Science can answer moral questions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn3ITqtGzQ8)
It's from 2010 but it's the first time I've personally heard this idea.
Seem to make a lot of sense? Check.
Complete opposite of "conventional wisdom"? Check
Worth exploring? I reckon so.
Rebuttals on a postcard...
Hmm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris_(author)#Criticism
One name stands out in that section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Atran
Cain may also be familiar with this chap, but as far as I'm aware he does pretty solid work. There's just something about this Harris chap that's setting off alarm bells. I'll have to dig into him more.
He certainly seems to have a religious bug in his ass. Islam in particular. To an extent I can relate. I struggle with trying to think of religion for any period of time without the words "fucking retarded, just gas the lot of them" appearing in my train of thought (FTR: this is a personal issue I have, that I'm fully aware of - not a position I'm trying to defend) but there does seem, to me at least, be the seed of an idea here that risks being thrown out with the bathwater if we dismiss him on the grounds of his political opinions.
I'd quite agree, I get get an instinctive whiff of "paid for opinion" from this guy and I can't figure out why. Yet.
Thoughts on the actual video shortly.
He comes across, to me, as a bit of a dick. Definitely drinking the "axis of evil" koolaid. So for clarification purposes - this is the point I fund interesting
QuoteFor those unfamiliar with my book, here is my argument in brief: Morality and values depend on the existence of conscious minds -- and specifically on the fact that such minds can experience various forms of well-being and suffering in this universe. Conscious minds and their states are natural phenomena, of course, fully constrained by the laws of Nature (whatever these turn out to be in the end). Therefore, there must be right and wrong answers to questions of morality and values that potentially fall within the purview of science. On this view, some people and cultures will be right (to a greater or lesser degree), and some will be wrong, with respect to what they deem important in life.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-response-to-critics_b_815742.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-response-to-critics_b_815742.html)
All the rest is of little or no interest to me. Imagine I wanted to talk about the MPG fuel efficiency of a VW - how much of a dick Hitler was has no real real bearing on this.
QuoteConscious minds and their states are natural phenomena, of course, fully constrained by the laws of Nature (whatever these turn out to be in the end).
Therefore, there must be right and wrong answers to questions of morality and values that potentially fall within the purview of science.
I can't put my finger on it, but there seems to be some sort of leap taking place between these two sentences. Something something Laws of Nature describe the movement of incredibly small fields of energy something something random probability something decoherence something something perceived reality something aneristic illusion.
Yeah, totally. He kind of covers this, without attempting to answer the question by examining extreme ends of the spectrum.
Quote from: Thomas Nagels critiqueEven if this is an exaggeration, Harris has identified a real problem, rooted in the idea that facts are objective and values are subjective. Harris rejects this facile opposition in the only way it can be rejected -- by pointing to evaluative truths so obvious that they need no defense. For example, a world in which everyone was maximally miserable would be worse than a world in which everyone was happy, and it would be wrong to try to move us toward the first world and away from the second. This is not true by definition, but it is obvious, just as it is obvious that elephants are larger than mice. If someone denied the truth of either of those propositions, we would have no reason to take him seriously...
Like yourself, I'm not totally convinced here but I am prepared to play devils advocate for the purposes of exploring this idea
seems relevant to put this here: utilitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism)
LessWrong Has an entire Sequence on Metaethics (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Metaethics_sequence). There's a lot of stuff there, but I have a feeling it may have a better answer than "Because Science!"
Theory of mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind) comes into play here.
Any scientific study of ethics needs to start there.
Right, watched it again.
There's a lot that can be agreed with and it's not particularly challenging stuff in the most part. Utilitarianism. Wheeee. Never seems to go near the extreme end of this though which is a shame. Monty Python had some excellent ideas about how a totally utilitarian society would play out.
What's concerning me here more, is the sudden and extreme examples given with Islam. There's a couple of very jarring, very sweeping statements quickly followed with a joke to move it along. There's something about that and it seems to be some kind of trend with "famous" atheists in general. If i recall correctly, Dawkins had a bit of thing about Muslims more than once. This however, is a totally different thread altogether and I doubt anyone's interested.
Yeah I hear ya - the islam stuff is obviously buying into that post 911 propaganda assault that the christian right started pushing with a vengence. Islam is no worse than christianity in terms of encouraging extremism, both instruction manuals have sections on how to treat your fellow man despicably, kill 'em, rape 'em, drive stakes through their nutsacks and all the rest so singling out one in particular as being worse than the other is fucking tunnel vision but there's something there, under the - one form of idiocy is a lot worse than the other - rhetoric...
as I said before - don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just cos he derailed his own talk with pet rant, doesn't negate the part that made a lot of fucking sense, does it?
