Science can answer moral questions.

[Deacon Frost]

http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

Just finished watching this talk, and it was rather good and was presented well. His points of balance between the extremes and what is most beneficial as a whole are interesting.

I think a lot of Sythe users could take a lot from this guy in how they approach life, and how they expect the world to be.

 

[Finally_Found_Freedom]

I don't have time to read the video, but I will later.
I just have two quick questions:

Does science not operate through cause and effect?
Is morality not seperate from cause and effect?

 

[Deacon Frost]

I don't have time to read the video, but I will later.
I just have two quick questions:

Does science not operate through cause and effect?
Is morality not seperate from cause and effect?

He covers that in the video, his point is basically that morals and ethics can be evaluated with cause and effect, and he does a damn good job of making the point too.

Some of it may seem ludicrous, and we probably won't reach the state he's proposing for several years, but he's correct in stating that when we accept that morality and ethics can be evaluated with science and a reasonable understanding can be reached, we will live in a much better world.

 

[Chriscross23]

he brings up some good points tbh

 

[samnoz]

I havn't had time to watch the video, so I apologise if what I'm saying is completely off point.
But, isn't utilitarianism basically a scientific moral theory. More, specifically Rule Utilitarianism, because you set rules to achieve the most pleasurable thing based on past experience. It seems similar to science because it uses past experiences to predict future consequences.

 

[Finally_Found_Freedom]

He covers that in the video, his point is basically that morals and ethics can be evaluated with cause and effect, and he does a damn good job of making the point too.

Some of it may seem ludicrous, and we probably won't reach the state he's proposing for several years, but he's correct in stating that when we accept that morality and ethics can be evaluated with science and a reasonable understanding can be reached, we will live in a much better world.

Mmhm. Personally, I don't think morality operates in that fashion. What is the cause for people to have moral judgement? There is no cause; it's an innate postulate.

Think of it like asking someone a question. If you ask a cashier with no education about chemistry, will they be able to answer the question? Of course not. Insight into science requires a previous experience - a cause, if you will. But you can ask anyone (who doesn't have a psychological problem) a moral question, and they will have considerable insight into the matter. How can this be? Morality is innate.

 

[Deacon Frost]

I havn't had time to watch the video, so I apologise if what I'm saying is completely off point.
But, isn't utilitarianism basically a scientific moral theory. More, specifically Rule Utilitarianism, because you set rules to achieve the most pleasurable thing based on past experience. It seems similar to science because it uses past experiences to predict future consequences.

Not really the same, while that is one way of evaluating what's the right thing to do, it's not necessarily the best way to evaluate.

Mmhm. Personally, I don't think morality operates in that fashion. What is the cause for people to have moral judgement? There is no cause; it's an innate postulate.

Think of it like asking someone a question. If you ask a cashier with no education about chemistry, will they be able to answer the question? Of course not. Insight into science requires a previous experience - a cause, if you will. But you can ask anyone (who doesn't have a psychological problem) a moral question, and they will have considerable insight into the matter. How can this be? Morality is innate.

Please watch the video, it's over 20 minutes long, and to touch on every aspect would just be redundant.

He does touch on that; why can't there be experts in morality? Why is the opinions and beliefs of a suicide bomber just as valid as a person who spends their life studying cause and effect and rationalizing beliefs? Morality is indeed innate, just as chemistry is. People can offer opinions in chemistry as well, but that doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. They're usually just talking out of their ass.

People need to accept that their is a right way, and there is a wrong way, and we can study right and wrong and come to a reasonable conclusion. So again, watch the video please . I'm sure you'll enjoy his points.

 

[dam prayer noobs]

Yes omg thank you for posting this video. I have thought about this for so long and now there's a video about it.

This is exactly why all democracies will eventually fail, because not everyone is an expert in morality and weighing decisions, but democracy treats everyone's opinion the same. It's like having everyone in the US vote on string theory, it wont work because not everyone is an expert in physics. The same applies for politics and morality, not everyone is an expert in politics and decision making. Morality is measured in benefits and losses, so obviously the right moral decision would have the greatest benefits for the greatest amount of people. The problem is that most people are deluded and cannot see the benefits and losses clearly furthermore they may not even be sure what will benefit or hurt people. This is our society's biggest problem right now and we need to learn to overcome it or we will end up just killing each other.

 

[Deacon Frost]

Yes omg thank you for posting this video. I have thought about this for so long and now there's a video about it.

This is exactly why all democracies will eventually fail, because not everyone is an expert in morality and weighing decisions, but democracy treats everyone's opinion the same. It's like having everyone in the US vote on string theory, it wont work because not everyone is an expert in physics. The same applies for politics and morality, not everyone is an expert in politics and decision making. Morality is measured in benefits and losses, so obviously the right moral decision would have the greatest benefits for the greatest amount of people. The problem is that most people are deluded and cannot see the benefits and losses clearly furthermore they may not even be sure what will benefit or hurt people. This is our society's biggest problem right now and we need to learn to overcome it or we will end up just killing each other.

Exactly. Granted, the chances of his work being accepted as valid isn't going to happen for a while as the opinionated, uneducated masses will feel they're just in their points and will continue to deny any motion for the advancement of human morality. But, hey, it's a nice thought .