Science of Morality, Anyone?

Where, in American culture, is the domain of knowledge that we would identify as morality studied and taught?

I suspect that if we do not quickly develop a science of morality that will make it possible for us to live together on this planet in a more harmonious manner our technology will help us to destroy the species and perhaps the planet soon.

It seems to me that we have given the subject matter of morality primarily over to religion. It also seems to me that if we ask the question ‘why do humans treat one another so terribly?’ we will find the answer in this moral aspect of human culture.

The ‘man of maxims’ “is the popular representative of the minds that are guided in their moral judgment solely by general rules, thinking that these will lead them to justice by a ready-made patent method, without the trouble of exerting patience, discrimination, impartiality—without any care to assure themselves whether they have the insight that comes from a hardly-earned estimate of temptation, or from a life vivid and intense enough to have created a wide fellow-feeling with all that is human.” George Eliot The Mill on the Floss

I agree to the point of saying that we have moral instincts, i.e. we have moral emotions. Without these moral emotions we could not function as social creatures. These moral emotions are an act of evolution. I would ague that the instinct for grooming that we see in monkeys is one example of this moral emotion.

We can no longer leave this important matter in the hands of the Sunday-school. Morality must become a top priority for scientific study.

Is this science?

Can't speak for the US but here in Oz I think most uni courses have an Ethics component, which has the same aim as morality without the judgemental edge of the term 'morality', coming as that word does from a religious-y background. The implementation of such principles though is then left to the individual, as it should be. We next need to convince people that sometimes what is good for society requires compromise and cooperation. That is often hard for a society based on the Me First principle to understand.

Why is grooming, as displayed by monkeys, an indication of moral emotions?

Emotions are instincts; they are something that is part of our genes. They are part of our genetic makeup because they were necessary for the survival of the social species. Some species are loners but some are naturally social. The social species needed emotions that facilitated social unity. Mutual grooming is one means for bonding between individuals and the group.

Would morals count as knowledge? Do emotions count as knowledge? Directly I must say that the emotion of fear is not knowledge. The emotion leads to a feeling and the consciousness of the feeling becomes knowledge. Morality is about relationships, i.e. certain instincts make a social group possible.

Without social cohesion social groups cannot survive. Reasoning about facts is a human means for survival and thriving. The more we know and understand about relationships the better will be our lives. In fact, because we have developed such powerful technology and thus have placed in the hands of people such power that if we do not do a better job about relationships our species cannot long survive.

Here's a view that springs to mind (without a great deal of thought, so please demolish it at will!)

People are, by their nature, compelled to pursue activities that meet their biological and psychological/emotional needs. In some regions such as here in Thailand, where immediate basic needs are most often less easily satisfied, the secondary, longer term needs are obscured (as evident in the social/political situation). In regions such as the UK, where the immediate basic needs are satisfied relatively easily, the longer term needs become a more visible goal. Nonetheless, those longer term needs can remain obscured by a compulsive preoccupation with establishing an ever greater sense of immediate security - a personal and communal 'power base' which has to be at least equal to, and preferably greater than, that of potential competitors.

Morality arises as a social response to those needs, and is therefore subject to change. Our behaviour regarding relationships is largely determined by the degree to which the quality of those relationships produces desirable results concerning, primarily, immediate needs, and secondarily, longer term needs. The longer term needs (ultimately, survival of the species), can generally be recognised as significant only when the shorter term needs are sufficiently satisfied.

Perhaps that conclusion suggests that a more even distribution of the world's resources should be an essential moral goal for this age. But what does it all have to do with science? Here's one possible answer:

Scientific research tends to reflect the morality of the host society because -

(1) most scientific research is directed by government and corporations
(2) government and corporations have a vested interest in being responsive to what the public perceives as its needs
(3) the perception of Joe (and Josephine!) Public regarding their needs reflects their morality

Is it possible though to legislate for morality? I would doubt it.

Rede says "government and corporations have a vested interest in being responsive to what the public perceives as its needs"....

But I suggest that this statement has nothing to do with morality. In fact it could be argued that the pursuit of popular opinion may reflect some very devious pathways. So morality is not necessarily inherent simply because of the existence of democratic process because for some portion of the population, the monority, there will be conflict.

