Kizzy
I am glad you find them interesting. The references include several different perspectives on the science. What I have presented in this forum is my synthesis of those perspectives.
Would you be interested in a thread here about the state of science about our moral sense and cultural moral norms? — Mark S

Sure would, Mark! Where are we starting from? I can lead if you want. Unless you have somewhere specific you want to get right into? I struggle seeing the bounds of this thread though in your synthesis I dont know if they are really set and how far we should push them. I can take direction and I have many thoughts tied into moral senses/cultural norms and the state of science around it. So, I'm excited!

It occured to me that the science of morality is just about useless for Boethius as he sits in his prison cell awaiting his torture and execution for not not allowing corruption. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Where science is probably most helpful is in knowing what to do and how to do it, — Count Timothy von Icarus

Science would be extremely helpful to Boethius while he is still Consul and dealing with the intricacies of public policy. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Point being, science, and techne in general, is only useful once one is already self-determining to some degree. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Excellent.

You aptly describe my perspective also, including Stoicism being the best philosophical therapy for those who are suffering. I hope you didn’t think I would disagree. Thanks for commenting.

Science can’t tell us what our values and goals imperatively ought to be, but once we choose values and goals, science can often tell us what we ought (instrumental means) to do to be most likely to achieve them.

The science of morality can tell us (or Boethius) how we ought (instrumental) to refine cultural moral norms to best support moral values and achieve moral goals using means defined by the moral principles that underly our moral sense and cultural moral norms. Because of their origins, we will find these moral means more harmonious with our moral sense and more motivating than any other possible set of means for achieving moral goals.

:up:

I had forgot the ethics was so short because my copy had an introduction as long as the book lol. Another classic. Big fan of Murdoch too.

I do think it's a bit of a shame that verse and drama are so out of style in philosophy these days. But I suppose this could be selection bias, where we only get the good examples of philosophical verse. I imagine there are many ways to do it poorly. Plus, I guess we still have people like Dostoevsky and Kundera more recently, it's just that this sort of literary phil seems quite dead outside the existentialist frame. Where are the poetic epics looking at the philosophical implications of quantum foundations or extended evolutionary synthesis!?



I think that is mostly right, although science can inform metaphysics and our idea of what human flourishing consists in. So, there is the technical side of science, that shows us what to do in order to reach our goals, but then there is also a knowledge component that informs our goals (epistêmê, theoretical wisdom, for Aristotle). I think its possible for elements of episteme to cross over into sophia, philosophical wisdom.

... literary phil seems quite dead outside the existentialist frame. Where are the poetic epics looking at the philosophical implications of quantum foundations or extended evolutionary synthesis!? — Count Timothy von Icarus

:up: :up: Actually, there are quite a few speculative fiction authors on the margins ...

(to be continued when i get home)

,

There is no "moral science" except as a strawman.
— Mark S

Then your entire premise is false and I am happy to leave it here for you to play with :) — AmadeusD

The topic of this thread is the science of morality which studies why our moral sense and cultural moral norms exist.

“Moral science” implies a ‘science’ of bindingness, which does not exist as far as I know, but has been a common basis for strawman arguments against the science of morality. I am again surprised to see it resurrected here. It is the zombie strawman that will not die.

Would you be interested in a thread here about the state of science about our moral sense and cultural moral norms?
— Mark S

↪Mark S Sure would, Mark! Where are we starting from? — Kizzy

I have started composing a thread on the state of the science of morality and my synthesis of that science. Give me a week or so to post it, and then you can let me know what you think.

... literary phil seems quite dead outside the existentialist frame. Where are the poetic epics looking at the philosophical implications of quantum foundations or extended evolutionary synthesis!?
— Count Timothy von Icarus
:up: :up: Actually, there are quite a few speculative fiction authors on the margins ... — 180 Proof

Do you know of any speculative fiction by authors knowledgeable about moral philosophy regarding the philosophical implications of the evolutionary synthesis? What a moral philosopher (or a knowledgeable non-professional) was willing to speculate about could be revealing.

I am again surprised to see it resurrected here. It is the zombie strawman that will not die. — Mark S

Very much unluckily for you, I didn't do that and expressly addressed the fact that you're system is not scientific, or derived from science. It takes your assertion and then massages the 'science of morality' to support points it is not apt to support. That you have not picked that up does not mean I didn't say it. :) However, it is clear you will continue with this, ad infinitum, regardless fo response - and more power to you!