Quote from: Junkenstein on May 02, 2014, 08:52:57 PM
Right, watched it again.
There's a lot that can be agreed with and it's not particularly challenging stuff in the most part. Utilitarianism. Wheeee. Never seems to go near the extreme end of this though which is a shame. Monty Python had some excellent ideas about how a totally utilitarian society would play out.
What's concerning me here more, is the sudden and extreme examples given with Islam. There's a couple of very jarring, very sweeping statements quickly followed with a joke to move it along. There's something about that and it seems to be some kind of trend with "famous" atheists in general. If i recall correctly, Dawkins had a bit of thing about Muslims more than once. This however, is a totally different thread altogether and I doubt anyone's interested.
Harris is a bird of a feather with Dawkins and Hitchens, and is rather famous for two things in addition to his books on atheism: One, making bold statements about morality being hardwired into us without providing anything approaching scientific justification of this hypothesis, and two, his infamous statement about how if he could wave a magic wand and eliminate rape or religion, he would choose religion in a heartbeat.
Quote from: All-Father Nigel on May 03, 2014, 12:04:12 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on May 02, 2014, 08:52:57 PM
Right, watched it again.
There's a lot that can be agreed with and it's not particularly challenging stuff in the most part. Utilitarianism. Wheeee. Never seems to go near the extreme end of this though which is a shame. Monty Python had some excellent ideas about how a totally utilitarian society would play out.
What's concerning me here more, is the sudden and extreme examples given with Islam. There's a couple of very jarring, very sweeping statements quickly followed with a joke to move it along. There's something about that and it seems to be some kind of trend with "famous" atheists in general. If i recall correctly, Dawkins had a bit of thing about Muslims more than once. This however, is a totally different thread altogether and I doubt anyone's interested.
Harris is a bird of a feather with Dawkins and Hitchens, and is rather famous for two things in addition to his books on atheism: One, making bold statements about morality being hardwired into us without providing anything approaching scientific justification of this hypothesis, and two, his infamous statement about how if he could wave a magic wand and eliminate rape or religion, he would choose religion in a heartbeat.
Rape, or Religion? He chooses Religion? This assbag made my top 10 asshats I need to run over with a car.
Quote from: All father, Bearman on May 03, 2014, 01:13:01 AM
Quote from: All-Father Nigel on May 03, 2014, 12:04:12 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on May 02, 2014, 08:52:57 PM
Right, watched it again.
There's a lot that can be agreed with and it's not particularly challenging stuff in the most part. Utilitarianism. Wheeee. Never seems to go near the extreme end of this though which is a shame. Monty Python had some excellent ideas about how a totally utilitarian society would play out.
What's concerning me here more, is the sudden and extreme examples given with Islam. There's a couple of very jarring, very sweeping statements quickly followed with a joke to move it along. There's something about that and it seems to be some kind of trend with "famous" atheists in general. If i recall correctly, Dawkins had a bit of thing about Muslims more than once. This however, is a totally different thread altogether and I doubt anyone's interested.
Harris is a bird of a feather with Dawkins and Hitchens, and is rather famous for two things in addition to his books on atheism: One, making bold statements about morality being hardwired into us without providing anything approaching scientific justification of this hypothesis, and two, his infamous statement about how if he could wave a magic wand and eliminate rape or religion, he would choose religion in a heartbeat.
Rape, or Religion? He chooses Religion? This assbag made my top 10 asshats I need to run over with a car.
Yeah, he's a bit of a joke. Probably had a few good thoughts at one point in time, and then rode that out to a premature but inevitable obsolescence in Old White Sexist Racist Man Land.
So the ideas died with his credibility then?
:facepalm:
I think there is a fundamental disconnect with the idea he is proposing, but I also can't quite place my finger on it. Here's what came to mind first:
"Science" is concerned with replicating phenomena and measuring them in order to be able to predict future phenomena that fall in the classes & behaviour studied. "Science" falls down when it encounters evidence of non-replicable phenomena, such as God or other flavors of the "supernatural". That's of course, very abstracted, and so loses a lot of the context of individual branches of science. Even the social 'soft' sciences heavily use controlled replication ("closed systems") to get datapoints about the open systems that they study. This is used to build a model of reality.
Now, Harris is proposing that because Mathematical Science says 2+2 only has "one right answer", then the questions of morality have "a right answer" and "many wrong answers". Because science gives you "the" right answer.
