Science of Morality

[Leonhard]

No, you are a typical anti-Semite... And still an idiot...

There's nothing anti-semitical about criticizing the immoral actions of Israel. They're not untouchable, and haven't earned any reprieve from criticism because of the horrors of the Holocaust. They're responsible for their actions and should be held responsible.

I can't see what else Shunya has written as he's on ignore for me, but I assume he pointed out nothing more than the fact that in Israel they have a lot of segregated communities, and non-jews are not given the same rights.

[David Hayward]

What I have not yet been able to work out so far from Harris' blogs or his "The Moral Landscape" book is his weighting system: is a foetus as sentient as an adult human, so that abortion is (usually or always) murder; if a fish is half as sentient as a a human adult -- and how does even a neuroscientist evaluate and score sentience levels -- should one human starve so that two fish might live? Should fishing be banned altogether? Do you eat meat?

What is your own weighting system to evaluate and score the "suffer[ing] vs well-being of conscious individuals that exist[s] on a continuum", and what's the methodology on which that weighting system is based?

As argued by Michael Shermer in his book the Moral landscape... he discusses studies that show Animals hold similar neurophysiology's as humans do in the context of suffering,

"The Neural pathways of emotions, for examples, are not confined to higher-level cortical structures in the brain, but are found in evolutionary older sub-cortical regions. Artificially stimulating the same regions in humans and non human animals produces the same emotionally reaction in both." For the most part emotionally speaking humans and nonhuman animals have the same physical capabilities and therefore suffer and be included in the moral conversation.

Yes, I'm quite happy to accept that emotions and suffering are primitive, evolved early, and are common to species with even a fairly basic brain. My question was, how do you weight the sufferings of different types (or species) of those sentient beings; its a question which I think you have now implicitly answered.

I take it that for you, one human's suffering is weighted the same as one ant's; and that, for example, it is most certainly not morally acceptable to bulldoze and kill an ant nest containing 1,000 ants in order to build a house and home for a family of four; that in this example the pain and suffering of the cruelly dying ants is at least 1,000 times greater than the mere comfort of the four humans, rendering the house-building grossly immoral -- perhaps immoral on a level with the similar ghastly suffering involved in human ethnic cleansing.

[seer]

Any individual arguing against a standard of morality based on not causing unjust suffering would also be including themselves in that argument if they liked it or not since they too are an individual. They would either be a masochist or making a irrational argument. Christians do not have a basis of morality they have many different interpretations of the Bible where they pick and choose which parts to use. I am going to take it that you cannot present a rational argument that it makes sense for an individual to argue for a morality that encourages unjust suffering. Since they too are an individual that also would be subjected to unjust suffering.

No Alex, I rather look at the big picture. If the atheist is correct we are insignificant creatures, living on an insignificant planet in a purposeless universe. And all your rational or moral musings are about as meaningless as we are.

To quote Shakespeare:

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools. The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[AlecWelsh]

Yes, I'm quite happy to accept that emotions and suffering are primitive, evolved early, and are common to species with even a fairly basic brain. My question was, how do you weight the sufferings of different types (or species) of those sentient beings; its a question which I think you have now implicitly answered.

I take it that for you, one human's suffering is weighted the same as one ant's; and that, for example, it is most certainly not morally acceptable to bulldoze and kill an ant nest containing 1,000 ants in order to build a house and home for a family of four; that in this example the pain and suffering of the cruelly dying ants is at least 1,000 times greater than the mere comfort of the four humans, rendering the house-building grossly immoral -- perhaps immoral on a level with the similar ghastly suffering involved in human ethnic cleansing.

Well I think basic priorities would be set to intelligence levels. Given that humans communicate and identify suffering and work to find the cause and fix it, it is clear that humans should hold priorities in some situations. Given that humans depend on a planet that supports life all living things it would be in our best interest to not eliminate or destroy the planet while living here. I do not have a set of detailed prioritizes for you and what I have said does not cover everything you are considering so we can work out a basic standard if you are up to it. I think that weighing the suffering of different sentient beings would start with their mental capacity to strive and solve suffering in the world. Which I think would require a lot more research to be done.

[AlecWelsh]

No Alex, I rather look at the big picture. If the atheist is correct we are insignificant creatures, living on an insignificant planet in a purposeless universe. And all your rational or moral musings are about as meaningless as we are.

