What is the furthest science can take us and most we can do with it morally?

[Beaconator]

The greatest attainable moral and scientific equality we can attain.

per se the furthest science can take us and most we can do with it morally.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

The greatest attainable moral and scientific equality we can attain.

per se the furthest science can take us and most we can do with it morally.

science is like capitalism
it has no morals unless some are applied

science in any form is relative to the culture in its definition of moral controls or moral doctrine

equal to moral rights

moral rights of science
moral rights of religion

which has moral superiority ?
religion or science ?

 

[sideshowbob]

science is like capitalism
it has no morals unless some are applied

I don't think that's true. I think the universal moral value of science is honesty - honestly submitting our conclusions to testing and criticism, honestly admitting that we're wrong when that's what the evidence indicates, etc. Without honesty there could be no science.

 

[Holly-May Leslie]

The greatest attainable moral and scientific equality we can attain.

per se the furthest science can take us and most we can do with it morally.

Fixing obesity. Fixing health issue's. Fixing travel issue's via teleportation. Making people super comfortable with better housing, as has already been done. Making any information acessable to anyone, which has pretty much already been done by means of the internet. Employing specially trained highly intelligent psychologists to help those who need a little nudging in the right direction, (social science,) which is already done to a certain limited extent. Training people to grow up to be these psychologists, by presenting this a high ideal to the masses. Actually I think that obesity and health issue's could be fixed simply by selling less junk food and more nice tasting healthy food. If this doesn't suffice, the more scientific approach of inventing a food which makes one slimmer the more one eats it might. I have no idea how that would work though. A better approach would probably be to use nanotechnology to determine which ingested nutrients are actually absorbed by the body, and which are not, so that people can eat whatever the hell they want to and still remain slim and healthy. Fixing the environmental impact of fossil fuels by using sustainable energy sources instead, which is starting to become popular. Fixing untidy and polluting and inconvenient consumerism by using swarms of nanobots which take on the shape of the thing which one wants to use, then disasembling once one no longer wants to use it. That's pretty much all I can think of to do with your proposal.

 

[sculptor]

Science has a different morality
perhaps
Scientists are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that they must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.

And, then, we have the foibles of humanity and politics
Wherein, morality seems to be a broadly variable concept.

I do not see curing obesity as something the pharmaceutical industry would be(has been) good at.
The science ain't precise--------------------
maybe in the distant future?

.........................................................................
ethics vs morals
someone said:
An ethical man knows that he shouldn't cheat on his wife
A moral man wouldn't

...................
edit
It seems that:
Quite often, when scientists become activists
hell follows after

 

[Luchito]

Science has no moral, neither feelings.

Science won't teach how to become a better person, a healthier person, a decent person. But thru science, studies can be made on people and obtain information of their kind of morals compared to their health, ideals, behavior in society, etc.

 

[gmilam]

Fixing health issue's.

You mean, like, with vaccines and stuff?

 

[ThazzarBaal]

As far as we desire to go with it I would guess. Between facts and erroneous thinking is a field we are forced to play on, and given that morality is based on rights and wrongs, I'll suggest that science is typically in the business of getting things right.

 

[Yazata]

I think of it in terms of the is-ought distinction, I guess.

Science is very good (the best we've got) at telling us what is.

But it is far worse at telling us what we ought to favor. Science is more or less out of its depth with right/wrong and good/evil.

To the extent that we can justify our moral intuitions at all, they would seem to have a different sort of metaethical justification than do the propositions of science.

 

[C C]

The greatest attainable moral and scientific equality we can attain.

per se the furthest science can take us and most we can do with it morally.

While the conflation of climate change with social justice (actually extending back three decades) MIGHT be an example of science directly interacting with contemporary secular morality, I'd still prefer to regard the latter as being limited to only a "cross-species" affair with technology.

Postgenderism, for instance, depends upon technology to implement its goals of homogeneity -- the abolishment of differences and the unfairness (supposedly) arising from such. Transhumanism in general relies on technology, too, but it may be only subcategories like that which really serve a moral aspiration (i.e., social justice).

On the other hand, if the idealized depictions of science are set aside (The myth of value-free science ..... Science and Ideology), and the current trend of science magazines becoming political, and the administrations of institutions introducing doctrinal policies are acknowledged... Then I might (MIGHT) have to admit the purported barrier between methodological naturalism and fashionable righteousness broke down some time ago.

At any rate, there's a potential answer: The highest contribution of science to contemporary secular morality (even if mediated by the bridge of technology), might ironically be it liberating humans from the restrictions and social injustices of naturalism. By making posthumanism a reality at some point in the future.
_

 

[James R]

I think of it in terms of the is-ought distinction, I guess.

