science; there is some indication of that, but we must lean a little into the light, and try and move into the future. In the past, our ancestors based their morality on the supernatural, on fantasy entirely missing the point of what is the proper foundation of morality, and the proper foundation of morality is the survival and well-being of the biology that it concerns itself with. Religion will always be as long as people are afraid of death, but in today's world just perhaps it could be a little more rational. The intellectual community and neurological science have shaken the belief in free will so vital to the concept of sin, and the guilt relative to law, but without free will one can both think more clearly and be more compassionate to our fellows. Religion has an edge however, and this is the path of least resistance, belief requires little thought, in fact impedes it. For the average citizen who struggles to make a living, it seem the only possibility, he/she have no intellectual life, the emotional way is the easiest way. Today the divisions marked out by religious groups is the emotional battle between fundamental fantasies, my god is the only god, accept now they have nuclear weapons. We must look head for a future and descern of our ancestors what was wisdom and what was simply ignorance.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Can Science Explain Morals?

Post by Count Lucanor »

Can science explain why and how humans create codes of right and wrong conduct? Surely it can. Can science come up with an universal, objective morality? No, it can, otherwise it would be some sort of ethics.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Can Science Explain Morals?

Post by Sculptor1 »

I think this is the wrong question.
Science is not explanatory.
Science is descriptive. Science shows how, not why. It is a methodology whereby phenomona are exposed though detailed desriptions of the forces, causes and structures in nature which give rise to the world around us.
When Newton said Hypotheses non fingo, he was pointing out that his discoceries were based wholly on the data a saved the appearances, to form a system or scheme whereby the motions of the planets and the refraction, reflection and spectrums of light could be shown.

When it comes to morals, science can suggest the hormonal and neural factor that conribute to moral thinking. It can even suggest evolutionary pressues that may have preserved by advantage or disadvantage such moral behaviours as we find in nature. THere is no doubt that some moral behaviours are necessary for survival, whilst others are not.

But one has to ask. What is really meant by "explain" in this context?

Most boringly science is usually opposed to "god" whatever that is, and anything that cannot be "explained" by science is usually attributed to magic, or god.
I can tell you know I have a bucket of reasons why morality cannot be explained by a divine being.
One you might want to start with is why did god create 1% of people to be psychopathic?
And this phenomonon is perfectly in tune with evolutionary theory, btw.
popeye1945
Posts: 1110
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: Can Science Explain Morals?

Post by popeye1945 »

Count Lucanor wrote: September 7th, 2023, 12:38 am Can science explain why and how humans create codes of right and wrong conduct? Surely it can. Can science come up with a universal, objective morality? No, it can, otherwise it would be some sort of ethics.
All experience, knowledge, and meaning is subjective, to be rational morality would need to be based on the subject of its cause, the biological subject. Only the subjective conscious subject is able to create objective systems and institutions in the outside world, in order for all subjectively conscious subjects to experience subjectively. Science would base morality of its proper subject, our common biology, the words common and universal resonate here at the same frequency.
User avatar
Lagayscienza
Posts: 1851
Joined: February 8th, 2015, 3:27 am
Favorite Philosopher: Hume Nietzsche
Location: Antipodes

Re: Can Science Explain Morals?

Post by Lagayscienza »

Science cannot tell us what we morally "ought" to do. It can explain where our moral feelings come from. Science tells us that our moral sentiments were instilled in us by evolution because they helped us cooperate and survive which is how our genes got launched into the future. They got us through the Pleistocene. Not long after which we filled the earth. Humans have what has been called a "core morality" which keeps most of us in check. This core morality can vary somewhat with culture and religion (an cause lots of problems) but it is surprising how similar we humans are in this respect - the murder of innocents, incest, theft, helping the less fortunate...these are all universals, just as you would expect given their evolutionary origin. While science cannot tell us what we morally "ought" to do, if we just act on our innate moral sentiments, chances are that in most cases, we will act in ways that are best for ourselves and others. It's really quite simple. Unlike consequentialism with it's hopeless aggregation problem and deontology with its convoluted categorical imperatives and unexplained duties. They are a waste of time. They explain nothing and are useless as guides to actions. Go with your feelings because, unless you're not a psychopath, they'll usually be about right.
La Gaya Scienza
User avatar
Lagayscienza
Posts: 1851
Joined: February 8th, 2015, 3:27 am
Favorite Philosopher: Hume Nietzsche
Location: Antipodes

Re: Can Science Explain Morals?