I am again surprised to see it resurrected here. It is the zombie strawman that will not die.
— Mark S

Very much unluckily for you, I didn't do that and expressly addressed the fact that you're system is not scientific, or derived from science. — AmadeusD

It seems an appropriate time to write a post describing the different perspectives in the present state of the science of morality and my synthesis of that science. I'll do that in my next thread. I apologize for misreading your comment as implying the science I described was necessarily flawed because it was deriving ought from is.

I just reject that anything you've posited is any way 'moral science'. — AmadeusD

I can't understand how this would be the case. Unless you take "the science of morality" to just be sociology focused on social norms? I would also posit that given the extreme expanses of time that would need to be "number crunched" in regard to their moral outputs, lets say, across history, that this science could never be used. — AmadeusD

I believe a moral is a matter of cause and effect and that science is very important to our moral judgment. The science of good and evil can begin with studying animals. Earth sciences are very important to moral judgments about how we use and dispose of resources.

I wish we all agreed the Biblical story of creation is a fable and most likely a plagiarized Sumerian story based a real climate event of a drought and flooding and return to a climate favorable to farming. And from there use science to understand creation, our earth and being human.

The stories we tell ourselves are very important and a failure to include science in our understanding of reality is a serious mistake.

The science of good and evil can begin with studying animals. — Athena

No it can't. These concepts were invented by humans. Animals have no notions (possibly, at all, but at least) of these things.

Earth sciences are very important to moral judgments about how we use and dispose of resources. — Athena

No they aren't. They are important as to the empirical data of the same field. This is hte key distinction between morality and empirical investigation. EI gets us what is. Morality gets us what ought to be. That is, if you think there is such thing as morality above-and-beyond the human assertion of it, on it's own terms.

based a real climate event of a drought and flooding and return to a climate favorable to farming — Athena

This seems to run quite counter to the science, though.

The stories we tell ourselves are very important and a failure to include science in our understanding of reality is a serious mistake. — Athena

I think this is true. And is very, very important in noting the two above responses to you - the science isn't moral, nor does it inform morals. That is actually, why it's science, in some large part.
Social science is where it get's murky - as noted in the quote you've used, implicitly - is it right to continually point out the organisational failings of certain cultural groups? Is it right to point out the crime rates of non-oppressed groups? Is it right to.... Well, who knows? But in sociology, you at least have to consider this.
The facts behind it (i.e the statistical data) has no moral worth.

No it can't. These concepts were invented by humans. Animals have no notions (possibly, at all, but at least) of these things. — AmadeusD

I will ask you to hold your opinion until you have read the book "The Science of Good & Evil- Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and FOLLOW THE GOLDEN RULE by Michael Shermaer, or in some way validate the notion that you know what you are talking about when it comes what we share with other social animals. Right now you appear to be as someone who is practicing medicine despite having zero education in that field of knowledge.

Earth sciences are very important to moral judgments about how we use and dispose of resources.
— Athena

No they aren't. — AmadeusD

Excuse me, how can a completely ignorant person make moral decisions about how we live on this planet? We have destroyed much of our planet and may have caused the end of life as we know it because of our ignorance. The greatest evil is ignorance.

based a real climate event of a drought and flooding and return to a climate favorable to farming
— Athena

This seems to run quite counter to the science, though. — AmadeusD

Excuse me, please question what you do not know. It is precisely because of science and the work of archeologists and geologists that I said the story of creation and a flood appear to be a story of a climate event. The Garden of Eden was most likely in Iran. This is determined by evidence of the four rivers, a very long and harsh drought, and flooding. The Biblical story of creation being a Sumerian story of many gods and goddesses and a river asking a goddess for help it stay in its banks so it would not flood her plants again. The goddess used mud to create a man and woman and she breathed life into them.

That understanding of the story is also based on knowledge of primitive peoples humanizing the world, sort of like we might name our car or a computer and speak of these things as living entities with personalities. These stories being much easier to remember than plain facts and often carry survival information. If the only human beings you know are the people around you, that leaves a lot information outside of your awareness, and when this lack of knowledge leads to saying I have lied, there is a problem. :brow:

" the science isn't moral, nor does it inform morals" your inability to grasp the meaning of what I say about moral judgment is a source of frustration for me. Let's see if you can follow this moral reasoning- saying that I lie is offensive and I take that as an invitation to attack. Can you see that cause and effect of having bad manners? If you can't get informed this problem might get worse.

I will ask you to hold your opinion until you have read the book "The Science of Good & Evil- Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and FOLLOW THE GOLDEN RULE by Michael Shermaer, or in some way validate the notion that you know what you are talking about when it comes what we share with other social animals. Right now you appear to be as someone who is practicing medicine despite having zero education in that field of knowledge. — Athena

You are free to ask. That may be your defensive position, but I don't take it all that seriously. I am aware of socialisation in many animal genii, species and groups. They do not have notions of 'good' and 'evil'. they are literally invented by humans. They may have analogous reactive states. And even that's not clear.