Science is very good (the best we've got) at telling us what is.

But it is far worse at telling us what we ought to favor. Science is more or less out of its depth with right/wrong and good/evil.

The is-ought problem is a fundamental problem in philosophical ethics.

The problem is that there seems to be no way to derive a moral duty from any given set of facts, without adding some extra axioms about what sorts of things are to be considered valuable, "good" or "evil".

Example: Lily owns aw diamond ring. Bill steals Lily's ring and sells it, keeping the proceeds of the sale for himself. Those are some facts. Most people would agree that Bill's actions were morally wrong (assuming no excusing circumstances). Stealing is wrong, bad, evil, most of the time.

So some aliens land and ask us: why were Bill's actions immoral? Where are we to start in our explanation to the aliens? We have some facts: Lily was the owner ("rightful" owner? What does that mean?, the aliens ask.) Bill took possession of the ring without Lily's permission. Bill exchanged the ring for some money. But then comes the moral judgement: Bill ought not to have stolen the ring from Lily. Why not?, the aliens ask?

Because the ring belonged to Lily? So what?, reply the aliens. Because Bill had no right to the ring? The aliens ask: what's a "right" and how do you decide who has or doesn't have one?

It's wrong to steal, we tell the aliens. Why?, they ask. It makes people unhappy, we say. Why is it wrong for people to be unhappy?, the aliens ask. And so on and so forth.

It seems that there are no facts ("is" statements about the state of the world) that will ever get us to the moral judgment ("Bill ought not to have stolen Lily's ring.")

This has nothing to do with science being out of its depth. We're all out of our depth on this, it seems.

 

[Baldeee]

The is-ought problem is a fundamental problem in philosophical ethics.

The problem is that there seems to be no way to derive a moral duty from any given set of facts, without adding some extra axioms about what sorts of things are to be considered valuable, "good" or "evil".

That's not entirely true.
There are examples where the facts include the moral duty.
"Bob promised to give back the lawnmower to Fred."
This, in the definition of the word "promise", includes the obligation and this duty placed on Bob.

Similarly, it is argued that describing something as an X implies that it is something that is supposed to do what an X does.
Failure to then do what an X does means the person is failing that duty.
E.g. "Bob is an accountant" means that Bob is someone who ought to do what accountants are supposed to do.
This places, again, a responsibility, a duty, on Bob by which we can judge "good/bad" through facts alone.

As always with philosophy, there is more than just one answer.
Hume offered a very good starting point, though, and many take his as a reasonable understanding of the is/ought issue.

 

[James R]

Baldeee:

That's not entirely true.
There are examples where the facts include the moral duty.
"Bob promised to give back the lawnmower to Fred."
This, in the definition of the word "promise", includes the obligation and this duty placed on Bob.

An argument against this would be that an alien could still ask "Why should Bob give the lawnmower back?"
If the answer to that is "Because Bob promised he would give it back" then the facts of the matter are that Bob made a promise and Bob didn't give the mower back. Where is the "ought"?
The "ought" comes from the assumption that one ought to keep one's promises. But why ought a person keep his promises? Are there any facts in the world from which we can derive the principle that people ought to keep their promises? Or are there merely matters of what we choose to value?

Similarly, it is argued that describing something as an X implies that it is something that is supposed to do what an X does.
Failure to then do what an X does means the person is failing that duty.
E.g. "Bob is an accountant" means that Bob is someone who ought to do what accountants are supposed to do.
This places, again, a responsibility, a duty, on Bob by which we can judge "good/bad" through facts alone.

Are you saying that "Bob is a promiser" means that Bob is supposed to do what promisers do? Promisers are supposed to keep the promises they make, so they ought to keep them? I'm still not seeing how you get from the fact that somebody makes a promise to the moral duty that the somebody ought to keep the promise.

As far as I can tell, "Bob is an accountant" implies that Bob does what accountants do, not that Bob ought to do what accountants do. (How do you derive the "ought" from the "is"?) If Bob doesn't practice accountancy, then Bob is not an accountant, I suppose. If Bob doesn't keep his promise to return the mower, then Bob isn't a reliable promiser. But whence comes the "Bob ought to keep his promise" or "Bob ought to practice acccountancy"?

As always with philosophy, there is more than just one answer.

Okay.

Hume offered a very good starting point, though, and many take his as a reasonable understanding of the is/ought issue.

Is this Hume's argument that you just presented? It seems flawed to me. What do you think?