Science doesn't give you "the right answer", but it does give "models that have degrees of predictive ability" (see above).
Harris seems hung up on Right and Wrong, which is just like being hung up on Virtue and Sin.
Some moral claims are empirical matters of testability.
For a common example, isn't this the basis for medical malpractice suits?
Quote from: Net (+ 1 Hidden) on May 04, 2014, 12:14:48 AM
Some moral claims are empirical matters of testability.
For a common example, isn't this the basis for medical malpractice suits?
Typically matters of medical ethics, rather than morals.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 03, 2014, 06:30:28 AM
So the ideas died with his credibility then?
:facepalm:
No, did you read #1? Or just disregard it because #2 is more sensational?
Quote from: Telarus on May 03, 2014, 04:08:04 PM
I think there is a fundamental disconnect with the idea he is proposing, but I also can't quite place my finger on it. Here's what came to mind first:
"Science" is concerned with replicating phenomena and measuring them in order to be able to predict future phenomena that fall in the classes & behaviour studied. "Science" falls down when it encounters evidence of non-replicable phenomena, such as God or other flavors of the "supernatural". That's of course, very abstracted, and so loses a lot of the context of individual branches of science. Even the social 'soft' sciences heavily use controlled replication ("closed systems") to get datapoints about the open systems that they study. This is used to build a model of reality.
Now, Harris is proposing that because Mathematical Science says 2+2 only has "one right answer", then the questions of morality have "a right answer" and "many wrong answers". Because science gives you "the" right answer.
Science doesn't give you "the right answer", but it does give "models that have degrees of predictive ability" (see above).
Harris seems hung up on Right and Wrong, which is just like being hung up on Virtue and Sin.
Harris is one of those scientists who has gotten bogged down in a set of ideas that he wants so badly to work that his desire to shoehorn them into functionality has blinded him to rational assessment of his darlings.
I've found that the question: Should Kenny G be executed? is a decent test of any moral or ethical decision making algorithm
interesting side note:
in self checking my understanding of the difference between ethics and morals, I checked out this site (http://www.diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals)
here, I learned that ethics is externally driven by societal standards and morals are an individual/internal belief system.
The funny thing is that the word "ethics" comes from the greek "ethos" which means "character" (internal, right?) while the word "morals" comes from the latin "mos" which means "custom" (external, right?)
no wonder we're all so confused
Quote from: All-Father Nigel on May 03, 2014, 12:04:12 AM
Harris is a bird of a feather with Dawkins and Hitchens, and is rather famous for two things in addition to his books on atheism: One, making bold statements about morality being hardwired into us without providing anything approaching scientific justification of this hypothesis, and two, his infamous statement about how if he could wave a magic wand and eliminate rape or religion, he would choose religion in a heartbeat.
And the third thing he is famous for is his admonishment to nuke Iran as quickly as possible. Before they nuke us, with those nukes they've been one year away from building for the last 20 years.
Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens, for all their supposed atheism, were quite keen to let themselves be used in a religious/civilizational dispute between Euro-American Christianity and Islam.
I can't say I'm surprised to see Harris thinks morality can be discovered by science. It's sad that someone who is described as a neuroscientist and philosopher seems to have such a poor grasp of both fields of study. He should ask for his money back from Stanford and UCLA.
Quote from: Cain on May 04, 2014, 02:40:55 PM
Quote from: All-Father Nigel on May 03, 2014, 12:04:12 AM
Harris is a bird of a feather with Dawkins and Hitchens, and is rather famous for two things in addition to his books on atheism: One, making bold statements about morality being hardwired into us without providing anything approaching scientific justification of this hypothesis, and two, his infamous statement about how if he could wave a magic wand and eliminate rape or religion, he would choose religion in a heartbeat.
And the third thing he is famous for is his admonishment to nuke Iran as quickly as possible. Before they nuke us, with those nukes they've been one year away from building for the last 20 years.
Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens, for all their supposed atheism, were quite keen to let themselves be used in a religious/civilizational dispute between Euro-American Christianity and Islam.
I can't say I'm surprised to see Harris thinks morality can be discovered by science. It's sad that someone who is described as a neuroscientist and philosopher seems to have such a poor grasp of both fields of study. He should ask for his money back from Stanford and UCLA.
You know who else is a PhD neuroscientist and philosopher from UCLA? Mayim Bialik, the girl from TV series "Blossom" who doesn't believe in vaccination.
It kind of makes me wonder WTF they're teaching down there.
