Can there be a science of morality?
I have read comments by some neuroscientists saying that we may be able to come up with a scientific basis for morality. My feeling is that this is wrong-headed. We may be able to find links to moral instincts, but I don’t see how this can be turned into a full blown morality. Just as I oppose religious intrusion into scientific matters, I oppose scientific intrusion into spiritual matters. While I do not believe in a soul, I think that our ideas are emergent properties of our brains and that studying neuron behavior will tell us no more about ground rules for moral behavior than studying the molecular structure of chess pieces would provide help in playing chess.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
20 Answers
I’m with you. Does there have to be a biological scientific underpinning to everything and must we waste money on figuring it out? Not in morality’s case because plenty of people are eager to commit twisted acts at the leading scientific expert’s snap of the fingers. Nor do I think that morality is a spiritual matter, by necessity. It is a human construct and is one that’s time bound and culture bound. Part of our lives are spent (ideally) figuring out one’s own moral compass. It doesn’t make a different to me if there is a science to that.
Take a look at this lecture by Sam Harris, he makes a very solid argument in favor of science answering moral questions. As for what I think, I’m still undecided.
No, there cannot be a science of morality per se. Science seeks causal explanations. If our moral judgments and the acts that proceed from those judgments are simply the outcome of causal processes that are ultimately external to us, then we are not truly responsible for them. If we are not responsible for our judgments or our acts, then morality, properly speaking, does not really exist.
If freedom is an illusion, then morality is an illusion, and perhaps science can tell us something about how that illusion works. But if morality is real, then freedom is real, and the choices people make cannot be explained in causal terms.
I think that there can indeed be a science of morality.
There are concepts that I think that we can all agree upon that form a part of valid moral systems- things like altrusim, compassion, and sharing. All of these can be, and are, studied. There are some great theories as to why they arose, how they are maintained, etc. Enough to write a rap album!
@LostInParadise
“I oppose scientific intrusion into spiritual matters”
Why must morality be “spiritual”? As far as I am concerned, valid moralities follow rules of logic. Why is “morality” any more outside the realm of science than any other decision-making behavior? What makes it different?
Doesn’t philosophy encompass science of morality?
Evolution of Morality is a Wikipedia article that says,
The traditional view of social scientists has been that morality is a construct, and is thus culturally relative, although others argue that there is a science of morality.
The latter link says,
The “science of morality” describes the theory that morality can be prescribed scientifically, as well as possible scientific methodologies that might be involved. The theory is promoted by Sam Harris in his book The Moral Landscape and in related lectures in which Harris asserted that “morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science” discerning what humans ought to do by looking at what is.[1][2] Critics, such as Sean M. Carroll, argue that morality cannot be part of science.[3]
Then there’s The Science of Good and Evil by renowned skeptic Michael Shermer, 2004.
Great question!
Can there be a scientific basis for the appreciation of beauty? I know there have been measurements of faces that identify ratios that some people find more beautiful, but that was addressed only to a limited segment of world society. It’s not the same today as it was in previous times. Nor is it anything with which people in different parts of the world today would necessarily agree. I think morality is a personal opinion. It may be based on what you are taught as a child. It may be influenced by religions, but It changes with the ages and with individual points of view. Experiments that can be duplicated? I don’t think so.
@CaptainHarley Interesting link, although it’s fairly simple to argue against anyone who holds the belief that the golden ratio is proof of god. The golden ratio is interesting math, it’s not proof of a deity. I just wanted to throw this out there so the OP could know more about the golden ratio and the beliefs involved.
I think Galileo put it well. He said that it is the job of the Church to tell us how to go to heaven and the job of science to tell us how the heavens go. Allowing for some metaphorical interpretation, what we have is a clear delineation. Science provides us with the tools to tell us how to get from A to B. Morality (as part of religion, philosophy or just spirituality) tells us whether we should go from A to B. This involves values and it is not the job of science to provide value judgments.
Consider some specific issues.
Taxation – Is it right to tax people? Is a progressive tax more fair than a flat tax? There are value judgments at work here that do not yield to algorithmic treatment.
Abortion – At what point does the being in the womb become human? What does it mean to be human anyway? Again value judgments.
Gay marriage – What is the purpose of marriage? If we extend marriage to gay couples, are other extensions permissible? What about polygamy?
It is not my intention to discuss these issues, only to point out that, whatever side you fall on, it is not clear cut, not something that can be deduced from neural activity or get from a computer.
Why not. Behavior in animals seems to be linked to their parents even when they are seperated. Behavior helps guide morality or morality guides behavior. Its like what came first. The chicken or the egg.
I think its a good thing to know. What if your child’s behavior comes from chemicals released in the mother while the baby is developing and by discovering this you can eliminate certain violent behaviors the child may be born with by altering the moms chemistry during pregnancy. I don’t mean to use it to make a totally mild society but weeding out some really violent tendencies couldn’t be all bad.
I agree that science can help with certain pathologies that cloud a person’s judgment, but that is different from being able to define scientifically what moral values ought to be.
@LostInParadise
While science cannot tell us how things “ought to be,” it certainly can offer evidence that can inform moral decisions, as well as tell us why we are so likely to behave in certain ways and make certain decisions, morally. Take abortion and gay marriage, from your issues above (taxation is probably more of a social science/economics issue.) Science can tell us when a fetus feels pain, for example or if gay marriage is psychologically beneficial.
I’d also still appreciate an answer to my questions above regarding morality, spirituality, and logic.
Essentially you answered your own questions. When we talk about “ought” we are entering the spiritual realm.
I will reply to the question with a quotation from John Darmesteter
“Science equips man, but does not guide him. It illumines the world for him to the region of the most distant stars, but it leaves night in his heart. It is invincible, but indifferent, neutral, unmoral.”
A bit long but, from the sections I read, rather farsighted.
There is already an objective basis for morality.
Yes, up to a point. But there are also real ethical dilemmas. And there will be scientific evidence for opposing views. Just take preimplantation genetic diagnosis as an example. Light can be both a wave and a particle.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
