Can Science answer moral questions?

[SweetSpot086]

Sam Harris is a determinist, as he argues in his book "Freewill"...I don't have much of an opinion on this matter...I don't know what to believe at this moment...there is not much evidence.

But, in his book "The Moral Landscape" he argues science can answer moral questions. Somethings, are scientifically morally right and somethings are wrong. I personally believe there is no right or wrong...humans made that up as they evolve and it keeps changing...

My question is what difference does it make? If we have no free-will...If given the option between right or wrong...we have no choice...so, why even bother? Am I misunderstanding anything...

 

[Werewolf.]

I am religious, so I will answer this from a religious perspective, do keep that in mind. See, you do have free will. You get to make a choice. You can make the right choice and be rewarded for it someday or you can make the wrong choice and be punished for it someday. In the end, you chose. And the choices you have made so far, the choices you are going to make and your ultimate fate: this is all knowledge that God possesses. That's the easiest answer I can give you.

 

[SweetSpot086]

I am religious, so I will answer this from a religious perspective, do keep that in mind. See, you do have free will. You get to make a choice. You can make the right choice and be rewarded for it someday or you can make the wrong choice and be punished for it someday. In the end, you chose. And the choices you have made so far, the choices you are going to make and your ultimate fate: this is all knowledge that God possesses. That's the easiest answer I can give you.

So, what does your God say about suicide?

 

[stygal]

Isnt it more of a theory, determinism?
How would one be 100 percent sure if one had or hadn't freewill?
I would say it comes down to what you believe in...

But the second part that you talked about whether or not "good" or "evil" things exist and that morals keep on changing is something I'd agree with. (Even though there is some kind of baseline that I think everyone would agree on and most likely never overstep: killing a toddler or something)

Again, it's up to the individual - what are your morals and what are you willing to do about it (maybe somewhat anti-determinism but the only way I'd think about that predicament since I only "know" my mind) -> So if stuff matters to you then act decent but if it doesn't then don't

 

[Bagger]

I think science surely can expand our moral horizon. I don't know the answer to this specific question... sorry. Probably yes... but i don't have any proof or example atm. Maybe something like scientific proof that i dunno, plants feel emotions. That would change our view how to treat them. And then it would be immoral to harvest them without plant anesthetic or something.

 

[SweetSpot086]

Isnt it more of a theory, determinism?
How would one be 100 percent sure if one had or hadn't freewill?
I would say it comes down to what you believe in...

But the second part that you talked about whether or not "good" or "evil" things exist and that morals keep on changing is something I'd agree with. (Even though there is some kind of baseline that I think everyone would agree on and most likely never overstep: killing a toddler or something)

Again, it's up to the individual - what are your morals and what are you willing to do about it (maybe somewhat anti-determinism but the only way I'd think about that predicament since I only "know" my mind) -> So if stuff matters to you then act decent but if it doesn't then don't

It is a theory and an ongoing debate...but there is some scientific evidence, that hints towards determinism...like for example, brain has shown activity 10 seconds before, the subject was consciously aware of it...If in fact, determinism is true, I don't know why our brains evolved this way...what evolutionary benefit does it gives us in thinking we are free beings...

About, killing a toddler...I don't know if it is scientific moral wrong...but, there are some ancient cultures that sacrificed new born babies to their gods...were they immoral? Can they be held accountable? Because, even today science has nothing to say on morality...A time before Scientific Revolution...how can we determine that its wrong?

I don't know...the more I begin to ponder about the world we live in, the nature of reality...more suicidal I get..

 

[stygal]

It is a theory and an ongoing debate...but there is some scientific evidence, that hints towards determinism...like for example, brain has shown activity 10 seconds before, the subject was consciously aware of it...If in fact, determinism is true, I don't know why our brains evolved this way...what evolutionary benefit does it gives us in thinking we are free beings...

About, killing a toddler...I don't know if it is scientific moral wrong...but, there are some ancient cultures that sacrificed new born babies to their gods...were they immoral? Can they be held accountable? Because, even today science has nothing to say on morality...A time before Scientific Revolution...how can we determine that its wrong?

I don't know...the more I begin to ponder about the world we live in, the nature of reality...more suicidal I get..

Yeah, I know what you mean with that first paragraph it's shown if certain movements are made brain activity can be measured beforehand...still not sure that means everything is always determinated or we just don't know how (fast) the brain works.

