Slashdot Mirror
Does Scientific Literacy Make People More Ethical?
New submitter alysion writes "Per research published in the online journal PLOS One, psychologists Christine Ma-Kellams of Harvard University and Jim Blascovich of the University of California, Santa Barbara report, 'Thinking about science leads individuals to endorse more stringent moral norms.' In one of the four supporting experiments, undergraduates considered an account of a date rape and were asked to judge behavior on a scale of 1 to 100. Science types, perhaps not surprisingly, proved to have a better grasp of reality, including the moral kind."
there are very few scientists or even college graduates. And I'm still trying to figure out how the fuck magnets work!
Was the PyCon case where a poor woman was raped when two guys made a dirt joke near her?
it doesn't make people more ethical. If anything less so as they think they have a more sound sense of why they should kill you.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
The article's title raises the issue of ethics, but the summary talks about moral norms, these are not the same thing. Ethics and morals, while somewhat related, deal with different view points as they relate to behaviour. If we're going to be scientific about judging someone's actions we first have to make sure everyone agrees on the definitions of ethical and moral, something society in general has trouble doing.
Which should prove to you that scientists are basically amoral. They care only about the gathering of knowledge. Sometimes the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the few, or the many.
(such as history, sociology etc.) gives the potential to people to truly CHOOSE to be moral* or not. You can't be called a moral guy just because you obey 3 thousand year old myths because you are afraid of the bearded man in the sky. People who "are" good because of their religion are in fact immoral people who just pretend to be good under fear.
* whatever moral means for anyone, since morality/ethics are purely subjective.
You listed rape twice.
You get good ethics from good upbringing (and some genetics).The most unethical people through history has been highly educated.
It's not like an idiot about to rape somebody will change his mind after thinking of science...
1. Narrow study group.
2. Highly questionable conclusions.
3. Suspected publication bias.
All in all -1 Overrated story.
I would say that an ability to think about and analyze something goes along with one's strength in scientific disciplines, but the self-control required to act on what we know is right? That's a different story. How many people cheat on their partners? (Too many.) How many of them could give a good analysis and explanation of why that's wrong? (Uh, probably 100%.)
It seems to make you more self-congratulatory.
A recent scientific study just came out saying that scientists are better endowed and make better lovers then non-scientists.
There, that should put things in our favor when we go out to the nightclubs.
Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
It is very much possible the more ethical types gravitate towards science rather than scientific literacy made them more ethical. Most likely a whole combination of behaviors and attitudes occur together, being ethical, liking science, etc are all possibly triggered by a deeper primary cause. All these attitudes could be just the external symptoms.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
..we don't like being on the receiving end, so fuck off. Only the people we're after can be terrorized like that, not us.
they would've refused to give their answers using an undefined unit of measurement.
Critical thinking carries over to ethics. Who would have guessed?
(I have to agree with some others here though that "more stringent" ethics are in the eye of the beholder. At least the study shows that some people are thinking about it, rather than getting all their ethics once a week from some guy who dresses funny.)
A refutation of your post seems unnecessary since you appear to be hard at work refuting yourself. On one hand you sweepingly dismissed as not truly moral those who do what is right out of fear of the sorts of spiritual repercussions that you don't believe in. And then on the other hand you said that there isn't any objective standard for morality or ethics, implying that your first point is wrong, since their idea of morality is just as good as yours. Lol!
Considering the voluntary participation of the science and medical establishments in the former Third Reich and the Soviet Union, I wouldn't bank on it!
I'm pretty sure we can say that morals aren't purely subjective. For example, practically everyone would agree that extreme torture to another human for 'just a laff' would be at least morally dubious.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation
Or the experiments in the USA feeding radioactive cereal to retarded children:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/retarded-boys-used-in-us-test-on-radioactivity-1469889.html
Science have a correlation to "ethics" as we know it. Just ask the mice.
If scientific literacy made people more ethical, us mad scientists would be regarded as weirdos. So, thank Cthulu that's not the case.
Science types in a poll conducted at a university are going to have harsher views on date rape because they have partied less.
lol you're dumb
practically everyone
That is not, by any means, a measure of objective truth.
What makes those who would disagree about torture for fun objectively wrong?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Are more ethical people more interested in science?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Well, the new Pope, Francis is a chemist. Maybe so, let's see.
It seems like we can only conclude that scientific literacy helps one to more consistently categorize ethical/unethical behavior. Whether actions follow, especially in times of desperation where ethics are most needed and least cared for, is an entirely different matter altogether. Knowing right is not the same as doing right.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
And what if this other 'human' were taken from a race your morals consider less than animals. To some, torturing these will be even justified.
To let Ted Kaczynski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski) know that despite the fact that he is incarcerated, he is in fact a highly moral man.....
From everything that I've seen, the truth has a liberal bias.
Maybe those scientifically literate folks should take a philosophy course or two. In doing so, they might find that morality deals with things like right and wrong and ethics with how well you follow a moral code.
A moral person has some sort of code to help them do the right thing. An ethical person follows their moral code. Now we may argue over the merits of their moral code, but that does not change whether or not they are ethical. Likewise, we cannot argue over how ethical somebody's actions are without knowing their moral code.
Since we live in a society, their is an implied moral code and theirfore we judge one's behaviour as ethical or not based on that implied moral code. But in practice, the implied moral code comes up short. What is ethical for a lawyer is often very different than what is ethical for a medical researcher which is often very different for a judge or a grade school student or business.
Historically, for better or worse, religion defined morals in western society. Today, that is not the case, and morality is what the individual says it is. Not that we should go back to religion based morals, but leaving it solely up to the individual is dangerous for a society, too. Sex between an adult and a young teenager is morally wrong in the West, and yet, in many parts of the world, is the norm. Whose moral code is correct? More importantly, is it morally correct for either view to force their view on the other culture?
Star Trek wrestled with this and came up with the notion of the Prime Directive. Of course, that was a moral position and how well they followed it showed how ethical they were.
But, since we don't live in the 23rd century and must muddle through this ourselves. The relativism of the 21st century makes it next to impossible to determine ethical behaviour as the morals that one would use to base that judgement on are no longer objective, but subjective.
Maybe the scientifically literate, should ponder that.
Not objectively, but subjectively, if someone else could be put under torture, so could you.
Spiritually, if you torture someone, in a later life, you will have to pay back that "lesson" in order to integrate wisdom. It's not really "pay back", as many are fond of thinking karma as a deposit box (see these can be raided in spirit too!), it's more like what's really required and wanted in order to make progress.
Of course, little of this can be linearly proven in the physical, but the resonance can be felt, understood, even grok'ed. Especially with experience and wisdom.
Sounds like it might be more accurate to say that science makes people more judgemental and close-minded. "more likely to condemn"
I do not know why and how anyone would spin this as "more ethical" or a good thing, but is is pretty obvious that this shows that science in this instance has blinded these people to the ambiguity and greyness of the real world and morality.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Yes. Now all we have to do is define "extreme" and "torture." As the Bush administration (and, sadly, Obama's) showed us, you can stretch the truth to fit your story. I believe the same is true of morals. I would argue that some of the most educated people in the world argued in favor of torture under both administrations. While those with a science background might be likely to frown upon that (torture), it takes an educated person to be the one to argue in favor of such behavior to the point where they can sleep at night believing they've done nothing wrong.
It gives you the moral edge, by definition
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
...it makes you better able to make reality-informed decisions based on whatever ethical norms you subscribe to: science is descriptive, ethics are prescriptive. If you're a completely amoral sociopath bent on making people miserable, scientific literacy will enable you to achieve those ends. If you're a consummate altruist and want to improve the lives of those around you, scientific literacy will also enable you to achieve those ends.
Scientific minded people are accustomed to working with clear rules, and declaring that "2+2=5" is WRONG. Artsy types, in contrast, say "personally I prefer not to use orange with blue, but of course it's all a matter of opinion."
In science, the laws of physics are inviolate. Try to break them, you are WRONG, and that's not an opinion. Morality is the same. At work, I regularly encounter non-science types who can't understand that the laws of computer science can't be changed based on their preference, that O(N) isn't my preference or opinion.
It's therefore no suprise to me that science types are also comfortable stating that cheating on your spouse is WRONG, whereas artsy types would more often treat that as opinion. Morality, in one sense, is nothing more or less than observing which rules or principles are timelessly applicable, just as science does. A "strict" moral compass is one that believes (understands) that these principles are true even when you don't want them to be, just as a scientist recognizes that mass X velocity = momentum, even when that fact is inconvenient.
And there we go into the realm of qualia, and possibly the supernatural. I can't prove it, and I hate to use the word "faith" (I'm not religious), but if there was ever use for such a word, that would fit the bill very well.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Kant showed why such things are objectively wrong almost 200 years ago. It's just that very few people have the patience to read the first and second critiques, the Groundwork and the Metaphysics of Morals, so most people are ignorant of this advancement in ethics.
In particular look at the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative in the Groundwork. A morally-correct maxim necessarily assumes a respect for other people's autonomy. Torturing someone for fun completely undermines any such respect.
Critical thinking carries over to ethics. Who would have guessed?
Scientific literacy is not equivalent to critical thinking. The Nazi's were highly scientific and cutting edge in their technology.
I think it is more correct, interesting, and productive to ask is rape a bad thing in animals.
In animals you still have (for the most part), females choosing who to breed with based on certain factors (the size of plumage for example). Rape in this context is the choice being made for her, based on other factors (speed and strength for example). She only wants to produce the best offspring she can, and sometimes that can mean rape is the best thing that can happen (and she does not necessarily dislike that it happened). Also, interestingly, it is quite possible that rape is entirely necessary in nature; As animals often have convoluted and counter-productive mating habits (stag horns, big is good to get you lots of mates; But actually make surviving harder). Mating criteria that do not promote actual useful abilities, it is entirely possible that these would get out of control and destroy many/all species if it were not counterbalanced by rape. Possibly.
So I would not call it a social construct. It is a breaking of a social ritual, preforming it sufficiently incorrectly.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I'm pretty sure we can say that morals aren't purely subjective. For example, practically everyone would agree that extreme torture to another human for 'just a laff' would be at least morally dubious.
The moment you add a qualifier such as "just a laff" (sic), you have shown that morals are not objective. If they were, there would not be a need for a qualifier.
If morals are objective, they are black and white, yes or no. It is wrong to murder somebody is a moral statement. Is it possible to that it would ever not be wrong to murder somebody (murder is different than killing)? However, most things are not black and white. As soon as you have to qualify, you have start down a path of relativism or subjectiveness. In the Judea-Christian tradition, they have "Thou shalt not kill" But as a moral statement, that is pretty subjective, at least in practice. Is it always wrong to kill? What about self-defense? What about in war? What about to protect not life, but property? Obviously, killing and the prohibition against it cannot be objectively held as wrong as sometimes it is permissable.
Likewise, you will find with most moral codes, there is a lot of subjectivity to it. We raise our children to not tell iies and not call other people names. Why? Because that is part of a moral code that society says should exist. Exist, that is until you enter politics, which somehow, means what is important for our children to learn, is not important enough for adults to actually practice and society, for the most part is okay with that.
Why? Because historically, morality was based, right or wrong, on an external source, religion. Now, it is up to the individual. That means, today, morality can shift on a whim and as such, is no longer objective (as objective as religion could make it, anyway) but only subjective.
This is why liberal arts professors are always so honest and the republicans that support engineering and science are dishonest.
In science, the laws of physics are inviolate.
Nope. Newton's Laws: Wrong. Special Relativity: Wrong. General Relativity and Quantum Theory: At least one is is wrong.
"2+2=5" is WRONG" unless you have very large values of 2.
BTW."the laws of physics" are called laws but they are, in reality, theories.
Scientific study conducted by scientists shows scientific people have "better" morals. Yeah, no bias there...
whatever moral means for anyone, since morality/ethics are purely subjective.
Not true. Morality is driven some fairly simple principles. Moral disagreements really only get subjective when those principles are in conflict with each other.
You say 'You can't be called a moral guy just because...', so you believe that whether or not you rare a 'moral guy' has nothing to do with what you do.
You claim that scientific literacy along with general education gives the potential to choose to be moral, but then effectively say that if that your education depends upon the beliefs and ideas of cultures 2-3 millennia ago then that does't count. This despite the origins of western philosophy and mathematics coming from works of that period.
Then you end with the footnote that morality and ethics are purely subjective.
Your position just doesn't make sense.
John_Chalisque
We could be arguing over semantics here. It doesn't have to be "black or white" to be objective. You can have an intrinsic value on a sliding scale from bad to good, with various shades of grey in between as you pointed out. Also you can have a very contrasted balance where a very good thing can balance out a very bad thing (e.g.: firefighter sacrificing their life to save two, or the way cars usefulness balance out the number of deaths they cause on our roads). This is where most people tend to get very confused and where you have extremists on both sides of the middle.
In summary, when I say 'objective', I don't mean it is "always wrong to....abc" or "always right to.... xyz" - I mean that there's a unknown value or desirability of outcome which is hard or impossible to find out, but nevertheless exists.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Kant showed why such things are objectively wrong almost 200 years ago.
That seems extremely unlikely to me.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
More like models that describe/predict reality with reasonable accuracy.
All those "laws" are just mathematical models that fit our observations very well, are useful to predict stuff and help us to understand the relationships between different variables. But they don't actually explain the "why" and they certainly are not perfectly accurate.
And the grand parent poster should post fewer generalizations.
"A-Ethical" is not "Non-Ethical" or "Anti-Ethical", it is Scientific.
There is no place in real scientific inquiry for ethical or moral judgment. At the scientific level observation must be objective. It must be entirely scientific. What is observed must be observed as it is, in the context it is, with no observer-added addenda. To make an ethical or a moral judgment in regard to an observed phenomenon the observer must step out of scientific observation mode. He or she must do so to preserve scientific objectivity in the observation, whether he or she wants to or not, because ANY violation of objectivity destroys observational objectivity, and slips the observation to prejudice-influenced and so non-scientific.
Because most who call themselves scientists do not maintain scientific self-discipline when observing, they fail to observe scientifically (except incidentally or accidentally) and fail to maintain themselves as real scientists. In result we have "scientists" engaged in all the kinds of crap arguments and there asserting that moralities and ethics are components in science. Both need to be components in scientists. Scientists are human beings. Both need to influence scientists' decisions in presenting their proofs, theories and conclusions (because they are asking others to accept these as objectively derived and at their presented values [in other words, they are asking them to be believed as scientifically derived]), but both need to be left out of the science that is used in practicing science. Too often both are not, as everyone who follows "scientists'" presentations of their "scientific results" too well knows. There is no greater respect for ethics and morality among competitive "scientists" than among any other band of competing human beings. Position, prestige, name, fame, glory, publication, even a media- mention, appearance, spot, or shot at even local renown causes such "scientists' objectivities to tilt.
If knowledge is power and power corrupts, how can there be another conclusion?
Confirmation bias.
"All those "laws" are just mathematical models that fit our observations very well" You sir, are correct.
One of the popular mistakes people make when quoting philosophy is to forget that any logical argument necessarily begins with assumptions. Kant showed why some things are universally wrong, given his assumptions. If you don't accept his assumptions, stated or otherwise, his argument is meaningless. The value of respect for autonomy, for example, is not some kind of physical law. It is itself a potentially relative moral value, one that may be considerably weaker in other cultures.
There ARE excellent arguments for why things like murder and torture are morally wrong, if you assume that survival is beneficial. Murder is something that most species have evolved to control, and it can be particularly damaging in species that depend on cooperation.
Bentham and Kant would pity your beliefs about moral relativism.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Committed academics who spend sixty or more hours a week holed up the lab are less likely than the average joe to get involved in illegal get rich quick scams.
Before we only suspected that, now we have peer reviewed validation for our common knowledge.
Engineers and scientists tend to look at all of the facts that they can, and come up with what they perceive to be the truth.
Lawyers, (or even Accountants or "Consultants") on the other hand, tend to say "What do you want the truth to be?", and then research facts to support whatever it is that serves their client's (or their own) idea of "The Truth".
I believe that truth and ethics tend to go hand-in-hand, ergo, Scientific literacy tends to make you more ethical.
Your argument starts with an assumption many people would disagree with.
Your second paragraph ends with an incorrect statement. In many, perhaps most species, the female determines which male she will mate with, and when. Your statements suggest you're not as scientifically literate as you think you are.
He also helped develop a petition to the government begging not to use it. Growing up means recognizing that "good" people do "bad" things all the time, and vice-versa, or put another way, people who don't make mistakes have never learned anything new. I'm not religious but I think Jesus was onto something with the "throwing the first stone" thing.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Science describes how the world is.
Ethics describe how it's supposed to be.
Both may not desire the same.
So no.
General Relativity and Quantum Theory: At least one is is wrong.
Which makes the precise point you're replying to. One is wrong, the other right. You can't say the same about two theories of interior design. Slow tempo or fast tempo? Neither is right or wrong.
Science is about discovering what's right and what's wrong, then making use of that knowledge. Morals is about discovering what's righ and what's wrong, then making use of that knowledge.
Yes.
On the other hand there's Betteridge's law of headlines, so... Yes.
HAND.
Newton's DESCRIPTION of the laws of physics were approximate. The laws themselves are unchanging, inviolate. He just didn't describe them with the level of precision that Einstein later described them. Physics didn't change, our knowledge of it did.
Similarly, "honesty is the best policy" is an approximation. Like Newton's approximations, it's close enough to.work well for 99% of what we encounter in daily life. (Combined with the first and highext law, love.) A more precise description of exactly what the rule is would require a couple paragraphs or more.
The most unethical people through history has been highly educated.
Even if true that does not make them scientists. For example Hitler wanted to be an arts student (but was rejected), Stalin studied at a theological school and seminary and, if we switch to financial ethics, Kenneth Lay (CEO of Enron) had a PhD in economics. So, based on a sample of these three I would argue that your hypothesis looks to be on shaky ground and, even if it is true in general, does not seem to contradict the claim that _scientists_ are more ethical.
If you look at cases of scientific fraud then of course this has to be committed by highly educated scientists. I would argue that this is probably a far lower level than the rate of financial fraud among economists and other business types because scientific fraud is counter-productive and rarely results in a benefit for the perpetrator because the very nature of science requires that claims be independently verified. Financial fraud can have huge benefits for the individual can be significantly harder to detect - did a CEO choose to do X because they thought it best or because they were bribed to do it? Without clear evidence of a bribe you cannot be certain. In science the evidence of the misdeed is inherent in the claim - the best you could hope for is to make it appear as an honest mistake and even then you incompetent.
I just wish more people would take it that one step further and realize art and music can also have an intrinsic 'goodness' value on a sliding scale from bad to good too.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
We could be arguing over semantics here. It doesn't have to be "black or white" to be objective. You can have an intrinsic value on a sliding scale from bad to good, with various shades of grey in between as you pointed out. Also you can have a very contrasted balance where a very good thing can balance out a very bad thing (e.g.: firefighter sacrificing their life to save two, or the way cars usefulness balance out the number of deaths they cause on our roads). This is where most people tend to get very confused and where you have extremists on both sides of the middle.
In summary, when I say 'objective', I don't mean it is "always wrong to....abc" or "always right to.... xyz" - I mean that there's a unknown value or desirability of outcome which is hard or impossible to find out, but nevertheless exists.
Intrinsic is not the same as objective. Intrinsic means by it's very nature it is this way and can never be another. Intrinsic is an internal quality. Objective means that there is some external standard that can be applied to measure it against. If there is no objective or external standard to compare against, then the morals cannot be measured objectively and can only be thought of subjectively.
Whether something is objectively wrong or subjectively wrong does not change the strength of the wrongness, it is still wrong. All it means is that the measure of that wrongness comes from outside the measurer (objective) or inside (subjective) where the mesurer could be the individual, group, society, etc.
It's actually a bit more complicated than that, but that is the general idea. It is somewhat complicated, which is why, the authors of the study should take a philosophy course or two.
It's not ethical to consider psychology science.
I don't necessarily disagree with you. In fact I think I agree, but I think you should realize that for better or worse, the word 'objective' (as well as 'relative' for that matter) tends to have multiple definitions according to who uses it. Those are probably split up even further into various 'flavours'. Unfortunately, varying definitions in any debate have a tendency to confuse conversation and create argument even when two or more people were actually in agreement, unbeknown to either.
As for my 'favored' definition, I tend to view 'objective' as everything is of varying 'goodness' while 'subjective' as "every moral/art/opinion is ultimately equally as good/bad". Maybe I would like your definition too, but I can't think of a single word to replace my definition, so we need to invent new words or something.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
My mother had 10 brothers/sisters (old catholic family). The whole family, about 200 people, only five college degrees. First generation was 4th grade, at most (except my mother, who finnished highschool). None in prison, not even near one.
As if they're some fictional thing.
The Nazi doctors and missile engineers were nothing if not ethical
Not every logical argument begins with assumptions, so how could I forget something which I know to be false? Take an argument:
1. If X then X.
2. If X then X.
Therefore, 3. If X then X.
This argument is sound and no assumption is made.
" If you don't accept his assumptions, stated or otherwise, his argument is meaningless. " Please, demonstrate this: Which assumptions, if I deny them, does his argument become meaningless? And in what way exactly is his argument meaningless if I deny these assumptions?
The Nazis had plenty of good German engineers, but their overall culture wasn't "highly scientific and cutting edge." Analyzing, for example, Nazi attempts at building an atomic bomb, one finds that they had severe impediments due to a culture that elevated respect for authority above scientific inquiry. If the scientists at the top of the organization chart in an area of study were incompetent, no one would dare challenge them or independently work on more fruitful avenues. Political/ideological infighting and organizational stubbornness completely derailed the Nazi's atomic bomb ambitions.
In the Judea-Christian tradition, they have "Thou shalt not kill" But as a moral statement, that is pretty subjective, at least in practice. Is it always wrong to kill? What about self-defense? What about in war? What about to protect not life, but property? Obviously, killing and the prohibition against it cannot be objectively held as wrong as sometimes it is permissable.
No, they don't have that. The Hebrew is quite clear, and it means murder, not kill.
Not every logical argument begins with assumptions, so how could I forget something which I know to be false? Take an argument:
1. If X then X.
2. If X then X.
Therefore, 3. If X then X.
This argument is sound and no assumption is made.
" If you don't accept his assumptions, stated or otherwise, his argument is meaningless. " Please, demonstrate this: Which assumptions, if I deny them, does his argument become meaningless? And in what way exactly is his argument meaningless if I deny these assumptions?
Well for starters you are assuming there is an X.
Then you are possibly assuming X doesn't change/stays X.
And if X does change but it is still called X can we still really call it X?
I could go on but I think this suffices.
I'm not assuming there is an X.
I'm not assuming X doesn't change.
I'm not sure what the question means. I'm not calling anything X and I don't claim that anything is called X, can be called X, or anything else about the topic of calling things X.
You think it suffices for what?
This test shows that a "preconditioning" of science terms in jury trials could lead to harsher sentences (or even a greater likelihood of guilty verdicts, in cases with hung juries).
(such as history, sociology etc.) gives the potential to people to truly CHOOSE to be moral* or not. You can't be called a moral guy just because you obey 3 thousand year old myths because you are afraid of the bearded man in the sky. People who "are" good because of their religion are in fact immoral people who just pretend to be good under fear.
* whatever moral means for anyone, since morality/ethics are purely subjective.
People who are good because of their religion are no more moral or immoral than people who are good based on whatever they base their moral code on. All morality does is set a code for right and wrong behavior and like it or not, if you live in western culture, your morality is based on the same religious myths you deride (although if you are referring to Judea-Christianity, it goes a lot further back than 3 thousand years).
There are three basic moral codes. There is the personal moral code, what the individual fews as right or wrong. There is the group moral code, what the immediate group one finds themself in views as right or wrong (people can be in multiple groups with multiple codes). And there is societies moral code, which is what society has deemed right or wrong. It is this societal code that has Judea-Christian roots in the West.
However, making a value statement about a group of people just because they base their moral code on a system you happen to disagree with says a lot more about you and your personal moral code than it does them.
...claiming that better car mirrors make us better drivers. Ethics is the value systems that we use to make life-choices. Different value systems make for different choices. Being better informed may change the decisions we make, but it won't necessarily change our values.
In the Judea-Christian tradition, they have "Thou shalt not kill" But as a moral statement, that is pretty subjective, at least in practice. Is it always wrong to kill? What about self-defense? What about in war? What about to protect not life, but property? Obviously, killing and the prohibition against it cannot be objectively held as wrong as sometimes it is permissable.
No, they don't have that. The Hebrew is quite clear, and it means murder, not kill.
No, it does not mean that it means unlawful (as under God's law) killing. Murder would be an example of that, but it goes beyond murder (you can't rely on wikipedia for everything). But even so, the Judea-Christian has been Thou shalt not kill, except in these lawful situations, so killing in and of itself is not wrong, it depends on the reason behind the killing, which makes it subjective. So, either way, it is still subjective.
Date Rape is where the offender liked the victim, but did not love them enough to not have sex with them.
Sexual Battery is where the offender dislikes the victim, commits battery on the victim, and uses sex as a means to that end.
True, you have constructed a logical argument not relying on prior assumptions. The argument may even be *sound* within an *assumed* framework in which your predicates (If X then X) are true --- this is the first place you need assumptions, but you can often get away with such widely held assumptions to slip past all but the most pedantic logicians. The sticky point for making a "useful" argument, is that all your conclusions end up in the form "if X then X." You can never reach conclusions about external conditions "X" without the conditional "if" --- so you can never logically argue to an absolute conclusion like "torture is wrong," only conditionals such as "if causing pain to another is wrong, then torture is wrong."
Actually, he was referring to people who aren't truly 'good' at heart but still do things they believe to be 'good' simply because they fear that some god will punish them. In other words, if there wasn't someone to punish them, they might not behave in a 'moral' way.
Not that long ago, we used a the classical education system. This was based on the Trivium (Rhetoric, Basic Math, Language) followed later by the Quadrivium which was Philosophy, Astrology (Later Science replaced this), Art, and Music. The advanced education (Quadrivium) still included the Trivium with more advanced subjects. When we educated this way we not only learned science and math, but people learned ethics, morals, and more importantly how to think. The classical education system was disbanded back in the 1930/40s, when we moved to the Marxist industrial education system. This system is designed to train people to perform jobs, and not to think.
Ethics and looking out for the greater good of society is something requires reinforcement and training, just like mathematics. Problems and Solutions are not made by people that never consider the full implications of their actions. I have long been an advocate of disbanding the Marxist education system that has taken hold in the US and other parts of Europe. Germany adopted our education system in the 1970s, and it's had a horrible effect.
Unfortunately, a large percentage of the population is not aware of how bad our education system is. They believe it's normal not to memorize times tables, and not understand the math concept of multiplication. Many teachers don't want to teach what the Government forces them to teach. They realize it does not teach kids to think but to perform robotic tasks. Their hands are tied by the Government mandated system.
It was because of how poor our education system is, that my kid went to private school.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
That must be due to the magical opinion fairy; she decides what is truly good and what is not truly good.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
The argument is sound within an assumed framework and also within any framework. It's entirely sound. You cannot show me any logician of any level of pedantry who would deny that if X then X.
Even if you can't reach conclusions about external conditions "X" without the condition "if", that does not in any way imply that you can never logically argue to an absolute conclusion like "torture is wrong", because there is nothing preventing you from arguing logically while using the condition "if".
I never realized that Clair De Lune, Rhapsody in Blue or [insert your fave rock/pop song here] was essentially on a par with the whine that comes out of a mosquito when it's inside your ear. Thanks for enlightening me :P
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Untrue.
The word "subjectively" can be replaced with "in my opinion" (or "in this person's opinion"). "Subjectively wrong" is so weak an idea that it has little worth beyond investigating mental pathology.
"Objectively wrong" essentially means "demonstrably wrong".
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I'm not going by Wikipedia. If you're talking about Exodus 20:12, I'm going by the fact that I know what the Hebrew word means, while you apparently don't.
"Subjective" and "Subject to conditions" are not the same thing.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
There's a weak correlation between taste in music and other arts, and the way a person acts and what he accomplishes. In that sense, there is some degree of superiority of one art form or another. I'll suggest that rap falls into the inferior range.
Because the correlation is seldom obvious or strong, the 2000-year-old observation "There's no accounting for taste" is a good first approximation.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
TFA suggests humans (scientifically minded or not) have the same values.
I know many scientifically literate types that simply don't value human life all that significantly compared to your average joe (just another animal, right?) - and almost certainly wouldn't care all that much about a date rape scandal more than a dog mating his bitch in the alley.
That's not to say they don't care about other humans though, but what's some random rape victim you'll never meet or hear about again compared to your friends and family?
There's a weak correlation between taste in music and other arts, and the way a person acts and what he accomplishes.
Which really has nothing to do with whether or not something has an objective value associated with it.
In that sense, there is some degree of superiority of one art form or another.
Even that is an opinion.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Obviously, the people involved in this study have no clue how science works, as they are making a beginner's mistake: They reverse cause and effect. It is rather people with a better grasp of reality that are drawn to the sciences, while people with a fuzzy grasp on reality try to avoid science in order to not have to face their shortcomings.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
you have no idea what you're talking about. the asterisk just says that any kind of ethics/moral is subjective, meaning that you can't really say that moral system A is better than moral system B, the "best" is the one you choose to believe in.
That is in no way related to my first point, the reasons why one follows his particular moral system. So just because you follow moral code A, you can't necessarily be called a moral guy according to moral code A. Why ? Because you may be following moral code A not out of your free will and judgement but because you fear that if you don't, the invisible guy in the sky will send you to hell. So no you are not a moral guy just because you follow the moral rules of moral system A.
Yes.
If you are talking about "Rape is a social construct", you would be wrong. We can't even agree on what rape is. In Sweden, (apparently) if a man has unprotected sex with a woman and she consents under the condition that he use birth control, Sweden calls it rape. In the USA if a woman does the same to a man, it is not called rape. At best it is called "trapping him". Not long ago in the USA, (and I assume in some countries to this day) forced sex was not considered rape if it was your wife.
The definition of rape has changed with societal development and is not consistent across different societies.
Which word would you be referring to??
"Honour thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee" - Exodus 20:12
Oh, wait, you meant Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill".
If you can't even get the verse right, should we really be trusting your linguistic opinions??
"Critics charge that the Hebrew word âoe×צ×-- (raÌtsach)â means âoemurder.â However, the same word is used in Number 35:30 to refer to a legally justified form of capital punishment. The word clearly has a broader meaning than murder."
-http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/kill-or-murder-in-exodus-2013
How is survival objectively beneficial? The universe is indifferent to us, and does not give two fucks what we do. The wheels just keep on turning.
Morals and ethics are just human constructs in the end, there is no such thing as good or evil in an objective sense, just conflicting interests.
You can have an intrinsic value on a sliding scale from bad to good,
All value is assigned by people. It can vary from none to the highest the person can think of, and can be arbitrary.
So it's objective except when its subjective?.... in other words, it's always completely subjective.
Nothing is intrinsically 'good or bad' since that would require criteria for judgement which is subjective, people assign these properties to it, it is not an inherent property of the object.
you have no idea what you're talking about. [blah blah blah] you can't necessarily be called a moral guy according to moral code A. Why ? Because you may be following moral code A not out of your free will and judgement but because you fear that if you don't, the invisible guy in the sky will send you to hell. So no you are not a moral guy just because you follow the moral rules of moral system A.
No, my friend. _You_ have no idea what you're talking about. Search the Bible sometime for the phrase "fear of God".
By that (non) definition you could say:
"Murder is a social construct. Humans are just animals. Can animals "murder" each other?"
It sounds kind of like the Chewbacca defence. I don't even know what you're trying to say, so I can't tell whether I agree with your thesis or not. I know I disagree with your argument, because it's incoherent.
I didn't say survival is objectively beneficial. That's why I listed it as an assumption. Right after a paragraph about how you have to assume something at the beginning of any logical argument. Nevertheless, the universe does seem to favour organisms that are good at survival. That's the "natural selection" part in Darwin's Theory of Evolution By Natural Selection.
No! It just enables them to rationalize better.
You say that, but I tend to think there's a beautiful mathematical underpinning for music/art which no one has really discovered yet, and will take a lot of hard work to uncover the patterns.
I can almost prove my point by reductio ad absurdum. For example, Clair De Lune, Rhapsody in Blue, or [insert your fave pop/rock piece here] is as good as the sound of a mosquito in your ear according to you and other relativists. Also it would mean a featureless or noisy blur is as good as say this:
http://mandelbulbs.s3.amazonaws.com/gallery/400/LimeSpine2.jpg
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
"Scientific literacy is not equivalent to critical thinking."
I did not claim that they were equivalent. But it's pretty hard to argue that they aren't related.
Sorry, I misunderstood your post (assuming you were using X as a placeholder for potentially different objects, rather than the set of tautological statements "if the sky is yellow, then the sky is yellow"). One might argue that a tautologically generated logical sequence (which reaches no conclusion distinct from the input statements) fails to be a "logical argument" (one step above the "argument" consisting of the empty set of axioms and conclusions). More pedantically, one could argue that "if X then X" is indeed itself an assumption, albeit a basic and widely shared one.
Anyway, you miss a critical distinction: so long as you have the condition "if," you can *never* reach an absolute conclusion of "torture is wrong": that "if" means your strongest conclusion is "if X, then torture is wrong" --- and proceeding from conditional to absolute requires taking up the assumption "X = true". You can't just drop an "if" --- otherwise, you'd be saying I could get away with this:
"if X, then torture is wrong"
"=> if torture is not wrong, then not X"
"=> not X" absolutely !!??!
Of course not, the conclusion is still premised on an "if" that I (you) aren't allowed to drop.
What humans think or how many humans think it is irrelevant to whether something is absolutely correct or not, so while many people may think certain music sounds better than a mosquito, it's rather irrelevant. Actual relativists would simply say it's an opinion shared by many.
Certain people who believe morality is not subjective try to make similar arguments. They might use killing millions of innocent children as an example of why morality is objective, for instance. However, again, saying that killing millions of children is evil would, to an actual relativist, likely appear to be a mere statement of an opinion, not something that is objectively true.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Successful projects like ballistic missiles (V2), cruise missiles (V1), jet fighter (Me 262), etc demonstrate a high level of scientific understanding and ability. Mere engineering excellence may get you a smart bomb (Fritz X) or assault rifle (StG 44) but the preceding involves some serious science.
We can even go back to WW1. Germany had some of the best chemists. In particular a Nobel prize winning chemist that went on to develop chemical weapons.
The failed atomic project does not prove an unscientific culture. The fact that they had a credible atomic project proves they did. Politics and ideological infighting were hardly limited to Germany. Both are alive and well in science to this day in many advanced labs in the US. Europe and elsewhere.
"Scientific literacy is not equivalent to critical thinking."
I did not claim that they were equivalent. But it's pretty hard to argue that they aren't related.
Its pretty easy to demonstrate they are independent of one another. Fritz Haber, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, synthesizing ammonia. His advances in fertilizer production feeds half the world. He also lead the German team developing chemical weapons during World War I. He personally supervised the usage of such weapons and personally studied their effects. He formulated the equations for exposure time given chemical concentration. Several of his subordinates in his chemical warfare unit went on to become Nobel laureates as well.
His words: "During peace time a scientist belongs to the World, but during war time he belongs to his country."
Perhaps we are thinking of different things with respect to "critical thinking". To me it is not merely analytical thinking but also includes ethics, social consequences, personal consequences, etc.
Yes, it does. Sometimes those assumptions masquerade as "definitions", which may be confusing you here.
(Putting aside for the moment that the "argument" provided makes no sense, and that you probably meant something like "If X then Y, if Y then Z, therefore if X then Z"...)
In order to reach a conclusion -- anything after a "therefore" -- you need to assume a rule of inference in some fashion. In order to make a logical argument, you must define a logical system -- that process of definition is one of assumption. If you like, you are perfectly free to define a logical system whereby you can take the strings "p -> q" and "p" and infer "!q". It's unlikely to be a useful system -- but then, folks used to think that about non-Euclidean geometry, so who knows?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
If you're going back to counting Germany's scientific prowess during WWI, then you're ignoring the important fact for understanding Nazi scientific culture that, during the rise of Nazi power and the ramp-up to WWII, there was a mass exodus of many top scientists from Germany (where do you think the US got all those German-sounding names to help in their atomic bomb project?). Under the Nazi regime, it was a bad idea to be caught doing anything that looked like "Jewish science" (you know, all that crazy "Jewish" stuff like Einstein's theory of relativity); scientists uneasy with the idea of formulating scientific ideas in "strong, pure, Aryan-sounding terms" that would fit Nazi philosophy/ideology did not generally stick around.
That's not to say there weren't plenty of competent scientists left, or that many projects managed (despite the top-level pseudo-scientific cultishness of the Nazi party) to succeed, or that similar bad/authoritarian influences didn't exist in other countries. After all, the Soviet Union managed to put mankind into space, while also supporting Lysenkoism (agricultural "science" based on Communist ideology, with assumptions about how good "proletarian" crops employing solidarity in dense planting could out-grow nasty, competitive "capitalist" crops). Germany certainly retained a lot of strong engineering talent; but the Nazi party driven ideological cult (opposing science by measure of "Jewishness" instead of, e.g., reproducible experimental results) was not a "science-friendly" atmosphere.
People make morality and ethics far more complex than they really are.
The complexities of modern morality have been built specifically to be so.
If something is very complex it needs 'management'.
Who better to manage such complex subjects than authorized moral guides?
Who better to decide on moral guides than moral organizations?
etc., etc..
The basics of morality, as we know them, were originally to maximize the social benefits
of the 'tribe' from the activities of the individual. In ancient times the larger the
size of the tribe the more stable the society contained in it. Thus the strict rules around
such things as 'non-reproductive relationship behaviours', and who gets to get some
and who doesn't, and with whom they get some.
(or who gets to have who as a familial/reproductive resource)
To have these types of (stupid assed) rules, they need to be enforced by someone,
by some means. To keep strong arm enforcers focused at the bidding of
the 'moral guides' it is necessary to have a hierarchy. Hierarchy ensures
that the valued contributions of the individual are *unevenly* distributed
up the hierarchy. The moral guides at the top need to have the most to maintain
a false sense of value. The enforcers need the next highest valuation to keep
them from turning on the top eschellon.
To have valuation that is different for various social levels, morals need to be manipulated
to make this seem fair. After all, it isn't really fair distribution of resources. But, als long as
the general population are beaten up enough to believe it's fair all is well.
Ethics are designed starting from social morals. They are practicable rules that are used
to maintain the status quo of the hierarchy.
Most of or social morals are either misguided, outdated, unjust, and nonproductive
relics of societies barely out of the cave.
It would be difficult for most of us to imagine a truely just society since, to some extent,
we all benefit from the currently unjust moral structure. Many are so tied to the
social delusion of hierarchal moral systems for benefit they can never overcome that bias,
or they would lose thier livelyhood. We are a part of the existing hierarchies that govern
the various parts of our societies.
(ie: social governance, education, symbolic economics, family)
True morality distils down to the facts of our organism. We are organisms that require food, water,
air, shelter from the elements, and a sense of community. We live, reproduce, and die.
The things that maintain those cyclic factors as equally, effectively as possible, with stability,
and sustainablity are moral.
Those that do not maintain them are immoral because they fail the organism.
At best we should try to cause as few of our fellow organisms to fail as possible.
I doubt that those people exist; I think they use the fear of God to justify decisions that they would have made anyway. When it comes to morality, I don't think external influences have any bearing at all; we just like to look for patterns.
I'm sorry but you haven't come close to proving anything. Some people might well find a mosquito whine more pleasing than [insert "great" piece of music here]. I mean, people choose to listen to dubstep and death metal -- mosquito whine jazz isn't really absurd. If someone says, "I like mosquito whine jazz", you cannot demonstrate that they are wrong.
I have no idea WTF that unattractive image is supposed to be, but I've seen paintings in museums that were far closer to featureless or noisy blurs than to that. If someone says "I like this blurry image", you cannot demonstrate that they are wrong.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I'm not going by Wikipedia. If you're talking about Exodus 20:12, I'm going by the fact that I know what the Hebrew word means, while you apparently don't.
I, too, know what the Hebrew word means and it means simply more than thou shalt not murder. Or are you implying that the Isrealites thought the equivalent of manslaughter was fine and just murder was the problem? In addition Exodus 20:12 is not the only place that has the prohibition against killing, nor is it all in Hebrew.
Regardless, of what the Hebrew word means, the Judea-Christian tradition that arose from it is what the discussion was about.
Untrue.
The word "subjectively" can be replaced with "in my opinion" (or "in this person's opinion"). "Subjectively wrong" is so weak an idea that it has little worth beyond investigating mental pathology.
"Objectively wrong" essentially means "demonstrably wrong".
As stated in a different post, there are three types of morality. There is personal morality, which very much is the opinion you refer to and applies only to the individual. There is the group morality and there is societal morality.
