Recent comments in /f/philosophy

stoppedcaring0 t1_ivck2w9 wrote

Reply to comment by PaxNova in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

Hmm. And, to be fair to my hypothetical, it was once believed that left-handedness was evil, which is one of the reasons why the word "sinister" has negative connotations to this day.

So that's the error of this line of reasoning: not that there can be no scientific basis for shared human moral values, but that it is impossible to empirically separate those shared moral human values with a scientific underpinning from individual or societal norms, which are subject to change significantly over time.

2

Here0s0Johnny t1_ivce908 wrote

Reply to comment by Socrathustra in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

> It's a common viewpoint in STEM even if it's not scientific.

I think we have an example of a philosopher being out of their depth in a scientific matter. This is an empirical claim and you better have evidence to substantiate it.

−10

Socrathustra t1_ivcapvt wrote

Reply to comment by Here0s0Johnny in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

When I say "science's attempts to be philosophy" I don't mean science per se but rather people like Shermer or NDT who think they can plow ahead with science solving everything. It's a common viewpoint in STEM even if it's not scientific.

5

slapnflop t1_ivca6bp wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

I disagree. Happiness is how you want to feel. Is there a difference to a stomach? Why are we speaking of stomachs.

I thought we were talking about mental states. Stomachs don't have those.

−1

bestest_name_ever t1_ivc9dkd wrote

Reply to comment by stoppedcaring0 in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

> So there can be nothing of value to be gained, scientifically or otherwise, from subjectively asking people which hand they prefer? That strikes me as false.

Do you think if you determine what the majority of people believe about facts like, for example, whether humans are descended from monkeys, that tells you anything about the actual, factual question? If no, why do you think this question should be treated differently from questions about moral facts? If yes, what conclusion do you think we can draw from the fact of the majority belief about the fact of the matter at hand?

6

Crocoshark t1_ivc8ydx wrote

Reply to comment by stoppedcaring0 in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

> We have a strong understanding, for instance, that because raising a child is an intensely resource-heavy endeavor for humans, cheating on a spouse is generally considered unethical.

But if that's the reason cheating is unethical, than it's not unethical to cheat when you have no kids (and no plans to have them).

5

bestest_name_ever t1_ivc8op9 wrote

Reply to comment by eliyah23rd in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

> "If it is right for you, it is right for everybody". - While most people today would wholeheartedly agree, this maxim too is a value statement. It could be seen as a version of Kant's Categorical Imperative, but, it is (arguably) an axiom rather than anything independently supported by either Reason or Science.

The basic equality of all moral agents is also quite important for most versions of consequentialism. But yes, it's not universal, Nietzsche is probably the currently most famous dissenter.

1

bestest_name_ever t1_ivc89vf wrote

Reply to comment by Wizzdom in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

>I think science can be useful for studying what makes people happy/content and what causes the most harm/suffering. In that way, science can help direct your moral framework to actually achieve the greatest good.

No it can't, you've also fallen for the naturalistic fallacy. What science can help determine is the the greatest happiness/contentment and least harm/suffering, those are not the same as "good" (or bad, respectively).

18

cowlinator t1_ivc7tel wrote

Reply to comment by theo_radical in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

>Your (descriptive) pain does nothing to spur action in me.

Then you would be a rarity among humans.

Most humans who observe outward obvious indications of suffering are often innately compelled to action. We call this "sympathy", and it even comes with rational justifications.

−1

theartificialkid t1_ivc6puo wrote

Reply to Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

This is the same error that Sam Harris pursued in The Mora Landscape. It’s obviously a Roach Motel for slightly smart public intellectuals. But clearly science has no way to dispute the claims of someone who says “it is inherently good to make others suffer”.

22

Here0s0Johnny t1_ivc4tza wrote

Reply to comment by Socrathustra in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

>generally find science's attempts to be philosophy laughable

For someone interested in philosophy, these words are very poorly chosen. Science cannot do things and Shermer doesn't represent science. (I suspect most scientists accept Hume's distinction.)

−8

wavegeekman t1_ivc2ei2 wrote

Reply to comment by Ok-Mine1268 in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

Yes - the opposite of false is not necessarily truth.

I have drifted away from rationality communities as in many cases they just hold another dogmatic set of beliefs.

6

Socrathustra t1_ivc19ou wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

How is this circular or at all like Shermer? I don't believe it can establish what is moral on its own, just that it can be a useful process if you otherwise establish that preferences are part of morality.

5