It must be a really cheap program, I'm thinking. A really, really cheap program.
Quote from: Cain on May 05, 2014, 07:46:50 AM
It must be a really cheap program, I'm thinking. A really, really cheap program.
Hmmm, the other UC campuses have a decent reputation. I'll have to look into it.
I tried, but I'm unfamiliar enough with the US system that I quickly got lost among a series of, it seems, rather imprecise, ratings sites.
The philisophical argument - Can morality be divided into that which, for all intents and purposes, be considered absolute and that which cannot?
If so, the scientific question arises - can this be measured, can it be quantified?
The rest of the presentation was a primate, on stage, making ook noises. Srsly.
I remember debating the first question in my A level religious philosophy class.
As a bunch of teenagers, we concluded it was impossible to find an objective measure of morality in nature or human custom, except that of "do not betray the group". Which is a pretty poor basis for a universal moral system.
I can definitively prove that morality is not absolute.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2014, 04:35:21 PM
I can definitively prove that morality is not absolute.
Bring it, Rev.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on May 06, 2014, 04:48:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2014, 04:35:21 PM
I can definitively prove that morality is not absolute.
Bring it, Rev.
John knows his brakes are bad. A kid runs out in front of him and he is unable to stop. The kid dies. This is, morally-speaking, manslaughter (legally speaking, too, if it can be proven).
Dan knows his brakes are bad. He hasn't hit anyone. Is Dan guilty of attempted murder?
Hold on. Manslaughter is technically not murder. And as far as I know, there's no such thing as Attempted Manslaughter.
There's also state of mind -- if John doesn't fix his brakes because he wants to run over a kid and have culpability, then that's malice aforethought. The intent matters.
Of course, this is from a legal standpoint. But I think from a moral standpoint, intent also matters.
OK, I'm missing something. What am I missing?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on May 06, 2014, 05:24:15 PM
Hold on. Manslaughter is technically not murder. And as far as I know, there's no such thing as Attempted Manslaughter.
There's also state of mind -- if John doesn't fix his brakes because he wants to run over a kid and have culpability, then that's malice aforethought. The intent matters.
Of course, this is from a legal standpoint. But I think from a moral standpoint, intent also matters.
OK, I'm missing something. What am I missing?
Technicalities aside (call Dan's case reckless endangerment if you will), the only difference between John and Dan is luck.
Intent doesn't make a difference?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on May 06, 2014, 05:31:47 PM
Intent doesn't make a difference?
Neither John nor Dan had intent to harm anyone. No intent is required for behavior to be moral or immoral.
And your luck has no bearing on your intent.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2014, 05:36:55 PM
No intent is required for behavior to be moral or immoral.
Ok, this is the part I'm not getting.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on May 06, 2014, 05:45:58 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on May 06, 2014, 05:36:55 PM
No intent is required for behavior to be moral or immoral.
Ok, this is the part I'm not getting.
I think I see what Roger's getting at. Behaviour in and of itself is neither moral or immoral. Choosing to drive around with bad brakes doesn't make you a bad person, just a dumb one. Once you start equating the two prisons fill up quite quickly.
Feel free to correct me if I'm on the wrong tack here.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 06, 2014, 04:27:46 PM
The philisophical argument - Can morality be divided into that which, for all intents and purposes, be considered absolute and that which cannot?
If so, the scientific question arises - can this be measured, can it be quantified?
The rest of the presentation was a primate, on stage, making ook noises. Srsly.
I mentioned this before but I wasn't joking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XhSfv3Kc7Q
Monty Python show the logical end result of Utilitarianism. Absolute morals inevitably end up as something quite horrible. I've got other stuff in my head about Punishment being something of an issue as there will always be those that breach any moral code and how you deal with them really demonstrates a lot about your society.
I understand that, in the broader sense, there is no morality beyond our own invention. I'm not one of those - higher supernatural authority - types but, for the purposes of convention or consensus, is there really no fundamental difference between saving a life and genocide?
How broad do you want to go? In the cosmic scheme of things it hardly matters whether I say hello to my neighbors or shove them in a camp.
That leaves your day to day morality governed by your peers and culture to a large extent.
Ok, I need to take into account the use of the word "absolute".
It's easily shown to be contradictory when limiting it to physical actions, but I suppose even when you take all of reality into account (including intent, context, etc), even when you get the line to be razor thin, you'll always have come across something that can't be divided cleanly into right and wrong.
Yeah, the problems really start when you notice that razor thin line is where everyone fucking lives.