So perhaps it could be suggested that religios belief is necessary for morality. It is apparently easy to persuade people to delay gratification of desire until after death, and at the conclusion of a 'holy' life, (ie a moral one) reward is achieved! However I don't think that this is enough for all people. Of course morality can exist without religious belief, or even the belief in absolutes, such as good and evil.

So the question is perhaps---- what is 'morality'? Surely the universal standard is some form of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". It covers everything, and no eternal damnation for wearing the wrong clothes or befriending someone who has a different invisible friend! And, think it through-- no more wars!

By the way, is ethical behaviour the same as moral behaviour?

This is not what I suggested, but aren't both government legislation promoting the rule of law, and the laws themselves, a form of morality enforcement.


I maintain that it does, since what the people perceive as their needs is influenced by the quality and level of their morality. I've caused confusion by not including the word 'immorality'. I was refering to the level of morality, be it high or low.


I would rather suggest that religion takes its morality of society, rather than vice versa. Take a look through history, and compare your observations with some of the current less religous regions of the developed world.


The words are used interchangably, except that Ethics is usually used to refer to the formal study of morality (except for 'moral philosophy!).

Rede- You seem to imply that by responding to the public opinion by legislation governments are behaving morally. Does it then follow that democracy is inherently more moral than other forms of government? One problem with democracy (especially one which is a solely 2-party model) is that there will always a minority who are unrepresented. How can this be inherently more moral than some other forms of government? And are the less well represented less moral than the majority, as their views are lost?

I would have thought that throughout history when religion is allowed to dictate morality, both legally and in government, the result has been disastrous, especially for dissenters. This is because the 'morality' being dispensed is that which conforms to the rules of the specific religion, and aherence to the rules is required for moral behaviour. Failure to comply is usually dealt with harshly. Can this be true morality, the morality of force and fear?

That's not what I intended to imply - which is that the level of morality/immorality in government activity tends to reflect the level of morality/immorality of the society.

I'm considering the form of government in the developed western style nations that are the vanguard of scientific research. These governments are inclined to democratic notions, and as such tend to be responsive to the expressed wishes of the people. This is further assured by the fact that the many members of the elected government are themselves products of the society. I'm saying that whatever the general level of morality(/immorality) in the society, it is likely to be reflected, to a significant degree, in the actions of the government. Not perfectly, as we all know - but the trend is there. In the case of corporations, we know that competitive financial power is achieved by supplying marketable goods and services - i.e., giving the customers what they want.

So, a democratic government need not necessarily be more or less moral than any other government - it tends, by definition, to depend upon the 'will' of the people, which in turn has it's basis in their ethical standards, be they high or low. It can certainly be argued that short term self-interest dominates the will of the electorate - but that's also a matter of ethics.

I agree completely with your remarks re the track record of religious morality. Hence my earlier allusion to the fact that, as societies have developed to the level with which you and I are familiar, much stubbornly embedded religious morality has been exposed as unethical and forced to change, and we continue to see this happening now. In the UK, for example, neither society nor legislated law would sanction many of the religious practices of past ages.

What I'm trying to convey is the basis for my earlier contention, which I've edited to make clearer:

(1) most scientific research is directed by government and corporations
(2) government and corporations have a vested interest in being responsive to what the public perceives as its needs
(3) the perception of Joe (and Josephine!) Public regarding their needs reflects their level of morality/immorality/ethical standards

- Hence, scientific research generally tends to reflect the ethical standards (morality/immorality) of the host society.

I don't say scientific research is driven solely by ethical considerations - just influenced by them, to a degree related to the ethical status of the society.

I agree that science often reflects the morality of the culture (it is not supposed to but often does, generally by becomeing amoral). Therein lay the rub. When our moral comprehension is unsophisticated then our science reflecting that code will often be unsophisticated or amoral.

In America corporation leadership exercises most of the power in the society and thus ultimately sets public policy.

I agree that most citizens reflect a very unsophisticated comprehension of morality and this is reflected in their judgment.

That is why I push for the development of a science of morality. We cannot continue to depend upon Sunday school morality.

I consider ethics and morality to be the same thing. But since we know little about such matters, who knows?

Hi,

I think, for any sort of education the first and foremost thing needed is morality.

CSK

Sounds good to me...but who's morality?

rede-- did you mean 'whose' morality, otherwise it does not make sense?

Yep! Thanks, Ellis.

The point being, of course, that we see for ourselves how morality differs from place to place and time to time.

Actually, there already exists a study of ethics that's as close as we're likely to get to a science of morality. I really don't know what I'm talking about because I've never formally studied ethics, but such a formal study could encompass the following fields:

Descriptive ethics
Normative ethics
Applied ethics
Meta-ethics

If anyone feels inclined to 'google' those, maybe they can figure out what they all mean

I think the first thing one needs is curiosity. A natural sort of quasi-ethic CAN arise from that, however, there's no guarantee that it will. It's very easy to get pulled to the dark side - i.e. magical thinking, the antithesis of honest inquiry.

However, I do agree that schools should be teaching some basic ethics or morality, because so many parents (in the US) are completely missing the boat.

AWT brings a new insights into theories of ethics and morality. For example the requirement of supersymmetry: every biased stance becomes counterproductive and it becomes eat its children. We can compare this behavior to spreading of transversal energy (i.e information) through dense foam of nested density fluctuations (i.e. ideas).

Due the dispersion, every information will spread in dual way, so we are faced with the both sides of truth. The unbiased, balanced approach is therefore very important. We should be always sure, we can describe the same reality from both sides by at least two reciprocal, i.e. dual ways.

"For example the requirement of supersymmetry: every biased stance becomes counterproductive and it becomes eat its children."

Nearly every sentence you write is nonsense. Put some scientific words like gradient and dispersion and voila! Add water and make your own Science!

I see.. You just don't know, what the supersymmetry is and how it emerges in particle systems - face it. ;-)

" face it."
Face that you're spewing random scientific terms without understanding.

Zephir- Good manners would indicate that you need to explain the ideas that you introduce as though the reader has no background knowledge of your topic. This is not due to their thundering lack of brain capacity, which is that of a gnat compared with yours, but rather that they have not considered the fascinating insights you are proposing before, because of its originality, (not their fault-you have only just thought of it!). Most people on this site are here to learn about such new ideas, or to look at old ideas in a new light. We have fun here too, and I am sure that if you would explain your brilliant insights more clearly we would all enjoy reading them more, and understand why you wish to broadcast them.

By Aether Wave Theory (AWT) observable reality appears like being formed by density fluctuations (gradients) of hypothetical inhomogeneous infinitely dense environment, so called the Aether. We can compare these fluctuations to spongy density fluctuations, which appears inside of every dense gas of supercritical fluid. We cannot see the gas - we can see only density fluctuations in it. That's all about AWT assumptions - the rest are deductions and extrapolations.



In this environment every information spreads along surfaces of foam in dispersive way like so called light. When we place a light source inside of bucket, which is placed into foam, we can observe, the light will penetrate whole volume, so that the inner surface of bucket will remain illuminated by the same way, like this outer one - the light spreading will become omnipresent here:



It means - depending on proximity of the observed object - we can see every piece of reality from two sides: both from outside, but from inside perspective too, just in much weaker and dispersed way. From large distance both perspectives will converge into single one. This model appears pretty fantastic, but it has it's own testable predictions. For example cosmic microwave background radiation corresponds Hawking radiation of tiny black hole, whose lifespan correspond the age of observable Universe. It means, our Universe appears like being formed by interior of tiny dense star, which we are living in and which is sitting inside of another Universe, and so on. The most distant quasars are forming an outer surface of this star and Aether is forming material of this star. The foam forming vacuum is visible in two ways too: both like quantum foam forming vacuum at Planck scale, both like streaks of so called dark matter at cosmic scale.



This is a way, by which we can visualize whole model of observable reality easily. In addition, we can use a low energy scale analogies, because every condensate inside of Universe behaves in analogous, just in less pronounced way. For example human society can be modeled like dense random system, through which information spreads along surfaces of ideas or theories, which are behaving like foamy density fluctuations here. Random opinion of individuals spreads here in subtle dispersive way too, by the same way like energy spreading in foam.

This is a way, by which we can visualize whole model of observable reality easily. In addition, we can use a low energy scale analogies, because every condensate inside of Universe behaves in analogous, just in less pronounced way. For example human society can be modeled like dense random system, through which information spreads along surfaces of ideas or theories, which are behaving like foamy density fluctuations here. Random opinion of individuals spreads here in subtle dispersive way too, by the same way like energy spreading in foam.