Excuse me, how can a completely ignorant person make moral decisions about how we live on this planet? We have destroyed much of our planet and may have caused the end of life as we know it because of our ignorance. The greatest evil is ignorance. — Athena

This is literally nothing but your emotional response to the idea that morality isn't objective. And that's absolutely fine. But it says nothing about my comment. Unless you have an infallible conception of an objective morality, knowing more states of affairs can't inform your moral judgements. I understand that we need guiding principles to make any moral judgements. But facts about oil don't do the guiding, morally. The facts guide us to solutions (or, not lol) once a moral jdugement and aim has been established. "saving the planet" seems a good moral aim, which would exist even if you were misinformed about Earth sciences. Alas, I personally just don't care. Let the world die. Or, to use your terms, kill it. Who cares. Its insignificant to me. It would be extremely hard for you to show i was 'morally wrong' without enforcing your emotional response as a moral benchmark.

" the science isn't moral, nor does it inform morals" your inability to grasp the meaning of what I say about moral judgment is a source of frustration for me. Let's see if you can follow this moral reasoning- saying that I lie is offensive and I take that as an invitation to attack. Can you see that cause and effect of having bad manners? If you can't get informed this problem might get worse. — Athena

The bolded is just you justifying your being offended. If you aren't lying, you'll ignore me. If you take it as an attack, that is not reason. That is emotion. I simply do not care that you're frustrated. That's something for you to deal with in your own mind. The result may be refraining from responding. That would be fine. As would many other responses. Continually being offended probably isn't going to help anyone in any way. I simply take the phrase 'bad manners' as juvenile.

to saying I have lied, — Athena

You'll need to point out where I said that before I can respond. I don't recall, and cannot see my doing so. Interestingly, your two overall objections (ignorance, hubris) apply equally to you in this instance.

1. You seem to think I must not know anything about this subject and have proceeded to make some sweeping, digging remarks based on that erroneous assumption - which stems from my disagreeing with you. That's wild. And extreme hubris.

2. You are, apparently, completely unaware of the maturity of this research which goes far beyond what you've just said. There are, in fact, more than 2000 flood myths around the world. Almost all of them point to a specific point in time (including the Atlantis Myth). We know exactly what happened at this point in time: the end of the Younger Dryas. A time when billions of gallons of melt water flowed into the oceans, swallowing up coast lines, creating the Arabian peninsula etc... The Comet Research Group have been working on this for quite some time.

The Garden of Eden was most likely in Iran. — Athena

It was far more likely in South Eastern Turkey. But also, it most likely did not exist and persists merely as a allegory to speak about a time when North Africa and parts of the Levant were lush and wet. (I'll add here I am biased toward that theory because I have been involved in in: I am cited as a reference in this book.

This is determined by evidence of the four rivers, a very long and harsh drought, and flooding. — Athena

The Biblical story of creation being a Sumerian story of many gods and goddesses and a river asking a goddess for help it stay in its banks so it would not flood her plants again. The goddess used mud to create a man and woman and she breathed life into them. — Athena

This is one theory, yes. It is more likely it is an amalgamation of several pre-Talmudic myths, not limited to Atra-Hatsis (Gilgamesh, Ziusudra et al...) but extending as far out as India (Manu), China (Nuwa) and many others. There is, in fact, an analogous myth carved into the walls of the Edfu temple in Upper (southern) Egypt. There is some, close-to-direct, evidence that the Atlantis Myth was derived directly from these writings originally found at Saiis.

I appreciate that this is something you are interested in, and have much to say and think on it.

Not caring how your words affect me, just got added to you saying I lied. If you want to interact with me you will have to do better. You know, cause and effect. I am not going to play with you if I don't like how you play. Is that an objective moral? — AmadeusD

I have no clue what you're talking about now.

I didn't claim you lied. Not sure how your first utterance is either true, or relevant here.

I don't care, per se. I enjoy interesting exchanges. I don't even know who you are. You are responding to my comments. If you stop, it will mean only I have nothing to respond to. If you don't like how I play, that's fine. But it is entirely possible you're just wrong and don't like that.
No, that isn't objective or moral. It is.. your subjective emotional dummy-spitting. I acknowledged this earlier. ..

I simply do not care that you're frustrated. That's something for you to deal with in your own mind. The result may be refraining from responding. — AmadeusD

It has no moral valence. It just prevents you from adequately interacting with people who have an interest, and further knowledge, in a shared field of interest. And that's fine. No moral content there.