I guess you're all right and I'm done even thinking about this bullshit. It's too depressing. As a species, we probably never will reach any non localised consensus on what it means to be a decent human being.
Thanks for the input. Needed to thrash that shit out.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 06, 2014, 09:18:57 PM
I guess you're all right and I'm done even thinking about this bullshit. It's too depressing. As a species, we probably never will reach any non localised consensus on what it means to be a decent human being.
Thanks for the input. Needed to thrash that shit out.
I suggest you're looking at this from the wrong angle. Consider what the world could be with an understanding that you can be a decent human in a context that looks nothing like your own.
Just because there are no absolutes doesn't mean the consideration of morality is a meaningless pursuit. It just means there are no pat answers or convenient universal codes.
^^ This.^^
Lack of an absolute morality does not mean the absence of all morality.
It does, however, make it optional
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on May 07, 2014, 12:10:02 PM
Lack of an absolute morality does not mean the absence of all morality.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 07, 2014, 12:15:56 PM
It does, however, make it optional
I don't follow
Me - I don't believe in good or evil in any objective sense, but that's not an excuse... Just that my personal sense of morality isn't based on absolutes and religious baggage.
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8v0lbq9Uw1rp26cno1_500.gif)
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 07, 2014, 12:15:56 PM
It does, however, make it optional
In the same way adhering to social norms is always "optional"; you CAN go to the library without any pants on, if you want to. But society only functions because of those social norms, which we are conditioned to from birth. This is not a bad thing; as Dr. Bruce Perry says, the smallest functional biological unit of humankind is not the individual, it is the clan. People who violate social norms consistently or to an extreme degree are considered antisocial, a threat to the well-being of the rest of the community, and rightly so.
Quote from: All-Father Nigel on May 07, 2014, 03:18:09 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 07, 2014, 12:15:56 PM
It does, however, make it optional
In the same way adhering to social norms is always "optional"; you CAN go to the library without any pants on, if you want to. But society only functions because of those social norms, which we are conditioned to from birth. This is not a bad thing; as Dr. Bruce Perry says, the smallest functional biological unit of humankind is not the individual, it is the clan. People who violate social norms consistently or to an extreme degree are considered antisocial, a threat to the well-being of the rest of the community, and rightly so.
This works just fine in an intimate, monkeysphere-friendy clan size. What we see with extended clans is the immoral, quite easily, assuming control of the clan, dictating morality whilst remaining, to a greater or lesser degree, immune.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 07, 2014, 03:22:22 PM
Quote from: All-Father Nigel on May 07, 2014, 03:18:09 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 07, 2014, 12:15:56 PM
It does, however, make it optional
In the same way adhering to social norms is always "optional"; you CAN go to the library without any pants on, if you want to. But society only functions because of those social norms, which we are conditioned to from birth. This is not a bad thing; as Dr. Bruce Perry says, the smallest functional biological unit of humankind is not the individual, it is the clan. People who violate social norms consistently or to an extreme degree are considered antisocial, a threat to the well-being of the rest of the community, and rightly so.
This works just fine in an intimate, monkeysphere-friendy clan size. What we see with extended clans is the immoral, quite easily, assuming control of the clan, dictating morality whilst remaining, to a greater or lesser degree, immune.
How are you defining immoral?
And control?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 07, 2014, 12:15:56 PM
It does, however, make it optional
I don't see how that follows.
Quote from: All-Father Nigel on May 07, 2014, 03:27:16 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 07, 2014, 03:22:22 PM
Quote from: All-Father Nigel on May 07, 2014, 03:18:09 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 07, 2014, 12:15:56 PM
It does, however, make it optional
In the same way adhering to social norms is always "optional"; you CAN go to the library without any pants on, if you want to. But society only functions because of those social norms, which we are conditioned to from birth. This is not a bad thing; as Dr. Bruce Perry says, the smallest functional biological unit of humankind is not the individual, it is the clan. People who violate social norms consistently or to an extreme degree are considered antisocial, a threat to the well-being of the rest of the community, and rightly so.
This works just fine in an intimate, monkeysphere-friendy clan size. What we see with extended clans is the immoral, quite easily, assuming control of the clan, dictating morality whilst remaining, to a greater or lesser degree, immune.
How are you defining immoral?
