Can Science Tell Us Right From Wrong?
Thanks to technology brought about by science, I was able to spend two hours tonight with amazing thinkers like Sam Harris, Lawrence Krauss, Peter Singer, and Steven Pinker discussing moral philosophy and science. It was such a great panel discussion! If you're interested in morality and the role of science in our understanding of ethics and philosophy, I really think you'll enjoy it.
Since losing eternity, I've been really focused on understanding my own moral framework. I've really enjoyed the books by Sam Harris I've read like The Moral Landscape and Lying as well as the books by Steven Pinker like the Blank Slate and The Better Angels of our Nature. I think they, along with the rest of the panelists, gave a great performance and valuable summary of their worldviews, perspectives, and scholarly evidence during this presentation.
I really do want to see the world improve and be part of creating a world we all want to live in. I think so much of that relies on not only a solid epistemology, but also a clear, agreed upon, approachable and rational understanding of morality and ethics. I'm currently leaning towards the Sam Harris / Lawrence Krauss camp which thinks science can tell us a whole heck of a lot about morality and ethics, though I also think Steven Pinker is a genius, and he makes some really good points about how it's a "yes and no" answer. All of our experiences from the creation of the novel to our position on Maslow's hierarchy of needs influence our understanding of morality. Science does play a huge role in helping us understand "what is" but there are many other aspects of our existence required to determine what we should do next.
One of the things I really enjoyed while watching this was the attempt to discredit the "You can't get an Ought from an Is" argument. I also liked how little Krauss (and to some degree, Harris, though he is quite a Statist) value deferring to an authority such as an ancient philosopher. I like how much they want to use the best understanding of reality as it is known today to make judgements on what should be done to improve the world.
Though I've read The Moral Landscape, I think Harris summed up his argument well with his opening statement that if we agree a worst case scenario of the lowest possible state for human wellbeing is possible, then we have to then agree there exists states of physical reality which would be preferred to this state and lead to increased wellbeing. If we can admit that, then we now have a mechanisms for science to rationally discuss what changes in physical reality might take place to lead to better outcomes along that spectrum of conscious wellbeing. Much like medical science can't perfectly define "health," science will have trouble defining universal "wellbeing" but that does not prevent it from making significant progress.
That said, I also really liked Peter Singer's argument that there are various states of mind and they are somewhat different in terms of evaluating what the world "is" and then setting goals and desired outcomes for what the world should or could be and taking appropriate action to bring about that new reality.
Hopefully you find this stuff as fascinating and as interesting as I do. If you get a chance, add this video to your watch later list at least and give it a watch eventually. These are some of the most interesting thinkers of our time (IMO) and thanks to the wonders of technology, we get to hang out with them and hear there thoughts about increasing wellbeing in the world.
I've spent quite a few years thinking through the idea of moral prescriptions, and moral judgments myself, but being quite young (only 23) I don't have much of the well-readness and experience/wisdom of those who've come before me. And as being an atheist for quite some time it's been hard to come up with a framework to explain plausible ethics. However, I have not turned to STEM fields to try and explain or reconcile what is "right or wrong", but more so ascribe it to philosophy.
Sam Harris has definitely been an inspiration for my framework, as I agree with pragmatism to an extent. But where I take it is more towards pragmatic ethics, coupled with utility ethics (not sure if this is real, but if not then I've coined a new thing...woot). You could almost say that it's a form of pragmatic utilitarianism of ethics. ;P
The debate of William Lane Craig and Sam Harris on the moral landscape completely made me lose respect for Sam Harris as an intellectual...he didnt engage any of the valid criticisms and simply attacked with red herrings who were not part of the debate in the first place....it was just shameful.
I'm not sure if I've watched that one. I've seen some other things from Craig which I wasn't impressed with either. Feelings he had while looking at a waterfall, for example, doesn't qualify as evidence for a divine omnipotent entity.
Interesting commentary on Quora:
Don't be too quick to judge Harris from this one performance. I think he has a large body of work that is very helpful for humanity for understanding morality.
Either way, the panel discussion I linked to in my post is much more balanced as far as "can science tell us right from wrong" as they have multiple perspectives from both sides of the issue. It's certainly not a theistic crowd though, so I don't think Craig supporters will appreciate the moments when the crowd cheers at comments made regarding the failures of religion concerning moral action.
You can check it out here:
His strategy was to do ad hominem without staying on point with the topic of the debate. "What is the best foundation for objective universal moral values and duties?".
The debate is NOT about if people of certain religions are more moral or not. It's a philosophical question. Communism killed about 100 million people in the 20th century and they've made religion illegal. That doesn't mean that all atheist are not capable of moral action. Saying that some religious people of the past were not moral is beside the point.
Basically, Sam Harris was coached to not engage at all. He attacked theism as the source of all evil, didn't defend the points of contention and didn't even try to bring a valid attack against how William was philosophically or logically wrong.
I was an atheist when I first saw this video and even thou I started with being on the side of Sam, I had to admit that if you look at it honestly, William destroyed the thesis of his book.
PS: and he never once tried to give an answer afterward on the attacks on his book.
Yeah, that sounds like the commentary on Quora about the debate as well.
Luke, put your faith in the prophets for they were God sent. Jesus taught right from wrong. Jesus is the gate, and the sheep may only enter the kingdom through the Sheperd. just something to think about.
Please see my losing eternity post for more context on my current theistic worldview. I worked in ministry for 6 years and was a Christian for most of my life. The concepts you are describing here are not new to me. I have "thought about" this quite a bit.
It's funny to me because I could see myself posting on someone else's wall just as you have here, back when my epistemology was based on faith. I wish you well on your journey to truth and an accurate understanding of the physical reality (as far as we're able to perceive it) you exist in.
I haven't watched the video.
No, science can't tell us right from wrong.
Because science ignores half of the universe, and thus will always lead to stupid conclusions like packing people in like sardines is good for the environment.
The word science originates from words meaning to cut apart.
Like they have separated physics from metaphysics when in reality it is one continuum.
When science (or whatever it is called in the future, after scientist realize that cutting apart disciplines was the single stupidest thing that man has ever done) starts accurately researching emotions and there effect on the person and the world around them, then they will start getting into understanding right from wrong.
i.e. A sin is something that hurts your soul
like touching a hot stove hurts your finger.
Which half is that?
I think you would enjoy the discussion here. Lots of really smart people. They do get into the definition of science as being broad verses being small. The broad understanding of science, I think, you would agree with. It is about understanding emotions, the brain, economics, politics, health, etc, etc.
Again, there are some really smart people on this panel. I think they have a lot to teach us.
Maybe I will download the video in the middle of the night.
The area they ignore is metaphysics.
They can't see it, so it doesn't exist... and by extrapolation, doesn't matter.
However, right and wrong come completely from the metaphysical side.
So, when ignored, you get really stupid results.
Lets compare nutrition.
Current science is all about calories. Science was pretty convinced that calories were all that mattered.
Along comes steel rollers, and suddenly white flour becomes cheap and abundant.
And, people started falling down in the street.
Although white flour has calories, it doesn't have any nutrition.
So, when you go to the store you see "Enriched White Flour".
There are people who are working with other spectrology equipment who are measuring nutrition values of food. Fresh burger > McDs burger.
Raw milk > pasteurized homogenized milk.
And, what they are doing is called "unscientific."
It is a similar construct about right and wrong.
What needs to be measured, science has thrown out.
A baby needs love to survive. No love/not enough love and the baby will die.
But, has science even tried to measure the levels of love?
Yes, I'd say it has:
By who? I drink raw milk, and I think there are valid, rational reasons for me to do so, though I could be wrong. Nutrition is something (like science) which is constantly improving and adjusting as our understanding of the natural world improves via our technology for measuring things. It's usually a step forward, though there are certainly steps sideways and even steps backwards. Fat used to be bad, now we know healthy fats are good and our understanding of cholesterol was incomplete, etc. It's easy for someone to get cynical about it, especially when government and lobby interests push agendas backed by bad science. Those with a longer term view, I think, view things more accurately as a progression forward. Steven Pinker's books do a good job of this, I think.
Metaphysics and health are both discussed by the panel. There are parts you will agree with and parts you won't. I think it's a balanced discussion.
As to metaphysics, to call that half the universe is odd to me. The universe is a physical thing. Metaphysics is a word created by conscious homo sapiens in an attempt to categorize concepts which make up our consciousness. Yes, it's important, but like thought, it's something we're still exploring in a physical sense. I think some day we will better understand it as the science of the mind progresses forward.
Do we know why babies need love to survive? Not that I know of, but it is likely that there is a psychological and/or biological reason. My first guess would be that it has to do with hormones that are produced when others show affection that are necessary for a child's survival.
The first google result has some interesting perspectives related to hormones, oxytocin, body heat regulation, being calm, and brain development.
I don't know. Can science tell you that I am right and everyone else is wrong?
Science gave you your lightsaber.
Your lightsaber (and force chokes) do the rest of the talking.
You are very wise.
Although, if everyone only tells you what you want to hear, you don't know what's going on. That might become a problem when you're trying to rule over people
I think Vader gets around this by just force choking more people and replacing them. Also, based one movies I've seen, he did lose in the end so his management style may not be ideal. Heheh.