I would argue that we are wired to keep our species alive and thus arent usually prone to murder - if you talk about those sacrifices - they surely believed it would benefit their society or at least some individuals and I don't think they did it without having established that background.

I guess like some others commented on here -> science helps us to understand our surroundings better and then maybe base our morals on this knowledge but after all it's highly individual in my mind...I would act according to what I personally feel is right and for me it does make a difference because I have to interact with others -> treating them like shit won't get me far

 

[Werewolf.]

So, what does your God say about suicide?

He is not just my God. He is everyone's. And I think you know the answer to that. Though ultimately only God really knows what is going to happen to one who commits suicide.

 

[Amumu]

No. Science is amoral by definition.

 

[SweetSpot086]

He is not just my God. He is everyone's. And I think you know the answer to that. Though ultimately only God really knows what is going to happen to one who commits suicide.

I dont know the answer to that. Thats why I am asking...you talk about right and wrong...how do I know what is right or wrong?

 

[BottomlessPit]

There can be no free will in a universe where the law of cause and effect governs everything. All we think, say, and do is preceded and influenced by prior causes and conditions. No choice appears in a vacuum, we are all part of a long chain of causation. To belief in free will is to believe that we are somehow unaffected by the laws of physics...

 

[BeyondGoodNEvil]

Sam Harris is a determinist, as he argues in his book "Freewill"...I don't have much of an opinion on this matter...I don't know what to believe at this moment...there is not much evidence.

But, in his book "The Moral Landscape" he argues science can answer moral questions. Somethings, are scientifically morally right and somethings are wrong. I personally believe there is no right or wrong...humans made that up as they evolve and it keeps changing...

My question is what difference does it make? If we have no free-will...If given the option between right or wrong...we have no choice...so, why even bother? Am I misunderstanding anything...

your question is basically if we live in a determined world morality dosent matter as all our actions are already determined and so we cant be judged for our actions
the basics of morality is a principle that we all agree on,on whats good and whats bad
we all agree murder is bad and helping a person is good
in your view neither person is good or bad all their actions are just determined faiths
what is determination,a build up of events.
we can all determine what will 2+2=.but can you determine exact future events whos going to kill someone or help someone,unless you have a machine that calculates everthing in the universe I doubt you will so in a sense things just happen.
So morality dosent matter right I might become a murderer because of chain events that led to this moment i cant be judged.well lets go back to history take a good look at good old adolf hitler.abused as a kid developed into an unstable adult and with fortune events beacme a tyrant.so you say he was determined to be like this he had no choice.true but that does not mean i cant judge.I can say he was evil man and say he was a hero as he rised germany into a superpower.but moral was he good or bad.what do you think.if we have no free will and we cant determine what our faiths can be is morality pointless

 

[9BBN]

Sam Harris is a determinist, as he argues in his book "Freewill"...I don't have much of an opinion on this matter...I don't know what to believe at this moment...there is not much evidence.

But, in his book "The Moral Landscape" he argues science can answer moral questions. Somethings, are scientifically morally right and somethings are wrong. I personally believe there is no right or wrong...humans made that up as they evolve and it keeps changing...

My question is what difference does it make? If we have no free-will...If given the option between right or wrong...we have no choice...so, why even bother? Am I misunderstanding anything...

Just because we (theoretically) have no free will, doesn't mean freedom of choice doesn't matter. For example, we can have empathy for others, and assume they experience the same world we do. In a world where actions have consequences, decisions have moral weight.

This is utilitarianism, and that is why science can help determine moral worth. An easy and relevant example is using science to determine what kinds of euthanasia are morally permissible by measuring exit pain. Another example, my personal favorite, is the Effective Altruism movement, which seeks use science to find the most effective way to spend money to help the most people. There are many charities that seek to solve world hunger, for example, but some are more efficient and more deserving of donations.

 

[Alwaysbadtime]

My brain is too pissed to even understand your post. I think people have free will. I can walk into traffic...that's free will.

 

[Makko]

Good and bad are not scientific terms.

 

[Hotsackage]

Nope but that's just my opinion

 

[Worndown]

Science is good at creating moral questions but cannot answer them.

 

[BottomlessPit]

To belief in free will

jesus christ I seem to make more spelling mistakes with each passing day