Don't kill people? Killing people is wrong. Unless you control society, then there's lots of good reasons for killing people, even sending those you control to lay down their own lives to make this happen.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 07, 2014, 10:06:22 PM
Quote from: All-Father Nigel on May 07, 2014, 03:27:16 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 07, 2014, 03:22:22 PM
Quote from: All-Father Nigel on May 07, 2014, 03:18:09 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 07, 2014, 12:15:56 PM
It does, however, make it optional
In the same way adhering to social norms is always "optional"; you CAN go to the library without any pants on, if you want to. But society only functions because of those social norms, which we are conditioned to from birth. This is not a bad thing; as Dr. Bruce Perry says, the smallest functional biological unit of humankind is not the individual, it is the clan. People who violate social norms consistently or to an extreme degree are considered antisocial, a threat to the well-being of the rest of the community, and rightly so.
This works just fine in an intimate, monkeysphere-friendy clan size. What we see with extended clans is the immoral, quite easily, assuming control of the clan, dictating morality whilst remaining, to a greater or lesser degree, immune.
How are you defining immoral?
Don't kill people? Killing people is wrong. Unless you control society, then there's lots of good reasons for killing people, even sending those you control to lay down their own lives to make this happen.
Is killing people always immoral? And you haven't answered the question "how do you define immoral?", you have only proposed a rule of morality.
Well it turns out its impossible. So it's basically a question of personal preference.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 08, 2014, 08:50:45 AM
Well it turns out its impossible. So it's basically a question of personal preference.
More like a question of consensus.
It can't be consensus. Consensus is scientifically measurable. Science can't measure morality, remember? :?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 08, 2014, 02:39:37 PM
It can't be consensus. Consensus is scientifically measurable. Science can't measure morality, remember? :?
According to the "logic" you seem to be using, science also can't study societies, and neither sociology nor anthropology exist as disciplines because there are no biologically predetermined social or anthropological absolutes.
So, where are you going with this, exactly? You seem to have your head deeply wedged in some false premise in which either morality is hardwired and scientifically absolute, or it doesn't exist.
I would like at this juncture like to suggest that if you are actually interested in this subject, you read a book or two. I'd love to suggest Sapolsky, as usual, for a biological perspective (he has some good essays in Monkeyluv), and I'm sure others have suggestions as well.
You seem to be stuck somewhere, I'm not sure where you're stuck.
There are, as I've said before (maybe in Twid's biology thread) reasons to believe that empathy is natural and inborn, and therefore that a sense of ethical domain is inherent, but morals are the social structure that is imposed on the sense of ethical domain. It is, as TGRR said, a matter of social consensus, and therefore observable, but like other matters of social consensus it is not consistent from culture to culture.
Could we draw comparisons to language?
There's no universal language (that's been proven), but there is a universal desire and ability to communicate. And many languages share common elements, yet are distinct.
Just talking off the top of my head, here.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 08, 2014, 02:39:37 PM
It can't be consensus. Consensus is scientifically measurable. Science can't measure morality, remember? :?
Never mind.
Consider: for Catholics, it is immoral for priests to marry.
For Jews, it is immoral for priests NOT to marry.
For Americans, it is immoral for grown men to be fellated by adolescent boys. Among the Sambia, it is a moral imperative for adolescent boys to fellate warriors and swallow as much semen as they can in order to become men.
Look no further than the different ways different cultures view women or homosexuality, and build intense moral structures around them. There are immeasurable examples of conflicts in what is considered moral. Is polygamy moral? Is monogamy moral? Is it moral for a woman to have sex before marriage, or a job, or an education? Cultures create these moral strictures to meet some need they have in their environment at the time, and then often they follow them lang past the stage of utility. They are all observable, and measurable, and a social scientist (there's a reason these guys are in a different category than "hard" sciences, remember, no matter how hard people like Sapolsky and Caccioppo try to blur the line) can even see the conflicts that occur within a society when there is a disagreement about morality, for example with the issue of whether abortion is moral.
So when you have people like Sam Harris saying "morality is biologically inherent and provable by science", I think it's not an unreasonable response to take a step back and say "Well... how are you defining morality?" because the evidence that we actually have (and remember, science is based on evidence) is that empathy and the perception of an ethical domain are inherent in individuals to varying degrees of strength, morals, the form that ethical domain takes within a society, are socially determined.
I wouldn't exactly say I'm "stuck" anywhere, other than chewing some new shit over in my head. "Stuck" implies I can't get out. All I gotta do is stop thinking about it. Morality aint something that occupies much of my waking attention normally. I'm generally much more interested in circuitry and software than why there are certain prejudices inherent in the software but the idea that you might be able to measure them or choose an optimal set to facilitate a given condition struck me as interesting.
I'm not even making an argument here, merely questioning this whole notion of morals and ethics.