Thank you for this explanation Zephir. I think that this is a very interesting and original suggestion, and very sympathetic to my idea regarding the random nature of human behaviour and experience. Are the words 'random' and 'system' compatible?

By AWT randomness and order are always connected. Even the simplest system, like particle gas exhibits a random fluctuations of density. There fluctuations can be seen as a random violations of randomness and with increasing of gas density they get more and more complex gradually. We are discussion this model right here...

What follows from this model, for example? Well, the people can behave like pretty smart fluctuations of reality. But as a whole, the behavior of human society corresponds the chaotic particle gas. (Nearly) all intelligent motivations of individuals will compensate mutually at distance and only fundamental laws of randomness remains. For example the tendency of individuals to follow mass/energy density gradients via diffusion like free particles of gas.

This is somewhat warning insight for all social engineers, who are believing, the civilization can protect yourself from global conflicts and/or social catastrophes. It cannot, whenever their reasons become global as well.

As another point for science of ethics and moral behavior can serve the concept of AWT perspectives. For AWT the absolute truth doesn't exist, it exists only less or more global perspective of this truth. But because we are formed by infinitely nested levels of density fluctuations, even the most global perspective can be divided into insintric and exsintric perspective.

We can explain the meaning of perspectives easily by example of gravitational lensing interpretations. By so called relativists, the gravitational lensing is typical general relativity phenomena, because it "illustrates clearly", space-time is curved near gravitating body, whereas the speed of light spreading remains constant and its path is straight.



Whereas everybody can see, the exactly the opposite is true at the case of gravitational lensing: space-time is apparently flat, but the light spread along curved path, so that refraction and lensing phenomena occurs here. This renders gravitational lensing as a basically quantum mechanics phenomena - relativists and quantum theorists only didn't realize it.

The relativists are saying, space-time is curved near gravitating object, but they never measure this curvature at distance. It would require to put a remote clock in it and to measure the time dilatation to be right. But such experiment was never done. On the other hand, quantum theorists can see, how the object of remote object remains fragmented into many parts, so that gravitational lensing can serve as an illustration of quantum uncertainty.



Who is true here, after than? By AWT both sides are true, but their observation perspectives are mutually inconsistent and singular from strictly causal perspective of formal math, which leads into landscape of infinitelly many solutions of every formal theory, which attempts for reconcilation of relativity and quantum mechanics. Because no pinpoint observer can observe certain phenomena or another object both from inside, both from outside at the same moment (fortunatelly we aren't pinpoint objects).

So every local observer from inside of gravitational lens will be deformed by gravity field by the same way, like path of light, so he would see the light straight, but space-time deformed and he will be able to verify such stance by his clock. On the other hand, every observer from outside would see the same phenomena like apparent refraction, because he isn't affected by gravitational field, which has caused the space-time deform. So he can become proponent of Lorentz invariance violation and variable speed of light theories.

This way of thinking is extremely trivial, but till now nobody attempted for it. But as we can see, it bring us always at least two views of reality, each of them remains perfectly logical and substantiated - but these two views can never be reconciled in logical way. They're remain separated by event horizon and singular mutually.

So if two people are saying, they've their truth, they can be both right, despite we are tend to consider the outer, i.e. exsintric perspective a slightly more general and as such more relevant one. But under more thorough investigation we would see, it's just another illusion - we are just observing the same things from both sides, as explained in previous post.

The memo is, our Universe is full of "truths" and we can describe them by infinitely many theories, which are mutually divergent/singular - despite of they're describe the very same thing at the first sight. Such deeper insight brings a need of tolerance and plurality into human thinking and mutual discussion.

"Ethics classes have been compulsory in Berlin schools since 2006. But in most of the rest of Germany pupils have a choice between religion and ethics...The ethics classes were intended to instil a sense of shared secular values in children, whatever their personal religious beliefs."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8016990.stm

Here in Australia some states have introduced ethics, philosophy and/or comparative religion into the curriculum, but the act providing compulsory education for every child states that in govt. schools education has to be secular, and some states have decided it's all too difficult, though personally I do not see why ethics has to be taught as part of a religious course.

And of course FF--- how on earth does anyone decide what is basic morality?