Science, reason and moral questions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-04-2017, 01:50 PM
Science, reason and moral questions
Greetings friends,
Some people claim that our current understanding of science and reasoning abilities are sufficient for answering "moral" questions. I disagree with this notion because I find that cognitive heuristics often interfere in the validity of our judgement in ways we don't quite understand yet. Thus, I would not regard current science as a reasonable tool for tackling such questions. Do you agree/ disagree ? What criteria or philosophies would you use to answer such questions ? And on what basis would you choose to approach these problems that way ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Primordial's post
24-04-2017, 02:02 PM
RE: Science, reason and moral questions
Welcome to TTA.

(24-04-2017 01:50 PM)Primordial Wrote:  ...
Do you agree/ disagree ?
What criteria or philosophies would you use to answer such questions ?
And on what basis would you choose to approach these problems that way ?

I agree.

... using the 'philosophy' of Information modeling.

Morality is about biochemical baselines, thresholds and alerts that facilitate decision-making... ideally wise decisions.

Wisdom exists at the Social World Layer.

[Image: Figure-2.png]

[Image: CF-18-April-2016-3.jpg]

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
24-04-2017, 02:07 PM (This post was last modified: 24-04-2017 02:50 PM by Vera.)
RE: Science, reason and moral questions
"Some people claim" - can we have an example of some such people?

"that our current understanding of science and reasoning abilities are sufficient for answering "moral" questions" - can we have an example of a "moral" question?

Also, can we have an example of science answering a "moral" question and "philosophies" (frankly, just one philosophy is more than enough, must we have more? Dodgy ) answering them better?

Thank you for your participation.

Also, science is a method, not something that exists outside of our "understanding". That'd be the universe, actually. Which we use science to gain understanding of. See, not so difficult to grasp, is it?

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vera's post
24-04-2017, 02:12 PM (This post was last modified: 24-04-2017 03:53 PM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: Science, reason and moral questions
(24-04-2017 01:50 PM)Primordial Wrote:  Some people claim that our current understanding of science and reasoning abilities are sufficient for answering "moral" questions. I disagree with this notion because I find that cognitive heuristics often interfere in the validity of our judgement in ways we don't quite understand yet. Thus, I would not regard current science as a reasonable tool for tackling such questions. Do you agree/ disagree ? What criteria or philosophies would you use to answer such questions ? And on what basis would you choose to approach these problems that way ?

Science proved cigarettes cause cancer, so it's no longer considered good behavior to smoke in crowded rooms.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thoreauvian's post
24-04-2017, 02:42 PM
RE: Science, reason and moral questions
(24-04-2017 01:50 PM)Primordial Wrote:  Some people claim that our current understanding of science and reasoning abilities are sufficient for answering "moral" questions.

Sufficient enough to know that "moral" questions are just so much horseshit. That's pre-ubermenchian thinking there.

(24-04-2017 01:50 PM)Primordial Wrote:  I disagree with this notion because I find that cognitive heuristics often interfere in the validity of our judgement in ways we don't quite understand yet.

Yes, they do. Not sure why you think that's an objection to your first point. "Morality" is just another cognitive heuristic.

(24-04-2017 01:50 PM)Primordial Wrote:  Thus, I would not regard current science as a reasonable tool for tackling such questions.

Science dares not speak of such things.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2017, 02:43 PM
RE: Science, reason and moral questions
(24-04-2017 02:02 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Morality is about biochemical baselines, thresholds and alerts that facilitate decision-making... ideally wise decisions.

Yup. A cognitive heuristic. Thumbsup

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
24-04-2017, 02:47 PM
RE: Science, reason and moral questions
(24-04-2017 02:02 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Welcome to TTA.

I like that chart. Can you give me a reference? Looks like a knowledge & information engineering taxonomy.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2017, 02:48 PM
RE: Science, reason and moral questions
(24-04-2017 01:50 PM)Primordial Wrote:  Some people claim that our current understanding of science and reasoning abilities are sufficient for answering "moral" questions.

What is the alternative?

(24-04-2017 01:50 PM)Primordial Wrote:  I disagree with this notion because I find that cognitive heuristics often interfere in the validity of our judgement in ways we don't quite understand yet.

What is the alternative?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
24-04-2017, 04:27 PM
RE: Science, reason and moral questions
Anyone can answer a moral question. The meta-question is whether there is a correct answer. I'd say no.

Science can help us match outcomes to intentions. It gives us more information to work with. But in my opinion, it can never pick the "correct" way to value things, because such a notion is incoherent. Value is subjective, and without it, morality is meaningless.

I did a video about this a little while ago, for those of you who aren't totally sick of me by now Tongue




I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-04-2017, 04:32 PM
RE: Science, reason and moral questions
Morals = the all important, all encompassing, ridgidly enforced behavioral codes - that we make up on the fly, whenever it suits us.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: