Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

PaxNova t1_ivbc6em wrote

Reply to comment by stoppedcaring0 in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

That would just mean there's a biological imperative towards certain actions. An appeal to nature would not mean it is objectively moral.

Plus, these things change over time. Ask people what they think of gay marriage now versus fifty years ago. If the people truly determine what is moral, then it was morally wrong fifty years ago.

14

stoppedcaring0 t1_ivck2w9 wrote

Hmm. And, to be fair to my hypothetical, it was once believed that left-handedness was evil, which is one of the reasons why the word "sinister" has negative connotations to this day.

So that's the error of this line of reasoning: not that there can be no scientific basis for shared human moral values, but that it is impossible to empirically separate those shared moral human values with a scientific underpinning from individual or societal norms, which are subject to change significantly over time.

2

zhibr t1_ivej3sz wrote

The problem is that you have a presupposition what morality is, and try to fit scientific answers to that, which is the wrong way around. If we don't assume that, science can help with finding out what people consider moral, and find reasons why they think so. This will produce an empirical understanding on morality similar to what Shermer is talking about.

0