NaturalMary63 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Has anyone else read Practical Ethics by Peter Singer? Or the Moral Landscape by Sam Harris? I have two research papers to do, both of which will use these as references and argue that ethics can be determined by an understanding of science. One paper specifically deals with faith healing and avoiding medical help for religious reasons and whether the state should intervene on the behalf of the child. The other paper is more generally giving an overview of the science/ethics stance as it stands now. I am hoping that some of you who are more familiar with the traditional Christian arguments against that stance can help me by listing some of them, so I can better counter them in my papers. Thanks, Mary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I've actually thought about this before and even spoken with people about it. I am somewhat skeptical about the possibility of science as a foundation for ethics. I don't know though. It seems to me that ethics has an inescapable concern with normative language or 'should' and 'ought' statements. Science is primarily concerned with nature as it is. The philosopher Hume brought attention to a divide between is and ought by asserting that an ought statement cannot be derived from any number of is statements. I'm not sure though. In biology we can hope to someday establish an objective measure of health and well-being for organisms. If this is the case, then perhaps we can hope to be able to say things like... "If organism X is to have greater health and well-being then action Y ought to be taken." Or perhaps biology will come to understand symbiosis with greater clarity, and this could provide an objective basis for ethical behavior. I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 So you're looking for the christian stance? Hmm. Well, my biological mother believed that her rights as a parent, as dictated by the bible, far outweighed my rights as a child, and also the rights the government gave me as a child. So my sister and I were physically abused, but my mother did not consider it abuse, merely discipline as instructed by the bible. When I was taken away as a teenager (my sister was too old for intervention by that stage), my biological mother was furious, going on and on about how the state had no right to interfere in her parenting. When I did leave home, my mother refused to let me have any clothes for four days, because she believed that the harder she made it for me, the sooner I'd come home. That was a part of her mindset of discipline as laid out in the bible (you know, hand the sinners in the church over to the world so they will repent). On the subject of healing, one of the reasons my biological mother and I have no contact is that she will not accept that I have bipolar. She is still convinced that god will heal me. He won't. While your focus is on when the state should intervene on behalf of a child, I think it may be a good idea to look into when the state should intervene on the behalf of a mentally ill adult, whom has a religious family member as a carer, particularly if the family member/s believe that the mental illness is a result of demon possession, and believe in faith healing. I know that, if I became seriously unwell, and my biological mother managed to wrangle being my carer, that I would be denied access to my medication. So I need to get a living will in place, to ensure that this never can happen, and that she has no say in the matter. Demon possession is a big one. I personally believe that the state should intervene whenever a carer/guardian professes a belief in demon possession for any illness. I'm not sure how much help that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 You might want to look into Richard Dawkins, too. In his docos, The Root Of All Evil?, and Faith School Menace, he talks about the rights of the child to choose their own religious beliefs. Faith School Menace: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/richard-dawkins-faith-school-menace/ Root Of All Evil?: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-root-of-all-evil/ Also, the Enemies of Reason might be of interest, about the public's scepticism of science and medicine: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/enemies-reason/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackpudd1n Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Also, this may be helpful to you: it is a debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig, the topic being Is Good from God? I thought it might be of interest, as you are already refernecing Harris, and Craig is a big-shot apologist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VacuumFlux Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I am hoping that some of you who are more familiar with the traditional Christian arguments against that stance can help me by listing some of them, so I can better counter them in my papers. I am somewhat skeptical about the possibility of science as a foundation for ethics... It seems to me that ethics has an inescapable concern with normative language or 'should' and 'ought' statements. Science is primarily concerned with nature as it is... I'm not sure though. In biology we can hope to someday establish an objective measure of health and well-being for organisms. If this is the case, then perhaps we can hope to be able to say things like... "If organism X is to have greater health and well-being then action Y ought to be taken." My biggest shift from Christian ethics to science based ethics was that as a Christian, I believed that certain things are Right and Moral and consequences be damned. You can tell all the sob stories you want about how christian morals hurt people and many christians don't care, because morality is not about what is best for humans. It's about following some rules that are bigger than humanity. That's why many fundies care more about parents' rights than the wellbeing of children; sure it might suck for the kids, but it's not Right to take power away from parents so the horror the kids go through is irrelevant to the moral questions. And any kid who acts up because their parents are abusive is immoral and totally in the wrong because children are supposed to obey their parents. My science based, pragmatic ethics (which I'm still working on) are all about answering the questions "What actions work out best for humans?" Now, of course, the really sticky point there is defining "best", and I really don't buy the "greatest good for the greatest number" type of ethics because the edge cases are just so offensive. But it's much more of "the ends justify the means" type thinking (although not entirely, because it's possible that some means have unethical side effects that makes them not worth the ends). So in the way that many fundamentalist christians mean the word, I do not have any morals. I certainly have an ethical system that leads me to do my best at being a "good" person, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dyanaprajna0 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 If William Lane Craig runs in any more circles, he's going to fall over and throw up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephie Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Didn't have a chance to respond to the videos but I've read that morality is a product of evolution. We evolved to be a mostly cooperative culture in order to survive. We also understood that certain things were wrong. Additionally, I read a long time ago that there are universal morals among many cultures and that one doesn't need to have religion or believe in a god to be morally upright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NaturalMary63 Posted March 22, 2012 Author Share Posted March 22, 2012 Thanks everyone for the ideas. You've given me good stuff to consider for my papers. Science-based ethics is about using the knowledge science has given us to make moral decisions. For example, taking someone off tube feeding when they are in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery, despite the reluctance to 'kill' someone because 'killing' is wrong. (like in the Terri Schiavo case) Science doesn't tell us we 'should' allow such people to die. Science allows us to see the truth about their condition, their quality of life, and what the options are. Then we can make rational moral decisions. There is of course a lot more to it and a lot more examples in the books. That was just off the top of my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skepticalme Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I'm going to say that science cannot be a foundation for morals and ethics. I say that because every ethical question begs a subjective premise. That premise is, "What is good?". Is "good" what best serves the community or the individual? Is "good" serving the less fortunate at the expense of the individual and/or the community? If you start with the premise that the good of the community is the highest good, then you can make an argument that eugenics is an ethical system. If you start with the premise that individual freedom is the highest good, then you can make an argument that eugenics is a very unethical system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts