Scientific moral.

[Endim_Analys]

Does it exist?

I mean a moral that is somehow based in science and which can be used to make the standard kind of moralist right vs. wrong judgements about things in life in general.

Does "science", from what is the general viewpoint of what science is, hold values to be true that can be further used to pass on value judgements to the entire existance?

 

[Fifty]

Phillip Kitcher (philosopher of science at Columbia) showed decisively that science is inherently value-laden (even abstract sciences like cosmology and such). I'm not entirely sure if that answers your question though, because I am not entirely sure what your question is.

 

[Endim_Analys]

Me neither. I often come across people who use science as a . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . bat in diskussions. I figure we all do. I'm just wondering if the kind of moral claims they make seemingly based on scientific observations can be extrapolated to a broad definition of right and wrong entirely based on scientific truth and nothing but it.

I think I wonder that at least. But now I have hamburgers, so I'll shut up for a while.

 

[Fifty]

I'm just wondering if the kind of moral claims they make seemingly based on scientific observations can be extrapolated to a broad definition of right and wrong entirely based on scientific truth and nothing but it

No, they can't. Not by a long shot.

 

[Endim_Analys]

Ok. Since idiots seem to hate you, I'll take your word for it.

 

[Fifty]

An excellent judgement on your part!

 

[Stylesjl]

Right and Wrong don't exist. The reason is because there is nothing special scientifically about humans. We are just replicating clusters of interacting chemicals whose arrangement was a result of long term cumulative selection based on the ability to replicate and pass on genetic information.

So all our notions of right and wrong are simply built in ideas inside us, that came about because they helped us survive and reproduce. Nothing cosmic or vital about it

 

[warpus]

Endim_Analys I don't think you understand what science is

 

[El_Machinae]

Naw, but that still makes the question harmless.

Science can tell us if certain actions harm people or won't harm people. Science can help predict if a certain morality system is sustainable.

It can't actually make a value judgement on 'right' or 'wrong', but it can help you figure out why you make certain value judgements.

Oh, and I betcha science can learn to generate cloned hearts, for sacrifice to Huitzilopochtli, which might be seen as good. Takes the load off the rest of us

 

[Endim_Analys]

Endim_Analys I don't think you understand what science is

Do you? Is there a commonly understood singular view of what exactly science is? Can you explain it?

I believe science is basically methods of producing and interpreting results in various tests abiding to the "scientific method", therefore being replicable, having to do with some measurable physical property etc., and the theories based on these observations should be falsifiable and other fancy "scientific method" crap.

What I wanted to know was "Is there a set of moral guidelines that can be derived from the general interpretation of what science and the scientific method is that is intrisic to said sources and thus not dependant on an external interpretation or guideline?" so I guess I can't really know what science is, otherwise I would already know the answer to that question. Of course I could be aware of the answer, but choose to withhold it until a more dramatic and awe inspiring moment, but since I consider such actions crap then again I wouldn't. Also I guess the answer and the question and the general perspective on science and knowledge could be highly metaphysical and thus deprive us of the possibility of getting a straight answer through any kind of reasoning or even guessing. But that'd be a bit silly so let's not consider that last alternative.

OT:
If my fancy wordcrapping is in any way unfancy, please let me know.