However, in all three, things are still subjective. But, the higher up away from the individual you go, the less opinion you have. You shall not kill is a subjective moral statement. There are times when it is morally appropriate and times it is not. Therefore, killining another person is not objectively wrong. However, it is not an opinion, but a societal norm that gives the moral statement its weight. Now, in concientious objector in a war is making a personal moral statement. That is their belief or position and only applies to that individual. As such, it is an opinion, but still carries the same weight as every other morla position on the level of individual morality.
Objectively wrong does not mean demonstrably wrong. Demonstrably wrong implies it has to occur to demonstrate the wrongness. Where as if it is objectively wrong, then it doesn't have to occur. The concept of a just war is an example of demonstrably wrong. You cannot tell if a war is just or not until after it is over and what has been done has been reviewed to determine its status. On the other hand, to define what is and is not a just war would be an excercise in objectivity. So, a statement such as a war that intentionally killed innocents as a way to put pressure on the leadership to submit would not be a just war would be an example of an objective wrong. However, it does not have to be demonstrated to know that.
I think the problem here is that the terms objective and subjective have very specific meanings when used in discussion of morality and ethics. Basically they are technical terms and not the common useage. They are not good or bad or one is better than the other. They simply describe the type of moral condition under discussion and its origen.
"Subjective" and "Subject to conditions" are not the same thing.
Subjective and Objective are technical terms used in discussing moral and ethical conditions. They have nothing to do with subject to conditions, but instead refer to how the moral decision or code is determined. Relativism comes into play, or more specifically subjective relativism.
For example, in the West, it is generally thought that it is morally unacceptable to for say a 20 year old to have sex with a 14 year old. Yet, in many countries, the culture has the marital age at 14 and often the husband is older. In those cultures it is not morally unacceptable, and in fact, the norm. Therefore, you have the same moral issue - sex with a 14 year child that is both morally unacceptable and morally acceptable depending on the culture one lives in. As such, that is not an objective norm, but a subjective norm as it is depends on other factors to make a determination, at least to anybody outside those cultures.
In discussions of morallity and ethics, being subjective is not good or bad, it is simply a descriptive technical term.
One might argue a lot of things, but that does not mean that one is right. A sound argument which is tautological is still a sound argument. And one could argue that that is as assumption as well, but that also does not mean that one right. It is not an assumption: It's a logical truth. It cannot possibly be not-true.
I don't miss such a distinction. I can reach an absolute conclusion of "torture is wrong" while having the condition "if". Having that "if" does not mean my strongest conclusion is "if X, then torture is wrong". Proceeding from conditional to absolute does not require taking up the assumption "X = true". Indeed, this last point is partly what Kant showed in the first Critque by establishing the possibility of transcendental philosophy.
1. Deduction A implies that X is true.
2. Deduction A is sound.
3. If X, then torture is wrong.
Therefore, 4. Torture is wrong.
There is no assumption X is true. QED: There is an absolute conclusion of "torture is wrong", while having a condition "if", and no assumption that X is true.
Actually being scientifically literate more or less the exact opposite of this.
In science we know that all knowledge is probabilistic. We know that nothing can be known with 100% certainty. The laws of physics are useful abstractions of nature derived from observation that allow us to make accurate preditictions.
The main difference in belief I can see is seeing careful research and observation as being a more important indicator of truth than opinion or emotional sentiment.
I would add that the degree to which a person is considered ethical with regards to scientific literacy varies through time as the scientific understanding of the world changes.
Well "Those that are better at surviving are better at surviving" Does seem a bit of a tautology though :P .
I'm not assuming there is an X.
I'm not assuming X doesn't change.
I'm not sure what the question means. I'm not calling anything X and I don't claim that anything is called X, can be called X, or anything else about the topic of calling things X.
You think it suffices for what?
It suffices to say that your argument has assumptions.
You say 'if X then X,' but you are already assuming there is an 'X', an assumption.
If you have no X you have no basis for your statement and it is void and meaningless.
Is a lie! I have 3 kids and I will not lie to them. For this time in history, I will tell them that they should do a cost-benefit analysis. If the cost of getting caught is less the the benefit, then they should at least consider it.
Bill Bellicheck won 3 Super Bowls as head coach of the Patriots and they cheated every year that they won. Things like bringing a snow blower on to the field to clear a patch for their kicker to sending spies to upcoming opponents to steal signal calls and playbooks.
Same thing with all of the PED usage in sports. If getting caught gets you a 30 day suspension but using PEDs gets you millions, then that is a pretty simple formula.
I don't like it myself, but it is the world we live in and you have to be slightly mercenary in your outlook. Morals are for arguing about afterwards.
So it's objective except when its subjective?.... in other words, it's always completely subjective.
Not quite. Its like trying to figure out who was in the wrong in a traffic accident. There are the 'rules of the road' and these rules are pretty objective. Who has right of way, what the speed limit is, state of the traffic lights at the time of the accident, etc.
And most traffic accidents can be assigned fault pretty objectively, assuming you can agree on the facts.
There are cases where things aren't well defined, where 2 different interpretations are valid, and some subjectivity is required.
I was in a car accident once, and the relevant right of way rules to decide fault were dependent on whether the accident occurred at a regular intersection or entering a road from a driveway.
In actuality, the 'driveway' had no name, and was to connect the main road to a parking lot in a park.
But it was paved, and had a stop sign at the intersection at the end of the driveway.
Through traffic on the main road didn't have any signage and didn't have to stop. But the white center line on the main road at the park entrance "acknowledged" the "intersection", which is something it doesn't do at, say, a private residence's driveway.
So is it a road or a driveway? Its a subjective call.
That however doesn't make deciding whether something is a road or a driveway a "completely subjective" activity. There are LOTS of roads that are objectively roads, and lots of private driveways that are objectively private driveways.
The question is what the motive for doing "good deeds" is. Fear of repercussions and loss, economic benefit, social benefit and spiritual benefit are used as motives both by the religions and more utilitarian ways of thinking. Moral and ethical acts can this way be seen as ultimately selfish, or acts that serve the benefit of the individual. etash's point seems to be to repudiate the fear enforced objective moral scale which is often related to those religious beliefs.
Deciding the cause of something is a little different from making a normative evaluation of whether something is good or bad.
One involves only what occurred, the other involves making a judgement about whether it's good or bad.
Morals are completely devoid from reality. The universe doesn't give a crap about us, the wheels just keep on turning. What can happen does happen. Good and evil are simply a human construct, and an arbitrary one at that like most.
Then you are, with all due objectiveness, stupid. No offense meant.
The point is that if you're doing good ONLY BECAUSE you are afraid of the punishment, then you are not a moral person.
Especially if the punishment meted out is from someone who you think sees everything (therefore no act goes unnoticed, hence a factor in every decision to act or think) who will torture you for eternity (therefore making it a gross overreaction and hence every act will be avoided because of the severity).
This is something we learn in the first weeks of calculus: "if X then X" does NOT assume that X exists. In the most retentive case it simply says "if X exists as an assumption, then X must be an assumption".
More frequently used in the context of mathematics is: "if X is a true assumption, then X is a true assumption", which is just a relative expression and doesn't even say if X is possible. ..." and you get "if Y then Y".
Now the mutable part is something completely different. Then I must say "if X between times t0 and t1, then X between times t2 and t3" (most often t0=t2, t1=t3, depending on what you want to say). Now set Y = "X between
In mathematics, most claims are time-independent (an even number stays even), so that part is rarely useful.
That's the key to logic: don't make bold steps, but small ones that hold up to scrutiny. We have no idea what happens outside of the time interval in the mutable form, thus we sure aren't going to claim anything about it.
1. Deduction A implies that X is true.
2. Deduction A is sound.
3. If X, then torture is wrong.
Therefore, 4. Torture is wrong.
There is no assumption X is true. QED: There is an absolute conclusion of "torture is wrong", while having a condition "if", and no assumption that X is true.
All you've managed here is moved the assumption from "X is true" to "A is true, A=>X". How the heck do you call this an argument without assumptions, when you're assuming "Deduction A is sound" (where did you get that from? How do you know it on pure logical grounds?), and also "A => X"? Example: A="The moon is made of cheese," X="The sky is falling". Would you say "The moon is made of cheese, this is true, and implies the sky is falling (which means torture is wrong)" and say that's a sound argument requiring no assumptions but pure logic?
Using science to judge science literacy is like asking a priest if it's a good thing to have a Pope.
The original submission title was "Does Thinking Science Make People More Ethical?" (http://science.slashdot.org/submission/2572477/does-thinking-science-make-people-more-ethical?sdsrc=rel) and the Salon article was "Does studying science make you a better person?".
