Science of Morality, Anyone?

OutOfBreath

coberst wrote:

Philosophy is the mother of science but is no substitute for scientific empirical study similar to other human sciences. I think that psychology and SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) can be useful in starting such an effort.

Also, I think that there is confusion regarding the meaning of ethics and the meaning of morality. Thus further evidence for the need for an empirical science of morality.

Fair enough.

I think that there is also a good bit of confusion as to the meaning of the word "science". I use the word 'science' here to mean a systematic and disciplined study of a domain of knowledge. I do not restrict the word to mean only those domains of knowledge that can be measured with a scale and/or calipers.

The definition definitely puts the dicipline of philosophy inside the science term. Philosophers do nothing but rigorously and systematically study not only domains of knowledge, but the fundament of knowledge itself.

Morality is a difficult concept to study. You can study behaviour, under the assumption that action = thought, but that will not catch the essence of the term, which at least to me, happens on the level of thought. And we are very adept at thinking one thing and doing another. If behaviour satisfies you, then behaviourist psychology is where you should turn. A well developed field in psychology.

Alternatively, you can study histury, and through anecdotes and accounts determine something about people's morality. But the same problem as above appears again, and when it comes to reading accounts, the interpretation is invariably coloured by which angle and perspective the researcher have.

So it's not easy to determine anything about "morality", even if you somehow entangle it of the several ambiguities that surrounds it. And if you are satisfied with a highly simplified approach and operationalization, then it's already being done in psychology.

Peace
Dan

coberst

OutofBreath

I am studying "The Sense of Beauty" by George Santayana, "Moral Imagination" by Mark Johnson, and "Art and Visual Perception" by Rudolf Arnheim. I have discovered that the study of values, morality is a species of value, has led me into a study of visual perception, the meaning of 'meaning', and the science of art.

The study of psychology and cognitive science has provided a foundation for this effort. I think that such studies must form the foundation of such an effort as creating a science of morality.

Collin

chopitdown wrote:

i guess we'll not agree on this one. Also, I wouldn't go so far as to say what God would call that person.

Fair enough, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Collin

heart&desire wrote:

Collin ...

I have a few questions that you may or may not want to answer as they are personal ...

Do you truly believe there is a "hell"?
A physical hell? A mental hell? A spiritual hell?
Do you believe that God actually condemns one to "hell"?
You believe God would actually call someone a fool?
Do you believe in love, or the power of love?

I don't believe in god or anything supernatural. When people debate god they don't have many sources, I have the same source; the bible. It says quite clearly that those who reject Jesus will go to hell, and god sends them there. To me it sounds like this hell is physical and mental, I don't know what you mean by spiritual hell.

Psalms 14:1

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

Isn't the bible the word of god?

Yes, I believe in love.

Anon

chopitdown wrote:

I'm not sure how I'd respond to be perfectly honest. The sunday school answer is to not deny God...the real life answer is this...i hope and pray I never (or anyone for that matter) have that situation presenting itself. Since I don't know God's mind or thoughts I can't possibly answer that question correctly. My guess is God would want you to save the kids; however, you don't know in that situation if you say yes, i wont deny my God...that God won't somehow allow the kids to be saved and the gunman to be captured.

With sincere respect to your beliefs and feelings, i mean no malice to you when i say this, but how does your god decide who he is going to allow to live or die?

Cosmo

chopitdown wrote:

I'm not sure how I'd respond to be perfectly honest. The sunday school answer is to not deny God...the real life answer is this...i hope and pray I never (or anyone for that matter) have that situation presenting itself. Since I don't know God's mind or thoughts I can't possibly answer that question correctly. My guess is God would want you to save the kids; however, you don't know in that situation if you say yes, i wont deny my God...that God won't somehow allow the kids to be saved and the gunman to be captured.

...
I feel the same way. I would denounce my God to some fucking asshole threatening to kill people on my account. The bottom line.. kids don't die.
And if God judges me as Evil because I chose the lives of others over my beliefs.. then He is not my God. He would be a conceited asshole that is not worthy of my faith in Him
...
I don't believe that is the case.

j3trowkill

There is no science of morality, America just can't accept that they will be represented by a black president!

OutOfBreath

coberst wrote:

OutofBreath

I am studying "The Sense of Beauty" by George Santayana, "Moral Imagination" by Mark Johnson, and "Art and Visual Perception" by Rudolf Arnheim. I have discovered that the study of values, morality is a species of value, has led me into a study of visual perception, the meaning of 'meaning', and the science of art.

The study of psychology and cognitive science has provided a foundation for this effort. I think that such studies must form the foundation of such an effort as creating a science of morality.

But how rigorously "scientific" would such an endeavour be? Sounds to me like a philosophical project (meaning of meaning, "science" of art), with some perception psychology added to the mix.

I'm not questioning whether it would be a useful or interesting project, but I question how much "science" it really entails, or whether it is merely rigorous use of philosophy fields like ethics, meaning and the nature of objects we perceive. I am hard pressed to see any really useful operationalizations that really covers the rather vague and lofty concept of morality.

Peace
Dan

coberst

OutOfBreath wrote:

But how rigorously "scientific" would such an endeavour be? Sounds to me like a philosophical project (meaning of meaning, "science" of art), with some perception psychology added to the mix.

I'm not questioning whether it would be a useful or interesting project, but I question how much "science" it really entails, or whether it is merely rigorous use of philosophy fields like ethics, meaning and the nature of objects we perceive. I am hard pressed to see any really useful operationalizations that really covers the rather vague and lofty concept of morality.

Peace
Dan

I think that there is also a good bit of confusion as to the meaning of the word "science". I use the word 'science' here to mean a systematic and disciplined study of a domain of knowledge. I do not restrict the word to mean only those domains of knowledge that can be measured with a scale and/or calipers.

baraka

coberst wrote:

I think that there is also a good bit of confusion as to the meaning of the word "science". I use the word 'science' here to mean a systematic and disciplined study of a domain of knowledge. I do not restrict the word to mean only those domains of knowledge that can be measured with a scale and/or calipers.

I would agree with with your definition to a certain extent, but I would take it as a less formal definition of science, perhaps applied science versus natural science. Science, in general, refers to a system of acquiring knowledge and this system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena.

As to your original point, I think that morality can be derived logically, as a matter of practicality. Maybe it can even be tested to see if it works, if it is scientific in nature. From a 'scientific' view perhaps one can look at it from an evolutionary stand point. Developing a level of altruism allowed humans to work together and outcompete other tribes. Basically everyone enters a social contract since birth, that we impose on ourselves.

OutOfBreath

coberst wrote:

I think that there is also a good bit of confusion as to the meaning of the word "science". I use the word 'science' here to mean a systematic and disciplined study of a domain of knowledge. I do not restrict the word to mean only those domains of knowledge that can be measured with a scale and/or calipers.

Then frankly, I think a better word for what you're doing is philosophy, and hence you're about establishing an authoritative philosophy of morality. Which is a noble endeavour, certainly.

But science to me, and I suspect many others, entails experimentation and operationalizations that can be tested against real circumstances and offers possibilities of prediciton of events. The closest you will get to that, is likely behaviourism with the strengths and weaknesses that follows from strictly behavioural studies. But I dont think that's what you're really about.

I think you are taking a philosophical approach (which is kinda inevitable when talking of vague, immaterial concepts like morality), but want to be informed by science while doing so. This is what any philosopher worth his robe does, and hence it is better described as philosophy.

You can gain knowledge without it being science, you know.

Peace
Dan