To quote Shakespeare:

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools. The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

That argument is not much different than a child pouting because he did not get his way. If this is the only life we have, this is all that matters. It becomes greatly important. At this point you cannot rationally reject my premise. Not causing unjust suffering among sentient individuals is the basis of a morality defined by science. No individual could argue against that without having to rationalize why he/she would want unjust suffering done to them.

You do understand how scary it is you think morality only matters if there is a God. It means you as a person admit to being selfish and that being a good person only matters if you get something out of it.

[AlecWelsh]

No Alex, I rather look at the big picture. If the atheist is correct we are insignificant creatures, living on an insignificant planet in a purposeless universe. And all your rational or moral musings are about as meaningless as we are.

To quote Shakespeare:

And all our yesterdays have lighted fools. The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

You just admitted to rejecting science based morality because it is discomforting to you, and not because you can prove it is flawed. This is not a valid argument.

[David Hayward]

Given that humans depend on a planet that supports life [for] all living things it would be in our best interest to not eliminate or destroy the planet while living here.

I think few will disagree with that.

I do not have a set of detailed priorities for you and what I have said does not cover everything you are considering so we can work out a basic standard if you are up to it.

I thought you might not, and when I consider how to maximise the well-being (and conversely minimise the suffering) of all sentient beings, it is problem after problem which comes to mind, not solutions. I know that I am floundering when I consider what an appropriate basic standard might be, and I suspect you are, too.

While you and I can probably readily agree on some sweeping generalities -- I'm sure we do -- the difficulty is in settling the details, and in pinning vague ideas down to form definite and clear criteria for moral decision-making and ethical action.

I don't think scientific research will help either, not until someone has decided what needs measuring, how to measure it, how to put numbers to (ie quantify) the results, and how to weight the numbers, both within species and between species, for morality assessment purposes. That research is currently but a pipedream or at best a vague promise for the indefinite future.

Even if the research had been done, the purpose of the research is to enable us to end up with numbers which, for each different alternative in a scientifically moral decision-making scenario, can be compared with the corresponding numbers for the other alternatives, in order to decide scientifically which alternative maximises the well-being of all sentient beings involved, hence is the scientifically moral one.

That is, some poor person or team presumably has the laborious task of compiling a massive spreadsheet before each and every scientifically moral decision can be taken, in order that the suffering and well-being of each and every sentient being affected by the decision can be calculated, and the total well-being/suffering quantified and ranked against that of the decision's alternatives -- which may well be many alternatives, and may well each require separate massive spreadsheets.

If you think about it, when well-being and suffering are scientifically quantified, any but the simplest of scenarios is a nightmare -- or perhaps impossible to decide -- using the 'maximisation of well-being of sentient beings' principle. A properly scientific "moral landscape" decision would involve a bureaucratic and technocratic nightmare.

Looking to the next section, below, I ask who is going to count up the ants? (If it's me, there's 999 ants, definite. And no termites, worms, etc etc etc whatsoever.)

Well I think basic priorities would be set to intelligence levels. Given that humans communicate and identify suffering and work to find the cause and fix it, it is clear that humans should hold priorities in some situations. ... I think that weighing the suffering of different sentient beings would start with their mental capacity to strive and solve suffering in the world. Which I think would require a lot more research to be done.

That seems to say you propose that it is not the amount of a sentient being's suffering or comfort which matters, but the amount of its intelligence.

And it presumably says that if I am, by some well-researched scientific measure, 1,000 times more intelligent than an ant and/or have 1,000 times an ant's capacity to strive and solve suffering in the world, it is more moral to kill me (or you) than 1,000 ants.

[seer]

You just admitted to rejecting science based morality because it is discomforting to you, and not because you can prove it is flawed. This is not a valid argument.

There is no science based morality, and as far as justifying your position David is doing a fine job of taking it apart. But I would like to know where you disagree with me:

If the atheist is correct we are insignificant creatures, living on an insignificant planet in a purposeless universe. And all your rational or moral musings are about as meaningless as we are.

[AlecWelsh]

I think few will disagree with that.



I thought you might not, and when I consider how to maximise the well-being (and conversely minimise the suffering) of all sentient beings, it is problem after problem which comes to mind, not solutions. I know that I am floundering when I consider what an appropriate basic standard might be, and I suspect you are, too.

While you and I can probably readily agree on some sweeping generalities -- I'm sure we do -- the difficulty is in settling the details, and in pinning vague ideas down to form definite and clear criteria for moral decision-making and ethical action.

I don't think scientific research will help either, not until someone has decided what needs measuring, how to measure it, how to put numbers to (ie quantify) the results, and how to weight the numbers, both within species and between species, for morality assessment purposes. That research is currently but a pipedream or at best a vague promise for the indefinite future.

