[coberst]

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

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

[Kitty]

I believe that it begins at home, as early as the day you bring that baby home from the hospital.

Children learn by example....not "do as I say, not as I do". You've got to practice what you preach....because someone is always watching...whether you're aware of it or not.

Do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. Not because you want others to notice or you think someone is watching.

It's not always easy. But in the end it will serve you well.

[Ivy2]

I love George Eliot. She also said -

Blessed is the influence of one true, loving human soul on another.
George Eliot

I would hope 2 loving parents would help raise a good person.

[bluenurse]

I don't think Science can answer questions of morality. The problem of deciding good and bad, right and wrong, is outside the determination of science. Nature handed us a moral grammar that fuels our intuitive judgments of right and wrong. Emotions play their strongest role in influencing our actions—reinforcing acts of virtue and punishing acts of vice.

[Ivy2]

Actually it's a fascinating subject with infinite answers because right and wrong have changed so often, like smoking is now bad, vegetarians are good, green living just a recent addition ... it keeps changing - whats good and what is not...there are a lot of websites on this subject I just discovered.

[coberst]

The human brain is capable of a systematic and disciplined study of any domain of knowledge. One reason that we have so much difficulty with moral judgments is because no one knows any thing about these matters beyond what they learned in Sunday school or from their parents who are ignorant of such matters also. Religion is not morality. We have allowed religion to take over this domain of knowledge and thus many of our wars that are fought in the name of religion.

[AfterMyNap]

Originally Posted by coberst

The human brain is capable of a systematic and disciplined study of any domain of knowledge. One reason that we have so much difficulty with moral judgments is because no one knows any thing about these matters beyond what they learned in Sunday school or from their parents who are ignorant of such matters also. Religion is not morality. We have allowed religion to take over this domain of knowledge and thus many of our wars that are fought in the name of religion.

So sweeping, unfounded generalizations are moral, proper and correct?

Science depends on proof, morality depends on the human spirit whether via nature, nurture or a delicate balance between them. There are moral athiests and moral theists; conversely, the moral, immoral and indeed amoral exist within virtually every pod of every society.

To dare to define or assign moral code for others is tantamount to presumption of authority over all living things.

I stick with God.

Originally Posted by Ivy2

Actually it's a fascinating subject with infinite answers because right and wrong have changed so often, like smoking is now bad, vegetarians are good, green living just a recent addition ... it keeps changing - whats good and what is not...there are a lot of websites on this subject I just discovered.

This is interesting, Ivy, I believe that there is nothing new under the sun, it has all happened before and will all happen again. Basically, same ice cream, different flavor.

[Ivy2]

I just took the morals test DocJohn posted in 2007 down below this post in similar threads - interesting to see what I valued most in a graph form - Revealing the Origins of Morality.

[Idealist]

I don't think that morality and science belong in the same category. If we attempt to reduce morality to a set of rules to be followed in a given situation, then it's no longer moral at all. It is just a conditioned response to a specific stimuli. And there is no way possible to teach a person every single experience he or she might encounter in their lives.

Morality is based on good and bad. Science tells us in it's most basic form that good and bad do not exist. Everything is relative. To a starving peasant in Korea, even our homeless people are much more lucky than they are. And to me, any millionaire is far beyond my reach. Everything is based on comparisons with everything else.

I'm sorry to have to digress here, but without some kind of faith as a guiding force, beyond mere science, there can be no good or bad, and hence no morality by which to live. It always amuses me that even the most hardcore of scientists must rely on things like 'Mother Nature', or other ethereal forces in order to make their logical thoughts make practical sense. In science there can be no emotion, no sense of right and wrong, because inanimate objects simply cannot act upon anything by themselves. They may only react, which is totally and obviously different.

Several hundred years ago there was a Jewish philosopher who lived his life in Europe. After many years of studying science and religion, he came up with a very long and very specific theory that God was the universe, and that every particle has a certain amount of intelligence based on it's size and complexity. The reason that we are so smart was because our brains were the very most complicated things in existence for their size. He based much of his thinking on the fact that even an electron "knows" how to join the orbit of an atom if the atom needs the electron. But what he over-looked was that the electron didn't have a choice in the matter. It didn't act, it simply fulfilled a predictable reaction under the laws of partical physics.

My own personal opinion is that science will never be able to quantify love or hate, nor evil and good. Those are emotional and spiritual realities which can only be felt. You will never see any part of them on an electron telescope, no matter how powerful they get. And at least most of the world's people know from individual experience that they both can sometimes be truly impossible to understand.

[PolarExpress]

Some of the world's greatest scientists are very spiritual people (i.e. Albert Einstein)..Not necessarily religious, but definately spiritual. How could one not be, when exposed to beauty on a very large scale~The Universe, or the very small~Quantum Mechanics?
Now, I realize this will sound corny at best, but I don't believe religion or science can teach morality. I don't believe critical thinking can do it, either. The only true power we have is Love..Love is the glue that holds it all together. That's what makes the difference between the "moral" and "morally bankrupt"..