I'm curious to understand the motivations behind these successive laters of re-titling. It's not an effort at plagiarism; the original article is clearly referenced.
The studies:
"The first featured 48 undergraduates who read a vignette describing a date rape. (In the story, John engages in âoenonconsensual sexâ with Sally.) They were then asked to judge Johnâ(TM)s behavior on a scale from 1 (completely justified) to 100 (totally wrong)."
Without being given the vignette (And why not? Is there a shortage of column-inches available on the internet?) we cannot ourselves judge the 'neutrality' or other contexts of the story. I'd personally argue that date-rape, as a subject, is EXCEEDINGLY context-sensitive, and likely to be conflated with the 'static' expectations of male behavior, expectations of female behavior, the age of the subject, the cultural and home background of the subject, etc that it's nearly worthless as a barometer of anything.
Further tests:
Participants were given 10 sets featuring five words apiece; they were instructed to throw one word out and arrange the other four to form a proper sentence. Half of them were given unscrambled sets of words that included such science-oriented terms as âoelogical,â âoehypothesis,â âoelaboratory,â âoescientistsâ and âoetheory.â Those who had the science-related words on their mind âoecondemned the act as more wrongâ than those who had unscrambled the neutral words, the researchers report.
Another group, featuring 32 students and community members, were asked how likely they were to take part in a list of community-minded activities over the next month. Those who had been exposed to the science-related words expressed a greater likelihood to give blood, do volunteer work and donate to charity.
A final group of 43 students and community members played an âoeeconomics dictator gameâ in which they were given $5 and told they could keep it all or give some of it to a stranger. Those exposed to the scientific terms allocated less money to themselves and more to the other person.
All of these then being plotted against one's self-declared religiosity?
While I *personally* believe that people with a scientific mindset ARE in fact probably better aware of larger chains of cause-effect, hypothesis-test-thesis, and other systematic ways of understanding the world (and thus, are likely to understand enlightened self-interest and the 'good of the many') this test alone was a) so vapid, b) so obviously engineered to draw a conclusion, and thus c) so obviously gamed, itself it hardly rates merit as drawing a conclusive result at all.
-Styopa
you have no idea what you're talking about. the asterisk just says that any kind of ethics/moral is subjective, meaning that you can't really say that moral system A is better than moral system B, the "best" is the one you choose to believe in.
That is in no way related to my first point, the reasons why one follows his particular moral system. So just because you follow moral code A, you can't necessarily be called a moral guy according to moral code A. Why ? Because you may be following moral code A not out of your free will and judgement but because you fear that if you don't, the invisible guy in the sky will send you to hell. So no you are not a moral guy just because you follow the moral rules of moral system A.
If you think that morals are subjective then you're basically saying that they aren't real. They're fictions.
If that is the case, then how can anyone be immoral?
You called religious people immoral. How can you believe that they're immoral when you don't believe in morality? You presented a nihilistic worldview in which the moral and immoral doesn't exist, only the amoral. So you accuse religious people of being something that is non-existent.
Also, your understanding of Christianity is so poor that you ought not comment on it.
I am not going to argue with your statement that my axiom is a tautology. :P
Thank you so much for giving this opportunity. I found this imformation very useful. Thankyou once again visit my blog free antivirus download for windows downloadsoftwaredownload antivirus free download downloadmoviesdownload
This has the very badly biased thesis that ethics and morality are absolutes instead of the cultural relativism that they are in reality.
I think it would be very hard to come up with a completely objective moral theory, but if you agree that some basic principal such as "you should not directly harm other people" is agreed on an as axiom, then you can objectively judge various actions as moral or not.
The tricky part is picking those basic rights / axioms.
Anarchists never rule
I have read Kant, and I did not find his reasoning persuasive. He was starting with KNOWING that morals as spelled out in the bible are correct then trying to use "modern rational thought" to prove they are right. He starts with his rules as a given then spends a lot of time rationalizing why they are right.
He argues that the rules must be followed, no exceptions. Stealing is wrong, even to save a life.
Anarchists never rule
..are not the same. This is a classic example of the naturalistic fallacy. If you assume you know what ethics is prior to doing the study, then it is unsurprisingly simple to conclude that scientific reasoning leads to "Morally normative effects." Someone forgot to tell UCSB-Psych that "ethics" is a somewhat controversial notion and that the "true" norms have as yet not been objectively defined.
Scientific discovery seems to have zero impact on most people's stances on ethical matters. For example abortion. Does either side care when exactly the baby is capable of emotion?
Who defines it? What about the uncommon good?
That's only your opinion, and there is no evidence to back it up.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
And they are smarter too
... the SS doctors and scienters were very much 'scientifically literate' yet a case can be made quite easily they didn't act ethically...
kspacey join amnesty international www.amnesty.org
Or perhaps you're simply overconfident?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
enlightened self-interest. All of the rules about "morals" (at least, the 'morals' that every society on Earth have in common) are the simple and obvious conclusions of living in a society and establishing reasonable boundaries for the give-and-take that is required to have a functioning society. The 'morals' arise because of enlightened self-interest and understanding the consequences of individual decisions when living in a society (don't steal - because if stealing is allowed, there are more people who can steal from you than you can steal from - enlightened self-interest dictates that stealing should not be allowed in a society, etc).
Hence, people who typically think things through in a calm and rational manner, who think about cause and effect, who try to understand complex systems and devise rules to predict results of actions in a complex system, are more likely to understand the basic cause-and-effect of actions in a society and hence the resulting 'morals' of a society.
Needless to say, that description applies well to scientists.
Most "immoral" behavior stems either from people who haven't thought things through, or who think that somehow they can avoid the consequences of their actions.
"Its pretty easy to demonstrate they are independent of one another."
Um, sorry to have to tell you this, but individual instances "demonstrate" exactly nothing.
Maybe you need to work on your critical thinking skills?
Someone trained in the scientific method can evaluate data impartially, as long as it does not conflict with his own work or contradict his own research.
But a scientist is just as likely to lie, cheat, or steal as anyone else, when it is in his interest to do so.
I question the validity of any study that "proves" scientists are more ethical than non-scientists.
sciencific literacy indeed provides excelent tools to construct a more ethical (that is, a more world-aware) self. however, those tools are seldom applied to that purpose. i'm afraid as a general rule our wretched "occidental" moral education always takes precedence, and those lucky enough to become literates end up being just what our education is aimed to produce: selfish, lost, reckless human beings, or just a literate version of that.
specially the advent of internet made this painfully obvious, but this should not render us hopeless. to improve our world we must know to what extreme it really is an immense shithole.
If you think that morals are subjective then you're basically saying that they aren't real. They're fictions.
No, he's saying that whether or not something is wrong is a matter of opinion (e.g. red is my favorite color), not that morals do not exist in any form.
How can you believe that they're immoral when you don't believe in morality?
Calling them immoral was his own opinion.
Also, your understanding of Christianity is so poor that you ought not comment on it.
It is painfully clear that you don't understand moral relativism or anything similar. Saying that something is a subjective matter != saying it doesn't exist.
It is not sound without any framework, though. Thus it's only sound if one assumes a framework exists.
Wrong.
But you haven't actually reached the conclusion "torture is wrong". You have reacehd the conclusion "if X, then torture is wrong". That's useful, if X is something you're willing to assume; if it isn't, then you haven't reached any reached a conclusion about the morality or immorality of torture.
Basically, your conclusion is not absolute, it's conditional, and you haven't proven the condition.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
No, that's not what objective means. Something being objective simply means that if two peple come to different conclusions about it, at least one of them must be wrong. It does not say anything about the nature of the observations, for example that they must be black and white.
Power corrupts, and has always corrupted everywhere. And attracts power-hungry people. And power-hungry, corrupt people are willing to do corrupt and immoral acts to get even more power. This does not mean that the society is "okay" with it, just that it's a chronic illness it is unable to get rid of and thus just has to tolerate.
Somethings, such as sexuality, have moved from community regulated towards individually decided, while others, such as whether you use cannabis, have moved from individually decided towards community regulated.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Psychology in the United States (and possibly wider) largely seems to be a science dedicated to studying, describing, and predicting (in large part) the psychology school undergrad (who are the pool of choice for many academic studies), peppered with other undergraduate students at the institituion. A great deal of work, therefore, deals with the mind of the undergraduate. A worthy area of research, but not one that is widely able to be generalized to the vastly diverse body of the human race. There is an entire discipline (Cross-cultural psychology) which focuses on why cultural factors are so often a problem in psychology, and investigating how to study the human race as a whole.
