Science is Essential to Morality
That's what professor McCormick argues in his latest Blog post. This is his conclusion:
If you care about human well-being, including your own, it is hard to imagine a single topic where science is not prepared to give you a better answer that is based on the facts. And what is a moral system if it doesn’t take the well-being of humans or sentient beings as its central aim?
Science is absolutely central to informing us about what we ought to do.
Link.
4 comments:
Science has significant moral implications within a moral framework. it doesn't and cannot provide the framework itself.
What scientific experiment demonstrates intrinsic human worth? There is none.
@Rob R:
Science may not provide a framework, but it gets us most of the way there. Other methods of obtaining knowledge (divine revelation, intuition, divination, etc) may have "moral" frameworks that appear internally consistent, from an outside perspective they are completely arbitrary. Only science can give us the ability to separate true and false information in a reliable way. Science may not have all the answers, but the other methods have exactly no answers. The base of their frameworks hangs in mid-air (if I can abuse the metaphor a bit). Science can build on an observable and testable foundation, detailing what works and what fails in human interactions and relationships (personal, societal, political, etc)
As for your question, empathy in children and their early recognition of others minds has been observed and understood for a long time as being an unlearned behavior. This demonstrated humans recognizing worth without reliance on the standard reward or punishment model used by certain schools of thought, like religion.
Experimentation gives you information about something you wish to know. If you can create a clear enough definition of "intrinsic human worth" then someone might actually be able to test it (assuming the definition makes sense). It may be sociological in nature, or involve observation of pre-indoctrinated children (as mentioned above).
Here's a question back: What intrinsic human worth does God assign?
That is, of course, a trick question. If God has assigned it, then it's not intrinsic, is it?
Only science can give us the ability to separate true and false information in a reliable way.
Wubby, this view in one form or another has been disproved and has been demonstrated to be illogical many times over.
Of only science can help us sort out the truth, then we have no means to sort out the truth because science cannot verify itself. Science cannot verify it's own assumptions such as that a world external to the mind exists, the universe operates in a logical fashion, mathematics is figured out pre-scientifically and extends far beyond observable physical correspondence that is the cornerstone of science. Causality itself is an interpretation applied to the universe. Even the faith in the scientific community which is necessary to the extremely complex scientific perspective cannot be eliminated.
Science may not have all the answers, but the other methods have exactly no answers. The base of their frameworks hangs in mid-air (if I can abuse the metaphor a bit).
which it certainly doesn't. Scripture is not mid air nor are it's rules arbitrary but may correspond to much of our intuitions about morality. And examining scripture, it is clear to me that morality has to do with the nature of personhood and it's sacredness and intrinsic human worth (science has nothing to say of intrinsic human worth).
Science tells us only of what is, not what ought to be. There are no scientific papers published that gives us the physical laws or the chemical equation for what ought to be.
As for your question, empathy in children and their early recognition of others minds has been observed and understood for a long time as being an unlearned behavior.
But of course they do. They are developing in the image of God after all.
This demonstrated humans recognizing worth without reliance on the standard reward or punishment model used by certain schools of thought, like religion.
very good. I don't think recognizing human worth is ultimately a matter of reward and punishment. No, those are a means to assist in the educating of worth (and they do certainly perform that function even though there are other means of learning these things as well), but they are not the source of morality in and of themselves.
If you can create a clear enough definition of "intrinsic human worth" then someone might actually be able to test it (assuming the definition makes sense).
Intrinsic human worth is not fully definable. it like much else (even common things such as the experience of color) does not fully yeild itself to a thorough definition.
And that is another problem for science.
Here's a question back: What intrinsic human worth does God assign?
That is, of course, a trick question. If God has assigned it, then it's not intrinsic, is it?
That is not what intrinsic means in this context. That it is intrinsic worth doesn't mean that it has no source, but rather that the value is good in and of itself, and not because of what it provides.
Rob R, how can you deny Wubby's point that moral frameworks of religious origin appear arbitrary from an outside perspective? They presuppose the existence of God, that he created absolute morality, and that one should worship Him.
Post a Comment