[MD] A Science of Morals

[Ham Priday]

Ron and Ian --

On Wed, 4/07/10 at 7:55 AM, Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com> 
said:

> 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.

Today, 4/09/10 at 4:48 AM, Ron <xacto at rocketmail.com> responded:

> Science is a moral value.  Once that is realized cultural relativism
> is a non issue.

This line of reasoning and the conclusion Ron has drawn are totally wrong, 
in my opinion.

As Ian says, Science is more than biology and neurology; it encompasses 
physics, mechanics, astronomy, cosmology, archeology, meteorology, and a 
host of other studies -- all of which are OBJECTIVE INVESTIGATIONS of the 
physical world.  Whatever "value" Science may be thought to offer mankind, 
it is NOT MORALITY.  Any attempt to turn scientific investigation into a 
moral discipline will be deleterious for both scientific progress and 
philosophical understanding.

Morals are not a "science", nor is scientific objectivity about morality.

To bring Science under the umbrella of socio-cultural polemics, as Nicholas 
Maxwell and Sam Harris are proposing, defeats the very purpose of objective 
research.  We cannot "remake" physical reality into the image of subjective 
values, nor is this what the methodology of Science is designed to do.  The 
valuistic "neutrality" of objective research is essential if we are to 
acquire the knowledge and practical understanding that make technological 
progress possible.

Like it or not, we live in a dynamic, relational universe and have 
benefitted enormously from the contributions of science and technology that 
have enhanced our existence on this planet.  For goodness sake, let's not 
politicize Science so that some disgruntled philosophers can regress 
civilization to what they consider a "moralistic utopia".

Regards,
Ham