Science Can Answer Moral Questions.

[chefranden]

http://www.wimp.com/moralquestions/

[The-Captain]

Interesting lecture. He may be on to something there, hope to see further developments.

[Franko47]

Coincidentally, I was just watching this last week (I often peruse the TED lectures)

 

 

A few years ago I would have balked at the concept, but really what Sam is saying gets back to my original premise: morality and ethics should have some kind of rational basis where it can be shown that such a thing either benefits or is detrimental to human well-being, safety, and progress.

 

By now in our era I think that a strong case can be made through empirical analysis that many of our ideas that we now accept meet this criteria. However, it is a tricky sense of idealism, since science and the scientific method aren't traditionally thought of as methods of establishing subjective human values. I think, however, if one watches Sam's lecture here, that he makes some strong points about how that might be changing.

[Shyone]

Coincidentally, I was just watching this last week (I often peruse the TED lectures)

 

 

A few years ago I would have balked at the concept, but really what Sam is saying gets back to my original premise: morality and ethics should have some kind of rational basis where it can be shown that such a thing either benefits or is detrimental to human well-being, safety, and progress.

 

By now in our era I think that a strong case can be made through empirical analysis that many of our ideas that we now accept meet this criteria. However, it is a tricky sense of idealism, since science and the scientific method aren't traditionally thought of as methods of establishing subjective human values. I think, however, if one watches Sam's lecture here, that he makes some strong points about how that might be changing.

What if we extend such concepts to their logical conclusions?

 

Why do we wear clothing? Perhaps protection from the elements, perhaps style, perhaps comfort, but also, as can be demonstrated by the reaction to nudity in public, we can say that it is a reflection of something deeper than superficial needs in all circumstances. Harris' example of the use of the burka because male lust cannot be trusted is just the extreme of a continuum of our fear of our own lust and the temptations provided by nudity. If the consequences of not wearing a burka in Afghanistan are rather severe, so are the consequences of not wearing any clothing in the United States.

 

IOW, I think that he is a bit myopic in his views. He thinks certain fashions are ok, but some clothing (perhaps even more than bikinis) is necessary for the same reasons that the Taliban uses to justify the wearing of the burka.

 

We don't have the freedom to go out into public nude. We would be subjected to the same types of actions, including involuntary confinement, for not wearing clothing.

 

I'm not even advocating nudity, but I think that we need to remove the beam from our own eyes before we try to remove the mote in our neighbor's eye.

 

So we can see the nekkid bodies better.

[oddbird1963]

I think the key is for science and skepticism to continually inject science and reason into conversations about morality. Moral traditionalists, whether they are theist or not, will say things to defend their moral system that can be tested in the real world.

 

When they makes such statements, hard science, psychology, sociology and deliberative attention to the matter will either support or refute the claims that are made based on tradition.

 

The more skeptical voices that are raised, the more likely opinions will be to shift.

 

I don't think there can be one pristine universal morality. But I think any given moral system should be able to stand up under the scrutiny of

1) What makes you think that is true?

2) Science has proven X. Studies show "Y." So how can you still maintain "Z?"

[The-Captain]

Really though his position sounds a bit like Kant repackaged and a little less rigid.