Post by Lagayscienza »

*...unless you're a psychopath ...

I wish there was an edit feature here.
La Gaya Scienza
value
Premium Member
Posts: 750
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Can Science Explain Morals?

Post by value »

Lagayscienza wrote: October 19th, 2023, 6:53 am Science cannot tell us what we morally "ought" to do. It can explain where our moral feelings come from. Science tells us that our moral sentiments were instilled in us by evolution because they helped us cooperate and survive which is how our genes got launched into the future. They got us through the Pleistocene. Not long after which we filled the earth. Humans have what has been called a "core morality" which keeps most of us in check. This core morality can vary somewhat with culture and religion (an cause lots of problems) but it is surprising how similar we humans are in this respect - the murder of innocents, incest, theft, helping the less fortunate...these are all universals, just as you would expect given their evolutionary origin. While science cannot tell us what we morally "ought" to do, if we just act on our innate moral sentiments, chances are that in most cases, we will act in ways that are best for ourselves and others. It's really quite simple. Unlike consequentialism with it's hopeless aggregation problem and deontology with its convoluted categorical imperatives and unexplained duties. They are a waste of time. They explain nothing and are useless as guides to actions. Go with your feelings because, unless you're a psychopath, they'll usually be about right.
Your argument is that moral feelings are to be considered a 'Sixth Sense' of a 🧭 moral compass, is that correct?

I recently listened to a podcast with as guest Lisa Monaco, a former Counterterrorism Advisor of President Barack Obama. She specifically addresses the significance of a sound moral compass and hints that it might involve more than social and cultural instincts (in the podcast she mentioned a 'sixth sense').

Podcast: https://listennotes.com/podcasts/the-le ... li-5dvNUT/

While your argument might be considered valid, why would it be valid? You mention that there are situations in which feelings might not be a good guidance. Then, how can it be said that feelings are at any time a good guidance?

The primary problem: science isn't likely to accept your claim. How would it be possible to overcome that problem?
User avatar
Lagayscienza
Posts: 1851
Joined: February 8th, 2015, 3:27 am
Favorite Philosopher: Hume Nietzsche
Location: Antipodes

Re: Can Science Explain Morals?

Post by Lagayscienza »

I will listen to the podcast you mentioned and may add to or modify my response in light of it.

For now, I wouldn’t call our moral sentiments a sixth sense any more than I would call our aesthetic sentiments a sixth sense. Thinking of them as such hints at something mysterious or spooky. But there is no mystery here. The source and reasons for our moral sentiments are explained by evolutionary science. Instilling a sense of fair play in us helped our ancestors cooperate which improved their chances of surviving and of leaving descendants. It was not perfect, but it didn’t need to be. It just had to work well enough. So, of course there will be situations where our innate moral sentiments may not provide clear guidance. People have come up with all sorts of improbable “trolley” scenarios where the right course of action is not clear – should I push the fat man off the bridge to stop a train running over six people on the track so that only one person gets killed instead of six? In such situations we may need to think a bit about what the best course of action is, but on the spur of the moment, I would go with my moral sentiment and not push the fat man off the bridge. To do so just wouldn’t feel right to me. And no one could prove I was wrong not to push the man off the bridge. Moral judgements, like aesthetic judgements, are not the sorts of things that can be objectively right or wrong. Evolution doesn't deal in abstract concepts right or wrong. It deals only in selecting traits that improve the chances of survival and reproduction. So, all we can do is follow our feelings and do the best we can with what evolution gave us. Fortunately we only rarely, if ever, encounter “trolley” problems and, unless we are psychopaths, our innate moral sentiments are enough to keep our behaviour within a range that is acceptable to our communities.

I am puzzled by your assertion that science would not accept the explanation of morality I outline. That IS the explanation of morality that science gives us. To prove it false, someone would have to come up with a better explanation. A supernatural explanation would be no explanation.
La Gaya Scienza
value
Premium Member
Posts: 750
Joined: December 11th, 2019, 9:18 am

Re: Can Science Explain Morals?

Post by value »

I would disagree that science would 'value' moral feelings as a valid guidance for moral decisions. What you describe would science attribute to human psychology and not to morality.

Science considers itself capable of being morally neutral and (in general) it considers morality as a relic of religions and superstition that is to be abolished.

(2018) Immoral advances: Is science out of control?
To many scientists, moral objections to their work are not valid: science, by definition, is morally neutral, so any moral judgement on it simply reflects scientific illiteracy.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... f-control/

The following article shows the state of the art of morality from the perspective of science. It shows that science considers itself to merely have the 'universalization principle' available for deciding between good and wrong.

(2020) How we make moral decisions
The researchers now hope to explore the reasons why people sometimes don’t seem to use universalization in cases where it could be applicable, such as combating climate change.
https://phys.org/news/2020-10-moral-decisions.html

As for evidence in philosophical history, philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) in Beyond Good and Evil (Chapter 6 – We Scholars) shared the following perspective on the evolution of science that shows that science has attempted to 'overcome' philosophy and morality.

"The declaration of independence of the scientific man, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the subtler after-effects of democratic organization and disorganization: the self- glorification and self-conceitedness of the learned man is now everywhere in full bloom, and in its best springtime – which does not mean to imply that in this case self-praise smells sweet. Here also the instinct of the populace cries, “Freedom from all masters!” and after science has, with the happiest results, resisted theology, whose “hand-maid” it had been too long, it now proposes in its wantonness and indiscretion to lay down laws for philosophy, and in its turn to play the “master” – what am I saying! to play the PHILOSOPHER on its own account."

Science has attempted to rid itself of morality and to become the master of itself, i.e. to 'advance immorally' on behalf of the the greater good of science, which is scientism philosophy.

Scientism philosophy concerns the dogmatic belief that science operates without philosophy and morality, as if that by itself is a 'greater good'.

Evidence that it holds true today is the concept "I believe in science" that has a cult status. From a scientific establishment evolutionary perspective there is the concept 'anti-science' in which so called 'disbelievers' of science are to be persecuted as heretics of science.

A perspective on today's 'war on science' propaganda by an academic philosopher provides a substantiation on the basis of modern times developments:

The “anti-science” or “war on science” narrative has become popular among science journalists. While there is no question that some opponents of GMOs are biased or ignorant of the relevant facts, the blanket tendency to characterize critics of GMO as anti-science or engaged in a war on science is both misguided and dangerous.
https://philpapers.org/rec/BIDAZV (2018)

In order to denounce people for 'not believing in science' requires science to have an opinion of its validity that stands outside of the scope of morality. Such an opinion is only possible on behalf of an idea of a greater good, which is scientism philosophy that seeks to abolish philosophy and morality as superstitious relics of the past, of which its beginning is historically described by Nietzsche.

👁️ Meaning beyond what science can “see”?

Scientific evidence equals repeatability. Consequently, anything that science can potentially understand and explain must possess a repeatable nature.

In my opinion, and perhaps evident in a 'Sixth Sense' idea of a 🧭 moral compass involving moral feelings, true morality has a "beyond science" nature and therefore science cannot grasp or explain it.

Morality concerns an eternal intellectual pursuit of good that is found in the question (and not the answer) "what is good?".

The moral good is simply more than the qualitative truth of science and that explains the idea of morality beyond science.

American philosopher William James once said the following about it:

Truth is one species of good, and not, as is usually supposed, a category distinct from good, and co-ordinate with it. The true is the name of whatever proves itself to be good in the way of belief, and good, too, for definite, assignable reasons.
User avatar
Lagayscienza
Posts: 1851
Joined: February 8th, 2015, 3:27 am
Favorite Philosopher: Hume Nietzsche
Location: Antipodes

Re: Can Science Explain Morals?

Post by Lagayscienza »

None of the above undermines what I said above about the origins and status of morality. Morality is a phenomenon that science has done much to clarify. It is only theists who have a problem with the explanation that science provides. They want morals handed down by a sky daddy. However, there is not a skerrick of evidence for such a bizarre notion.
La Gaya Scienza
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021