[MD] A Science of Morals

Ian Glendinning ian.glendinning at gmail.com
Fri Apr 9 07:41:07 PDT 2010 

Ron,

The charge or the historical fact ?
I agree it is dissolving (co-evolving) in actual practice. The
remaining problem is the denial - by science in general - that it is
anything but objective

But the problem is to describe what that "objectivism" is being
replaced or supplemented with. An acceptance of (soime kinda) cultural
relativism - a view where culturally held differences co-evolve.

Ian

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 4:27 PM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Ian,
> which brings us back to the idea that science is a moral value.
>
> I believe the charge that it is culturally dominated by objectivism
> is dissolving,
> -Ron
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Fri, April 9, 2010 10:14:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] A Science of Morals
>
> Which was precisely my point Ron.
>
> Understanding that it's an evolutionary process means both "sides"
> (the two cultures) need to recognize their position "relative" to the
> other. recognizing that cultural relativism IS recognizing that the
> solution is co-evolution ... as opposed to winning an argument on some
> more fundamental basis.
>
> The evolutionary process IS the fundament.
>
> Regards
> Ian
>
> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 4:08 PM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
>> Ian,
>> As with all differences. But the chances of resolving it
>> reasonably is much greater if both sides understand
>> it is a evolutionary process.
>> -Ron
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com>
>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>> Sent: Fri, April 9, 2010 9:31:56 AM
>> Subject: Re: [MD] A Science of Morals
>>
>> Ron, yes, obviously ...
>>
>> But when a need to decide to act is reached ... and there are two or
>> more critical thinkers ivolved ... and those two thinkers represent
>> two cultures - schools of critical thinking ?
>>
>> Who says one view of crirical thinking, and experience and science is
>> more open-minded that the other ? (clue : no-one - it's a rhetorical
>> question.) The process is that those two thinkers / cultures must
>> co-evolve the solution - to that problem / decision / action.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 3:22 PM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>> Ian,
>>> I would think that the value takes precidendence over
>>> claims of supremecy of any particulars, experience would
>>> then be the arbieter of the true.. if one values scientific method
>>> one values the open minded pursuit.
>>>
>>> As Dmb stated about the development of critical thinking for critical thinking
>>> IS the moral high ground.
>>>
>>> -Ron
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>> From: Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com>
>>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>>> Sent: Fri, April 9, 2010 8:32:56 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [MD] A Science of Morals
>>>
>>> Nice idea Ron,
>>>
>>> But what if two cultures value science differently ... who claims the
>>> moral high ground / how is the difference "resolved".
>>>
>>> Ian
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:27 PM, X Acto <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
>>>> science is a moral value. Once that is realized cultural relativism
>>>> is a non issue.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----
>>>> From: Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com>
>>>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>>>> Sent: Wed, April 7, 2010 7:55:53 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [MD] A Science of Morals
>>>>
>>>> A thought occurred to me.
>>>>
>>>> In order for there to be a comprehensive "science of morals" both
>>>> science and moral philosophy need to evolve (which is a good thing).
>>>> Science is more than biology and neuroscience, and morals will not be
>>>> "explained" fully by such sciences.
>>>>
>>>> The thought that occurred was that is the same "cultural relativism"
>>>> problem - both cultures need to co-evolve - enlightened science and
>>>> morality will discover that they are both value-based.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Ian
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 8:02 AM, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> Hey, Steve --
>>>>>
>>>>>> Harris complains that your "no ought can be derived from is"
>>>>>> is wielded as a dogma. This may have never been done,
>>>>>> but is it true that it simply cannot be done?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think Harris's nine facts reduce to this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) Suppose X is a practice that produces the worst possible
>>>>>> misery for everyone.
>>>>>> (2) X ought to be avoided.
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if some philosopher had "attempted this argument before", it is so
>>>>> juvenile that I'm surprised any MD participant would fall for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> To begin with, moral judgments encompass far more than avoiding misery.
>>>>> The way you have structured the argument dismisses ethics, aesthetics,
>>>>> justice, personal integrity and compassion, all of which are moral concerns.
>>>>> There is nothing "scientific" about setting Harris's notion of morality as a