 

[Baldeee]

An argument against this would be that an alien could still ask "Why should Bob give the lawnmower back?"
If the answer to that is "Because Bob promised he would give it back" then the facts of the matter are that Bob made a promise and Bob didn't give the mower back. Where is the "ought"?
The "ought" comes from the assumption that one ought to keep one's promises. But why ought a person keep his promises? Are there any facts in the world from which we can derive the principle that people ought to keep their promises? Or are there merely matters of what we choose to value?

The "ought" comes from the definition of "promise".
It is the declaration that one places a duty upon themselves to do that which they say they will.
That is what it means to promise.
Hence the "ought".
The key issue here is that the fact is entwined with a value.

Are you saying that "Bob is a promiser" means that Bob is supposed to do what promisers do? Promisers are supposed to keep the promises they make, so they ought to keep them? I'm still not seeing how you get from the fact that somebody makes a promise to the moral duty that the somebody ought to keep the promise.

From the definition of "promise".

As far as I can tell, "Bob is an accountant" implies that Bob does what accountants do, not that Bob ought to do what accountants do. (How do you derive the "ought" from the "is"?) If Bob doesn't practice accountancy, then Bob is not an accountant, I suppose.

If one describes oneself as something functional (such as an accountant), ask yourself how does that not imply an ought, in that one ought to do what one describes oneself as.
If not then one is lying when they describe themself that way, surely.
You can therefore make ethical claims (he is good, bad, etc) from the facts, which would be contrary to the "No Ought From Is" notion.

If Bob doesn't keep his promise to return the mower, then Bob isn't a reliable promiser. But whence comes the "Bob ought to keep his promise" or "Bob ought to practice acccountancy"?

See above.

Is this Hume's argument that you just presented?

No.
Hume was the one who first articulated the is-ought problem, although it is debated as to what he actually meant, with some of the terms he uses (such as "fact" and even "is") seeming to be held as problematic to some philosophers.
E.g. in the above counterexamples that other philosophers have come up with, it can be debated whether "Bob promised to return the mower" is a "fact" in the way that Hume was using the word.

It seems flawed to me.

In what way?
What is the flaw that you see?
Or are you just assuming that you "not seeing" how the ought follows from the is means that there must be a flaw?
If you can't see something, surely you are in no position to judge whether or not there is a flaw?
Would it not be better to just say that you do not see, rather than assume a flaw?

What do you think?

I think they are interesting counterexamples, but whether or not they do what they proclaim I can not say.
It is a rabbit hole much deeper than is worth diving into here.
I only offered them up to show that not even things that might be taken as truisms (e.g. NOFI) by many are necessarily that.
They may be, but the debate rages on.

 

[James R]

Baldeee:

What is the flaw that you see?

I already explained. Ordinary, I would clarify for you, because that's the polite thing to do. However, you don't seem to want to have a polite discussion.

Or are you just assuming that you "not seeing" how the ought follows from the is means that there must be a flaw?
If you can't see something, surely you are in no position to judge whether or not there is a flaw?
Would it not be better to just say that you do not see, rather than assume a flaw?

This ad hominem is both unnecessary and rude. Since you seem unable or unwilling to discuss the matter without insulting me, I'm out.

 

[Baldeee]

I already explained.

No, you have said that you don't see how one follows from the other.
That is not explaining the flaw.

How have I insulted you?
I have offered advice on how better, in my view, to have worded your comment, but that is all.
If you take insult in that then you are, unfortunately, somewhat of a snowflake.
Or are you just trying to find ways to avoid further discussion?

But, whatever, you're out.

 

[James R]

Baldeee:

You are turning into somebody who is as pedantic, obtuse and persistent as Sarkus. Don't you know when to leave well enough alone?

I don't expect it to help, but I will take a little time to try to break down for you how you insulted me. (Excuse me for asking, but are you on the spectrum? Are you not aware of how you come across? No need to answer if you'd rather not.)

I wrote that the argument you presented "seems flawed to me". Do you understand that this is me expressing my personal opinion? When I tell you how I perceive something, or how I feel about something, that's personal to me. As a human being, I am allowed to have my own thoughts, perceptions and feelings about things.

Your response was this:

".... are you just assuming that you "not seeing" how the ought follows from the is means that there must be a flaw?
If you can't see something, surely you are in no position to judge whether or not there is a flaw?
Would it not be better to just say that you do not see, rather than assume a flaw?"
​

Your first question here implies that I am too stupid to understand the argument you put to me - despite the fact that I addressed it specifically and pointed out what I regard as a flaw. That is insulting. I don't think I've made any assumptions, so the answer to your question is: no, I'm not "just assuming" that. After all, I provided a rebuttal to your argument. Maybe you "just assumed" I hadn't done that?