Beyond that, this specific study has other problems, as noted above in great profusion. A capacity for critical thinking may lead to pursuing science, as well as ethical behavior (based upon an evaluation of outcomes of different acts). Then again, it can also lead to un-ethical behavior (based upon an evaluation of outcomes of different acts). Less critical thinking may lead to non-scientific pursuits (based on a belief or the influence of a dominant thought-meme or individual) and may lead to ethical behavior (based upon fear of punishment) or may lead to unethical behavior (based upon ignorance of the ethical nature, or ignorance of the consequences of said behavior). There may be correlation, but in no way can such a bold claim be made. To say nothing of potential investigator bias.
Psychopathic tendencies have been associated with both success (CEOs) and failure (serial and spree killers) - but they do not alone dictate one or the other.
Very true, but it is a prerequisite.
"Its pretty easy to demonstrate they are independent of one another."
Um, sorry to have to tell you this, but individual instances "demonstrate" exactly nothing.
Except when proving an overly broad statement to be false.
Maybe you need to work on your critical thinking skills?
While studying such things I seem to recall being told that the person resorting to ad hominem attacks just identified themselves as the loser of the argument.
First, my comment was:
"But it's pretty hard to argue that they aren't related."
Please explain what is "overly broad" about that. It IS difficult to argue -- in a sound, reasonable, scientific manner, anyway -- that the two are not related. Your reply:
"Its pretty easy to demonstrate they are independent of one another."
Say what? A single anecdote in reply to a comment like that does not demonstrate anything of the sort. If I had expressed a theory that the two were 100% correlated (as opposed to somewhat related), then it would indeed have been a counterexample, and would have actually demonstrated something.
"While studying such things I seem to recall being told that the person resorting to ad hominem attacks just identified themselves as the loser of the argument."
I admit that it was a bit of a snide remark, but that's because your comment deserved one. It was not, however, an "ad hominem attack", because I wasn't using it as part of my argument.
You just earned another snide remark about your critical thinking skills. But it appears that it would be pointless to go there, so I won't. Have a GREAT day.
No, they don't have that. The Hebrew is quite clear, and it means murder, not kill.
No, it does not mean that it means unlawful (as under God's law) killing. .
That's a bit circular, don't you think? A law which says, "Thou shalt not kill, except for legally"?
I freely admit not being an expert on current Hebrew, let alone Biblical, but retzach, as in the Ten Biggies, kind of connotes to me a certain degree of intent, not necessarily murder, but deliberate as distinct from, say, negligent manslaughter. The ethical and moral implications of that, i can't theorize. I do note that when Cain slays Abel, it's not retzach, the word used is yehargehu, which to me is a more general meaning of killing, but again the deeper meaning of all these word choices is beyond me.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Morals are completely devoid from reality. Good and evil are simply a human construct and an arbitrary one at that
Sure, error theory and moral nihilism is one position. There is no particular reason why this philosophical position is more compelling then any number of others, and there are quite a few legitimate criticisms of it. For example even if we assume it is a human construct there is plenty of evidence that it is not arbitrary.
1. If X then X.
That may be a correct statement of logic, but it's useless as philosophy. Philosophy with any value, or even an attempt at giving value, IS going to make assumptions and IS going to lead to conclusions. I think you and the GP are looking at different contexts.
The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
Murder happens constantly among most non-plant species. It's how they eat. Some species even kill their own kind, such as humans, lions, and spiders.
Murder and torture can be morally right, it all depends on how you view things: Your group is starving. There are eatable predates nearby, but they know not to attack your group. No one in the group will cry out and fake an injury as that has a high chance of killing said individual (predators will attack injured group members off by themselves). Instead, your group attack and injures or tortures one of it's own so it's cries will draw the predators near. As the predators attack the tortured member, the rest of the group ambushes the predators and feast well that night. The injured individual dies, everyone else from the group got to eat.
Nature doesn't care about morals. That's something we made up to justify our actions and feelings.
However, making a value statement about a group of people just because they base their moral code on a system you happen to disagree with says a lot more about you and your personal moral code than it does them.
No it doesn't. Your misreading of GP's point doesn't give you the right to claim smug superiority, sorry.
If you're only not a murderer/thief/rapist because you don't want punishment, you are -- objectively -- not a moral or ethical person. As long as you're thinking only of yourself, you can't claim to be a moral person. This applies to both theists who fear hell and atheists who fear jail. Sorry you got butthurt over the idea that not everybody who embraces Judea-Christian is a paragon of virtue.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Well, would you care to define what it is to be human then? Even though morals can provide a survival benefit, to say that it is then an inherent human property is to label those without those morals as not human, which I imagine many would take issue with.
Putting aside the other comments and objections, "ethics" is quite a broad field. While scientifically inclined people seem to be more sensitive towards judging "date rape", it would be interesting to see how sensitive they are in judging other "ethical" concepts, such as "pride", "greed", or even "tolerance".
"Its pretty easy to demonstrate they are independent of one another."
Say what? A single anecdote ...
You just don't get the context do you? Since 1901 there have been 163 Nobel Laureates in chemistry. In a few minutes of googling I was able to find **4** that were active participants in chemical warfare, active as in personally on the battlefield.
Its not simply a single anecdote. Its at a minimum about 2.5% of Nobel Laureates, the elite amongst science. And its only about 2.5% because I only spent a few minutes googling, I have not looked at the other 159 Laureates at all.
Get over it. With a few minutes of research it was trivially shown that scientific literacy and critical thinking (wrt ethics) are independent of one another.
You're proving his point. Those motivated by "fear of god" are not moral. They are pragmatic.
Religion doesn't make people moral. Huh. Go figure.
A tautology is not an argument, therefore, by definition, it cannot be a sound argument. Geez, people take one Philo 101 course and then think they can argue their way out of a paper bag.
Well, would you care to define what it is to be human then?
Would you?
Even though morals can provide a survival benefit, to say that it is then an inherent human property
I didn't say that, so I'm not sure why I'd have to defend it.
is to label those without those morals as not human
Not only did I not say that, but even if I had said it, that would be an unjustified leap of logic.
which I imagine many would take issue with.
Ok. I agree with this. Calling amoral people non-human would probably piss some of them off. But seeing as I didn't do that, I'm not overly worried about it. And besides I've called people on the internet far worse than non-human ;)
If they are not arbitrary (in this case dependent on situation, of which any situation can arise) then they are set properties, if they are set properties and properties of humans, then any person not having those set properties would not be human yes?
The religious narrative itself gives the moral code a history of about 3500 years. Modern scholars reckon the writings are more like 2500-3000 years old. Tops.
And much of the developments in modern societal code can be attributed to secular classical Greek and enlightenment-era philosophy. Christianity has historically been a very conservative force.
If they are not arbitrary then they are set properties if they are set properties and properties of humans, then any person not having those set properties would not be human yes?
Would you conclude a person without 5 fingers on his left hand is non-human? The same logic applies.
Depends on how you define human of course. Are 'people' 2000 years ago 'human', 10k years? 800k? This is the problem with saying morals are an inherent human property, what people consider to be human is just as arbitrary as the morals you try to place on it.
I think you are using the word 'arbitrary' in a confusing and incorrect manner.
Arbitrary:
"subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision."
What is considered "human" is NOT arbitrary.
A grasshopper is not human. A solar system is not human. The color vermillion is not human. An electron is not human. A tuna fish sandwich is not human.
Yes, the definition of "human" is imprecise along its boundaries, and yes if we are forced to define a line in the sand at the boundary the precise placement of that line will be arbitrary WITHIN the fuzzy boundary area, but that does not make the definition "completely arbitrary".
Similarly, earlier on you stated morals were "completely arbitrary", and this is not the case either.
People are free to ascribe any meaning to any series of characters they like, we have differing languages for a reason. A series of letters does not have inherent meaning, even the characters themselves can be anything at all, it does not matter.
Is there any particular reason the character 'c' _must_ be shaped the way it is?
in the same way, a persons concept of what is human can be arbitrary. Fair enough if people have a general consensus and align (just like with morals), but this need not be the case.
Fair enough if people have a general consensus and align (just like with morals), but this need not be the case.
How do you know it need not be the case?
Maybe a set of specific general moral imperatives are required for a society to function. Perhaps you can't form a functioning society without them.
That would make them anything but arbitrary.