>>>>> worst-case scenario built around the word "ought", unless it's an appeal to
>>>>> the science of logic.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ought" implies a moral obligation to behave in some way, which presupposes
>>>>> a choice.  If there is no choice, one cannot make a moral decision.  Harris
>>>>> has reduced morality to psycho-physical "well-being" , which effectively
>>>>> eliminates both valuistic and intellectual judgments, while limiting the
>>>>> "choices" to what is harmful or beneficial to human life.  As a scientist,
>>>>> he should know that Nature has provided instinctual responses that ensure
>>>>> the survival of even brainless creatures.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, we don't sit on a hot stove because it hurts; we avoid poisoning
>>>>> ourselves by not eating vile-tasting substances; we are protected from
>>>>> falling to our death by fear of precipitous heights or unstable footings,
>>>>> etc.  Harris may consider such situations "scientific morality" in practice;
>>>>> however, they don't involve the kind of valuistic or intellectual decisions
>>>>> philosophers and sociologists usually associate with morality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course we avoid pain and injury, and seek pleasure and contentment, in
>>>>> the life-experience.  But that is a given.  So, what new knowledge or
>>>>> insight does your "worst possible misery" index offer by way of moral
>>>>> guidance?  Having witnessed the suffering of Rabies victims in the final
>>>>> stages of life, I can imagine nothing more "miserable".  Fortunately, there
>>>>> is a vaccine that will prevent this misery if it is administered in time. As
>>>>> a moral principle, however, all I can say is that if one knows he is going
>>>>> to have contact with a rabid creature, he had better have ready access to a
>>>>> veterinarian or physician.
>>>>>
>>>>> But the moral issue is more than praxis or "what comes naturally".  Suppose
>>>>> I get pleasure from smoking, even though I know it is injurious to my
>>>>> "well-being", to use Harris's term.  Do I have a moral duty to avoid
>>>>> smoking?
>>>>>
>>>>> I was interested in this reader's comment at the end of the Harris essay:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Sam Harris' position that appears to arbitrarily and automatically take
>>>>> altruism as a moral good is just one example.  It certainly may be such but
>>>>> it can't be taken a priori to be so.  And, if the decision is taken out of
>>>>> the hands of the individual it is no longer altruism.  A forced morality is
>>>>> no morality at all.  In addition, the idea that measuring neurophysiology to
>>>>> determine well being is flawed in itself.  It is clear that a feeling or
>>>>> perception of well being is not necessarily proof of well being.  One's
>>>>> individual values and long term goals must be considered to determine what
>>>>> the moral choice is.  If one's goal is to be physically fit one could likely
>>>>> have a positive feeling from eating nothing but ice cream and cake but fail
>>>>> to meet that goal."
>>>>>
>>>>> So you see, Steve, there's a big difference between the "morality" of
>>>>> leaping from a hot stove and the value decisions that mankind continually
>>>>> faces in
>>>>> dealing with the laws of society and the threats of foreign nations.  I see
>>>>> little evidence that logical principles and the order of the universe can
>>>>> provide moral guidance as to how we "ought" to behave.  Indeed, I believe
>>>>> there are no "oughts" in this existence other than what man himself invents.
>>>>> Morality is derived from value, the sensibility of which is that of a free
>>>>> agent.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it's nice to know that Sam Harris at least acknowledges the importance
>>>>> of value to human civilization.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>> Ham
>>>>>
>>>>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>>>>>
>>>>>> Harris's argument is basically that anyone who does not follow this
>>>>>> logic doesn't understand what "ought" means. In other words, if (2)
>>>>>> did not follow from (1), then "ought" would be completely meaningless.
>>>>>> I suppose for the positivists, "ought" was indeed "meaningless" or
>>>>>> "non-cognitive babble" or "preferences without foundation," but it was
>>>>>> demonstarted that the positivist's criteria for meaningfulness by
>>>>>> their own standards were meaningless. Certainly none of us would try
>>>>>> to take the positivist's out for Harris's claim. So for us MOQers who
>>>>>> do think that "ought" has meaning, what meaning can this word have if
>>>>>> it can be intelligible to say that the worst possile misery for
>>>>>> everyone ought not be avoided?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has this argument been attempted by philosophers of the past?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Steve
>>>>>
>>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>>>> Archives:
>>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>>>>
>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>>> Archives:
>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>>> Archives:
>>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>>>
>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>> Archives:
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>>> Archives:
>>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>>
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list