I don't really understand how his talk supports the idea that science can answer moral questions. To me this is a philosophical talk from an educated scientific perspective. I call that common sense, although it's not very common.
He says: "Values are a certain kind of fact, they are facts about the wellbeing of conscious creatures."
Well, there you have the problem. How much more subjectivity can you get in one sentence? How are you going to scientifically define wellbeing and consciousness? How are you going to compare suffering or happiness of different creatures? And what is your cost function for the optimization of wellbeing? In my view these things can not be completely reduced to facts.
If he just means that we can ultimately model/explain everything from "simple" physical laws, without super-natural stuff, then I agree. Although that does not remove the subjectivity. He, at least, does not convince me of that.
How is science ever going to answer whether it is right to kill one random stranger to let two others live?
Science tries to make models to predict and explain the real world in a simple and general way. I don't see where ethics fits in.
Maybe I should watch it again. I really fail to see the connection to science in his talk.
I think there is such a thing as a natural morality, and that this can be proved one day. With a natural morality I mean the basics like live and let live. People who live, strive for well-being. Science might then be able to answer what kind of system would allow maximum well-being for a maximum number of people. This doesn't mean that there is only one right way, just like you can build different looking bridges over the same river that cost almost as much and are just as functional as each other.
Yeah, ok. So the basic ten commandments like morals. That comes down to the golden rule. Computer simulations may provide evidence that it's generally a good rule that increases wellbeing.
Still. The largest problem is what you will optimize for. And if you take, for example, fairness and equity into account. It makes the rather strong assumption to optimize for maximum wellbeing for a maximum number of people. Like with the bridge, there are many ways, depending on what you optimize for, and there is not one factual best bridge. The optimization is based on science, but the optimization function (the definition of best) will always be a subjective human choice.
To me, the definition of best (or the optimization function) is the real problem of ethics, which is subjective by nature.
I agree about the subjective choice of the 'optimization function'. Once that is chosen science might be able to tell how to achieve it.
Think what science can say about our mental well being once the brain is better understood.
Concerning the problem of choosing the moral system, I think there are some absolutes to be gained about it. In certain repressive systems like fundamentalist religious ones, it can be objectively stated that they are immoral. Because not only do they not strive for general well being, but they actually systematically repress certain groups and ideas within society. So they cannot represent society in their morality.
4 comments:
I don't really understand how his talk supports the idea that science can answer moral questions. To me this is a philosophical talk from an educated scientific perspective. I call that common sense, although it's not very common.
He says: "Values are a certain kind of fact, they are facts about the wellbeing of conscious creatures."
Well, there you have the problem. How much more subjectivity can you get in one sentence? How are you going to scientifically define wellbeing and consciousness? How are you going to compare suffering or happiness of different creatures? And what is your cost function for the optimization of wellbeing? In my view these things can not be completely reduced to facts.
If he just means that we can ultimately model/explain everything from "simple" physical laws, without super-natural stuff, then I agree. Although that does not remove the subjectivity. He, at least, does not convince me of that.
How is science ever going to answer whether it is right to kill one random stranger to let two others live?
Science tries to make models to predict and explain the real world in a simple and general way. I don't see where ethics fits in.
Maybe I should watch it again. I really fail to see the connection to science in his talk.
I think there is such a thing as a natural morality, and that this can be proved one day.
With a natural morality I mean the basics like live and let live. People who live, strive for well-being.
Science might then be able to answer what kind of system would allow maximum well-being for a maximum number of people.
This doesn't mean that there is only one right way, just like you can build different looking bridges over the same river that cost almost as much and are just as functional as each other.
Yeah, ok. So the basic ten commandments like morals. That comes down to the golden rule. Computer simulations may provide evidence that it's generally a good rule that increases wellbeing.
Still. The largest problem is what you will optimize for. And if you take, for example, fairness and equity into account. It makes the rather strong assumption to optimize for maximum wellbeing for a maximum number of people. Like with the bridge, there are many ways, depending on what you optimize for, and there is not one factual best bridge. The optimization is based on science, but the optimization function (the definition of best) will always be a subjective human choice.
To me, the definition of best (or the optimization function) is the real problem of ethics, which is subjective by nature.
I agree about the subjective choice of the 'optimization function'. Once that is chosen science might be able to tell how to achieve it.
Think what science can say about our mental well being once the brain is better understood.
Concerning the problem of choosing the moral system, I think there are some absolutes to be gained about it. In certain repressive systems like fundamentalist religious ones, it can be objectively stated that they are immoral. Because not only do they not strive for general well being, but they actually systematically repress certain groups and ideas within society. So they cannot represent society in their morality.
Post a Comment