Your second question has a very literal dig at a choice of words that I made. I wrote "I'm still not seeing how you get from the fact that somebody makes a promise to the moral duty that the somebody ought to keep the promise." You should understand this to mean: I don't believe that you have made a valid argument that logically infers a moral duty from a fact. Instead, you ran with the assumption that I am so stupid that I'm not aware that if I have no knowledge or understanding of a thing, I'm in no position to make an educated judgment concerning it. That is insulting.

Your third question repeats your assertion that I "just assumed" you argument is flawed. You ignored the fact that I rebutted your argument and pointed to a specific flaw. The fact that you didn't really give this any thought before shooting off some insults is, in itself, insulting.

Now, after I informed you that your post was an unnecessary and rude ad hominem, you have doubled down, trying to further condescend and put me down by saying "I have offered advice on how better, in my view, to have worded your comment, but that is all."

I don't require your "advice", Baldeee. I have not requested your input into how you think I should "word" my posts. If I ever want your advice on that, I'll ask you for it, you can be sure.

I note that, in addition, you have compounded your insults by calling me names, like a puerile school child.

Now that I have given you a primer on Emotional Intelligence 101, I hope you will do the decent thing and apologise for your rude and inappropriate behaviour. Will you do that?

 

[Baldeee]

You are turning into somebody who is as pedantic, obtuse and persistent as Sarkus. Don't you know when to leave well enough alone?

Note how, after saying that you were out, you can’t seem to keep away, yet you accuse others of the same “bad” behaviour.
As it is, I make no apologies for seeking accuracy and honesty in my discussions, and I will continue a discussion for as long as I desire to.
Your rush to make everything personal, though, is what it is, I guess.

(Excuse me for asking, but are you on the spectrum? Are you not aware of how you come across? No need to answer if you'd rather not.)

Do you know how rude a question you have just asked?
Are you not aware of how you come across?
No need to answer, as you clearly don’t.

I wrote that the argument you presented "seems flawed to me". Do you understand that this is me expressing my personal opinion?

Excuse me for asking, but are you on the spectrum of mental deficiency in some capacity?
No need to answer that if you don’t want.
Oh, wait, was that rude of me?
I thought asking questions like that was now perfectly okay on this site?

I ask because you don’t seem to accurately comprehend the language you use.
Let me explain: if you say that something “seems flawed to me” then, yes, you are expressing your opinion, specifically your opinion that it has a flaw.
That you somehow chose to misrepresent what I have said to be that I don’t think you were expressing your opinion on the matter is, well, nothing I haven’t come to expect from you.

Do you comprehend the difference between “(In my opionion) it’s not there!” and “I can’t see it!”?

Your first question here implies that I am too stupid to understand the argument you put to me - despite the fact that I addressed it specifically and pointed out what I regard as a flaw.

No, it doesn’t.
The implication was that I thought you misused language, expressing not being able to see something as there being, in your opinion, a flaw.
If someone can’t see an object in the distance, it doesn’t mean they necessarily lack the eyesight, as they may not be looking in quite the right direction.
That you think what I wrote implies stupidity/blindness on your part is all on you always seeking to read the worst in what people say.
It speaks to your lack of good faith in discussions, and lack of willing to see good faith in the other.
And note that you still haven’t pointed out what you regard as the flaw.
Again, not seeing how something follows is not pointing out a flaw in it.
The flaw would be the why you don’t think it follows.
So if you think there is a flaw, what is it?
Stating that you don’t see how X leads to Y is not explaining it.
Stating that you think the argument invalid is not explaining it, either.

That is insulting.

As said, if you took offense at that, given that what you inferred was in no way implied, then you are a snowflake, and there is little that can be done about that.
As it is, do you think that my perceived rudeness is grounds for you to be as rude as you have been?

I don't think I've made any assumptions, so the answer to your question is: no, I'm not "just assuming" that. After all, I provided a rebuttal to your argument. Maybe you "just assumed" I hadn't done that?

Even ignoring your incorrect inference, you’ve only expressed, in one manner or another, that you can’t see it.
That is not explaining the flaw, or at least not in anything other than eyesight.

