3 ms·

Well, as I said, the goal is maximization of humanity's well-being (the two key ideas in this are: longevity and happiness). In order for the human race to surv

by clicks 13y ago

Well, as I said, the goal is maximization of humanity's well-being (the two key ideas in this are: longevity and happiness). In order for the human race to survive in the long term we would have to strive for social sustainability as well as environmental sustainability. As we're talking about social sustainability: to succeed in even small groups we work together as a team... no one man can, for example, make a computer. One man doesn't know how to process the sand, how to make a processor, and on top of all that create high-level programs with good UI. Ligltly implicit within team work is good human relationships... it sort of goes hand-in-hand I think. Killing people, depriving them of freedom, etc. all strain humans' happiness and survivability. If you are interested in exploring this in greater detail, I highly recommend giving Sam Harris' book, _The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values_, a read: http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/143917122X/wwwsamharri02-20 http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Valu...

foobarbazqux 13y ago
I don't think I was clear because it seems like you missed my question. The question is not whether science can determine human values. The question is how do we know that we should use science to determine human values? This is a moral judgment, but I don't believe science can tell us the answer. Do you see what I mean? If the moral value that we should use moral absolutism based in science cannot be provided by moral absolutism based in science, then it isn't moral absolutism because at least one moral comes from outside science.
- clicks 13y ago
  > The question is how do we know that we should use science to determine human values? What else should we use? Because we've used religion before, that didn't work. So, I suppose when I say that science should be our moral compass, I really mean looking at existing evidence and data that tells us what is good for us and what isn't, how we should do certain things, how should we not do other things, and so on. A stated long term goal is survival of humanity, that I'm just accepting on an a priori basis. And then science tells us that preserving the human race sort of comes down to working as a team and spending our time productively, happily, and judiciously -- here on earth and in worlds beyond this one. A natural consequence of that is education -- we should educate people so that they don't kill people unjustifiably. Some rule of law is important for self-preservation, so we can rest easy that we won't also end up getting killed over someone's twisted sense of morality.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    Okay first of all, the word science really only refers to performing experiments to determine the truth of falsifiable hypotheses. For example, climate change studies are not based on falsifiable science because you cannot do experiments with the entire earth, but nevertheless many of us believe we need do something about carbon emissions anyway. So moral absolutism based on science cannot tell us what to do about climate change. It's tricky. But second of all, let's assume you really can answer everything with a scientific experiment. We might come up with an experiment to find a way to maximize productivity. The problem here is, how do you determine what the word productivity means? It might be possible to do this, but this is not a word that can be given meaning by a scientific experiment. The same goes for other measures of well-being such as happiness and justice. How do you do a scientific experiment to find out if it's ethical to conduct a scientific experiment? You can't! So the point is you can use science, but you need something outside of science too. Science is not a complete replacement for religion; atheists still need to get at least some of their values from somewhere else. In my experience, introspection and reflection on my own life and a willingness to ask questions about everything despite what the popular ideas are has led to the development of my morals. But some of my morals came about simply because I tried things out, because I spoke to people with different morals from my own. I hope you see what I mean. Science can certainly be valuable. But it cannot be absolute. Science cannot tell you how to make a difficult choice, because difficult choices do not have right answers. Science cannot tell me that I should respond to you - it might be a waste of my time and your time, there is no way to know. But you are reasonable and polite and I am here so there you go, and it doesn't conflict with my own morality.
    - clicks 13y ago
      I think we're getting bogged down in a game of semantics. I do not think it is such a horrendous misuse of the word 'science' when I mean we can use the results of experiments and sometimes loosely (but rationally and in a learned manner) use them as a basis of our actions, morality, and rule of law. Denotationally the word 'science' implies and includes questions of experimental falsifiability, but I see many smart individuals saying 'science tells us climate change is happening' and I don't think they're wrong when they say that -- we may not have found by science that it is true, but we're sure enough that it is true. To reject climate change on such a basis is not so different from people denying the 'theory' of evolution, because "noooo, it's just a theory you see". They are right by this account of technicality... but that doesn't stop us from accepting this theory as being "good enough to go with". That said, I'm heading to sleep for now. If you would like to continue this discussion in e-mail you can let me know your e-mail address and I can reply to your other questions (which I would have answered/re-answered if I were not so sleepy).

by clicks 13y ago

foobarbazqux 13y ago

I don't think I was clear because it seems like you missed my question. The question is not whether science can determine human values. The question is how do we know that we should use science to determine human values? This is a moral judgment, but I don't believe science can tell us the answer. Do you see what I mean? If the moral value that we should use moral absolutism based in science cannot be provided by moral absolutism based in science, then it isn't moral absolutism because at least one moral comes from outside science.

clicks 13y ago
> The question is how do we know that we should use science to determine human values? What else should we use? Because we've used religion before, that didn't work. So, I suppose when I say that science should be our moral compass, I really mean looking at existing evidence and data that tells us what is good for us and what isn't, how we should do certain things, how should we not do other things, and so on. A stated long term goal is survival of humanity, that I'm just accepting on an a priori basis. And then science tells us that preserving the human race sort of comes down to working as a team and spending our time productively, happily, and judiciously -- here on earth and in worlds beyond this one. A natural consequence of that is education -- we should educate people so that they don't kill people unjustifiably. Some rule of law is important for self-preservation, so we can rest easy that we won't also end up getting killed over someone's twisted sense of morality.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  Okay first of all, the word science really only refers to performing experiments to determine the truth of falsifiable hypotheses. For example, climate change studies are not based on falsifiable science because you cannot do experiments with the entire earth, but nevertheless many of us believe we need do something about carbon emissions anyway. So moral absolutism based on science cannot tell us what to do about climate change. It's tricky. But second of all, let's assume you really can answer everything with a scientific experiment. We might come up with an experiment to find a way to maximize productivity. The problem here is, how do you determine what the word productivity means? It might be possible to do this, but this is not a word that can be given meaning by a scientific experiment. The same goes for other measures of well-being such as happiness and justice. How do you do a scientific experiment to find out if it's ethical to conduct a scientific experiment? You can't! So the point is you can use science, but you need something outside of science too. Science is not a complete replacement for religion; atheists still need to get at least some of their values from somewhere else. In my experience, introspection and reflection on my own life and a willingness to ask questions about everything despite what the popular ideas are has led to the development of my morals. But some of my morals came about simply because I tried things out, because I spoke to people with different morals from my own. I hope you see what I mean. Science can certainly be valuable. But it cannot be absolute. Science cannot tell you how to make a difficult choice, because difficult choices do not have right answers. Science cannot tell me that I should respond to you - it might be a waste of my time and your time, there is no way to know. But you are reasonable and polite and I am here so there you go, and it doesn't conflict with my own morality.
  - clicks 13y ago
    I think we're getting bogged down in a game of semantics. I do not think it is such a horrendous misuse of the word 'science' when I mean we can use the results of experiments and sometimes loosely (but rationally and in a learned manner) use them as a basis of our actions, morality, and rule of law. Denotationally the word 'science' implies and includes questions of experimental falsifiability, but I see many smart individuals saying 'science tells us climate change is happening' and I don't think they're wrong when they say that -- we may not have found by science that it is true, but we're sure enough that it is true. To reject climate change on such a basis is not so different from people denying the 'theory' of evolution, because "noooo, it's just a theory you see". They are right by this account of technicality... but that doesn't stop us from accepting this theory as being "good enough to go with". That said, I'm heading to sleep for now. If you would like to continue this discussion in e-mail you can let me know your e-mail address and I can reply to your other questions (which I would have answered/re-answered if I were not so sleepy).