This is where we disagree. Scientific research is the best answer. Suffering is the experiences of conscious beings we can understand these experiences using science, a key part in reducing suffering. What entails suffering, emotional and physical suffering that causes can be identified by science and worked towards reducing. Like the evolution of food and how we grow better crops to provide more food. Currently as our population grows we are discovering that we have to use energy and produce resource more efficiently to sustain our growth. Science is the best standard to use to identify issues and how to solve them.

Even if the research had been done, the purpose of the research is to enable us to end up with numbers which, for each different alternative in a scientifically moral decision-making scenario, can be compared with the corresponding numbers for the other alternatives, in order to decide scientifically which alternative maximises the well-being of all sentient beings involved, hence is the scientifically moral one.

That is, some poor person or team presumably has the laborious task of compiling a massive spreadsheet before each and every scientifically moral decision can be taken, in order that the suffering and well-being of each and every sentient being affected by the decision can be calculated, and the total well-being/suffering quantified and ranked against that of the decision's alternatives -- which may well be many alternatives, and may well each require separate massive spreadsheets.

If you think about it, when well-being and suffering are scientifically quantified, any but the simplest of scenarios is a nightmare -- or perhaps impossible to decide -- using the 'maximisation of well-being of sentient beings' principle. A properly scientific "moral landscape" decision would involve a bureaucratic and technocratic nightmare.

Looking to the next section, below, I ask who is going to count up the ants? (If it's me, there's 999 ants, definite. And no termites, worms, etc etc etc whatsoever.)

The argument that it is not going to be easy is not exactly a good one. Of course making life with fair opportunities for each individual sentient being will take time and be complicated but it is not a argument against the use of science as a standard. The ant thing I think you are getting to hung up on. How much do Ants experience and are they actual individuals or copies working a that the will of their queen?

That seems to say you propose that it is not the amount of a sentient being's suffering or comfort which matters, but the amount of its intelligence.

And it presumably says that if I am, by some well-researched scientific measure, 1,000 times more intelligent than an ant and/or have 1,000 times an ant's capacity to strive and solve suffering in the world, it is more moral to kill me (or you) than 1,000 ants.

I took the situation you were suggest as this: that two species that are suffering equally and we have to determine which one to save despite equal suffering and for some reason cannot save both. I suggest that the species that can identify, understand and reduce suffering would gain priority, thus making reducing suffer and promoting and opportunity for well being still a priority.

[AlecWelsh]

There is no science based morality, and as far as justifying your position David is doing a fine job of taking it apart. But I would like to know where you disagree with me:

If the atheist is correct we are insignificant creatures, living on an insignificant planet in a purposeless universe. And all your rational or moral musings are about as meaningless as we are.

Ya though he hasn't. He has brought up complication in defining and enforcing a morality using science but he has not refuted it out right any more than you have. You are wrong in the fact that you rejected the moral standard I am suggesting based on how you interpret that reality, and not because it is a logically invalid argument.

[seer]

Ya though he hasn't. He has brought up complication in defining and enforcing a morality using science but he has not refuted it out right any more than you have. You are wrong in the fact that you rejected the moral standard I am suggesting based on how you interpret that reality, and not because it is a logically invalid argument.

Well yes, my point is why is the suffering of insignificant, ultimately meaningless creatures objectively wrong. Or to ask it in another way - if an advanced alien race came to earth and began harvesting us for food for their survival - why would that be objectively wrong?

[AlecWelsh]

Well yes, my point is why is the suffering of insignificant, ultimately meaningless creatures objectively wrong.

Because they fall under the individuals that suffer. I pretty sure I already made that argument that they have the neurophysiology to experience sufferings like we do.

[seer]

Because they fall under the individuals that suffer. I pretty sure I already made that argument that they have the neurophysiology to experience sufferings like we do.

Or to ask it in another way - if an advanced alien race came to earth and began harvesting us for food for their survival - why would that be objectively wrong?

[AlecWelsh]

Or to ask it in another way - if an advanced alien race came to earth and began harvesting us for food for their survival - why would that be objectively wrong?

Because we are also individuals that suffer and experience well-being and a shot at life.

[seer]

Because we are also individuals that suffer and experience well-being and a shot at life.

This is where I'm not seeing the connection. Ok, the Nazi can personally suffer, therefore it is morally wrong for him to usher Jewish children into gas chambers. I don't get the leap, neither would the Nazi. And we certainly don't need science to tell us this.