Your second question has a very literal dig at a choice of words that I made. I wrote "I'm still not seeing how you get from the fact that somebody makes a promise to the moral duty that the somebody ought to keep the promise." You should understand this to mean: I don't believe that you have made a valid argument that logically infers a moral duty from a fact. Instead, you ran with the assumption that I am so stupid that I'm not aware that if I have no knowledge or understanding of a thing, I'm in no position to make an educated judgment concerning it. That is insulting.

What you think your words should have been taken as have exactly the same inferred meaning as those you used, and my reply would be exactly the same.
You may not believe that I have made a valid argument, but unless you can show why it is invalid (rather than just stating it) then you are in effect only saying that you can’t see the validity.
So we’re back to the same meaning, the same response given.

If you think it isn’t a valid argument, show where the flaw is.
Show that it is invalid.
At the moment all you have done by way of “explanation” is state, in some manner, that you think there is a flaw.
That’s not explaining the flaw.

Your third question repeats your assertion that I "just assumed" you argument is flawed. You ignored the fact that I rebutted your argument and pointed to a specific flaw. The fact that you didn't really give this any thought before shooting off some insults is, in itself, insulting.

And here I’ll just refer you to the points already made.

Now, after I informed you that your post was an unnecessary and rude ad hominem, you have doubled down, trying to further condescend and put me down by saying "I have offered advice on how better, in my view, to have worded your comment, but that is all."

There was nothing rude about my responses to you.
If you think being called a snowflake is rude, then, yes, okay, but I am not sure of a less pejorative term to describe the way you’re reacting here, and previously.
As for offering advice, do you really want me to evidence even a small fraction of you doing exactly that?
Yet now it is somehow “bad” behaviour, when someone else does it to you?
Maybe if you see bad faith in their offer, it should open your eyes to how it is perceived when you offer such.
As it was, the advice was offered in good faith.
Seems to speak to that inability of yours to see that in others, I guess.

I don't require your "advice", Baldeee. I have not requested your input into how you think I should "word" my posts. If I ever want your advice on that, I'll ask you for it, you can be sure.

You clearly do need some advice, as you do seem to struggle to understand the implications of your own words, and you also make incorrect inferrences, as per above.
If you won’t take it from me, as offered, then at least take it from someone else.

I note that, in addition, you have compounded your insults by calling me names, like a puerile school child.

As said, I have described your manner in the only term that seems appropriately succinct.
“Names”?
No more than your use of "peurile school child".

Now that I have given you a primer on Emotional Intelligence 101…

I don't require your "primer", James R.
I have not requested your input into how you think I should word my posts.
If I ever want your advice on that, I'll ask you for it, you can be sure.

Wait, I’m sure I’ve heard those words before?
Do you not tire of being so openly hypocritical, given that this is the second time in this one post of yours?
Not to speak of you “trying to further condescend and put me down“

I hope you will do the decent thing and apologise for your rude and inappropriate behaviour. Will you do that?

There was no rude or inappropriate behaviour to apologise for.
Well, maybe referring to you as a snowflake, so I do apologise for using that term which does seem to be perjorative.
Perhaps there is a similarly concise term for coming across as being easily offended, having a sense of entitlement, etc, that you would prefer I use?
I’m happy to go with whatever you suggest, within reason.

If you don’t like my manner of posting, no one’s requiring you to respond.
Use that as an excuse not to reply to me.
No skin off my nose, I assure you.

 

[James R]

Baldeee:

There was nothing rude about my responses to you.
If you think being called a snowflake is rude, then, yes, okay, but I am not sure of a less pejorative term to describe the way you’re reacting here, and previously.

There was no rude or inappropriate behaviour to apologise for.

Well, maybe referring to you as a snowflake, so I do apologise for using that term which does seem to be perjorative. Perhaps there is a similarly concise term for coming across as being easily offended, having a sense of entitlement, etc, that you would prefer I use?
I’m happy to go with whatever you suggest, within reason.

So let's see.

At some level, you recognise that calling me a puerile name is rude. But you're not sure how you cannot be rude.
But then, you change your mind and decide that insulting me with puerile name-calling is not rude or inappropriate after all.
Then you change your mind again and apologise for your puerile name-calling, which you again agree is perjorative.
But then, following your "apology", you basically double down yet again and reinstate the original insult.

"I know I did wrong, but I'm not sorry; you deserve my insult. Wait! I changed my mind. I think what I did wasn't wrong. Wait! I'm sorry I was rude. Wait! I have to repeat my rude insult one more time!"

This is how it goes with you?

We're done here. Besides, you just can't stop yourself. So I'm stopping you.

You have turned this thread into another toxic mess. It is now closed.

 

[James R]

Moderator note: Baldeee has been warned for repeatedly insulting another forum member.