Science of Morality, Anyone?

[coberst]

Science of Morality, Anyone?

Where, in American culture, is the domain of knowledge that we would identify as morality studied and taught?

I suspect that if we do not quickly develop a science of morality that will make it possible for us to live together on this planet in a more harmonious manner our technology will help us to destroy the species and perhaps the planet soon.

It seems to me that we have given the subject matter of morality primarily over to religion. It also seems to me that if we ask the question ‘why do humans treat one another so terribly?’ we will find the answer in this moral aspect of human culture.

The ‘man of maxims’ “is the popular representative of the minds that are guided in their moral judgment solely by general rules, thinking that these will lead them to justice by a ready-made patent method, without the trouble of exerting patience, discrimination, impartiality—without any care to assure themselves whether they have the insight that comes from a hardly-earned estimate of temptation, or from a life vivid and intense enough to have created a wide fellow-feeling with all that is human.” George Eliot The Mill on the Floss

We can no longer leave this important matter in the hands of the Sunday-school. Morality must become a top priority for scientific study.

[The Atheist]

We can no longer leave this important matter in the hands of the Sunday-school. Morality must become a top priority for scientific study.

It has been, and for a very long time.

Usually through Game Theory (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-ethics/).

Doesn't seem to make any more sense to me than religious morality, because game theory is a human construct relying on answers created through societal and cultural conditioning.

The problem with morality is that it can only be looked at as a human construct. Certainly, we can apply evolutionary advantages to altruism, but there are no scientific answers to things like abortion, so morality must remain as it is - the will of the majority.

Nice circular business really, society conditions our responses which we then base societal laws upon.

[Jozanny]

Morality has been a subject of inquiry in philosophy, sociology, psychology, zoology, biology and medicine, particularly neurobiology, so no offense, but I fail to understand the flag waving. Sure, religions offer prescriptive doctrines, but scientists have long been observers and theorists of moral behavior. Desmond Morris, Jared Diamond, Daniel Dennett, Wittgenstein, Foucault, Nietzsche, to name a few.

Look before you leap, it is an old adage.

[NikolaiI]

Morality is addressed by many philsophers, if not all? Plato and Aristotle had ethics and morality within their philosohy. There are also modern philosophical works on morality, which don't have to do with religion. I haven't read them. Maxims aren't artifical, oftentimes a person lives by them.

[The Atheist]

Morality is addressed by many philsophers, if not all? Plato and Aristotle had ethics and morality within their philosohy.

Not really scientists, though.

Just a couple of names to add to Jozanny's list as well:

Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, Albert Einstein.



.

[coberst]

Morality is addressed by many philsophers, if not all? Plato and Aristotle had ethics and morality within their philosohy. There are also modern philosophical works on morality, which don't have to do with religion. I haven't read them. Maxims aren't artifical, oftentimes a person lives by them.


Philosophy is the mother of science but is no substitute for scientific empirical study similar to other human sciences. I think that psychology and SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) can be useful in starting such an effort.

Also, I think that there is confusion regarding the meaning of ethics and the meaning of morality. Thus further evidence for the need for an empirical science of morality.

I think that there is also a good bit of confusion as to the meaning of the word "science". I use the word 'science' here to mean a systematic and disciplined study of a domain of knowledge. I do not restrict the word to mean only those domains of knowledge that can be measured with a scale and/or calipers.

[The Atheist]

I think that there is also a good bit of confusion as to the meaning of the word "science". I use the word 'science' here to mean a systematic and disciplined study of a domain of knowledge. I do not restrict the word to mean only those domains of knowledge that can be measured with a scale and/or calipers.

Yet again, I've just been having this discussion elsewhere.

The generally accepted meaning of science is to do with falsifiability. That means you will need calipers; or a slide rule at least.

[timdean]

If you're interested in the science of morality, try the work of Jonathan Haidt (http://people.virginia.edu/~jdh6n/) and Marc Hauser (http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~mnkylab/HauserBio.html).

Both are scientists. Haidt is a psychologist and has revealed some fascinating insights into the five foundations of morality. He has also indicated that there are two types of people (not just Beatles/Elvis), but liberal and conservative - and this may be based as much on genes as on experience.

Marc Hauser has proposed that we have a universal moral grammar, similar to Chomsky's notion that we have a universal grammar for language.

I also write about the science and philosophy of morality on my blog here (http://www.abbrev.com.au/logos/), specifically looking at the evolution of morality and developing a theory called evolutionary intuitive ethics.

[coberst]

timdean

Thanks for the references, I shall examine them.