180 Proof
14.2k
I am not trying to do ethics.
— Mark S
If so, then how do you know that your "science of morality" can help anyone actually do ethics? — 180 Proof

What I intended to convey was that am trying to restrict my claims to science's domain.

Science's domain includes:
1) Understanding why our moral sense and cultural moral norms exist.
2) Revealing underlying principles that explain virtually all past and present cultural moral norms and our moral sense's motivations and judgments.
3) Revealing how cultures can choose those underlying principles as moral references for refining their moral norms to better achieve their goals by increasing cooperation.

I don't know if the science of descriptively moral behaviors (the Science of Morality) will help with ethics. I fear that ethicists will not recognize its usefulness.

But it seems at least likely that understanding descriptively moral behaviors as parts of cooperation strategies will be helpful because:

1) Those doing ethics risk losing their audience and relevance if they stray too far from the principles that underlie what average people have consistently thought and felt was moral over thousands of years.
2) If those doing ethics ignore the core of what makes us human, our incredible ability to cooperate, when answering the ethical questions "What is good?", "How we ought to live," and "What are our obligations?", they risk, again, losing their audience and relevance.
3) If those doing ethics ignore the universal moral principles of descriptively moral behaviors, then they are making claims about what morality ought to be without understanding what morality 'is', which seems like a shaky foundation for truth.

If you suspect the hypothesis is false, any candidate counterexamples would be welcome.
— Mark S

I have no alternative hypothesis. — Fooloso4

Counterexamples refer to the hypothesis.

Surely you can think of a few cultural moral norms that seem unlikely to be parts of cooperation strategies.

.

I don't know if the science of descriptively moral behaviors (the Science of Morality) will help with ethics. — Mark S

Okay.

I fear that ethicists will not recognize its usefulness.

You have not provided sufficient philosophical grounds for (or any persuasive examples of) "its usefulness" to ethics (i.e. moral reasoning).

Surely you can think of a few cultural moral norms that seem unlikely to be parts of cooperation strategies. — Mark S

There is a difference between a moral norm that in some way promotes cooperation and a strategy to promote cooperation via moral norms.

The same norm can result in cooperation between some but discord among others.

In what way is a norm prohibiting abortion a cooperation strategy? Such rules are often divisive and harmful. They may not lead to cooperation but to oppression.

In what way is a norm against homosexuality a cooperation strategy? It too is often divisive and harmful and can lead to oppression rather than cooperation.

Thanks Mark,

I don't know if the science of descriptively moral behaviors (the Science of Morality) will help with ethics. I fear that ethicists will not recognize its usefulness.
— Mark S
Okay.

You have not provided sufficient grounds for (or any persuasive examples of) "its usefulness" to ethics. — 180 Proof

Okay.

I'll further consider the usefulness to ethicists of the science of descriptively moral behaviors. Perhaps I can produce something better than the examples I listed above.

In any event, people are still free to apply this science in their personal morality and advocate for its use for refining cultural moral norms. I have done so in my life and am pleased with the result.

I see. So all you are claiming is "informative" about this science of morality is IF one has goals aligned with it (viz., IF one finds it instrumentally useful). This is just of no significant use for morality/ethics; and is no different, at its core, than what Sam Harris does with his "moral landscape": IF one finds well-being good, then there is lots we can scientifically investigate about it.

A question for you. Which discipline's methods do you think are better suited for studying descriptively moral behaviors (behaviors motivated by our moral sense and advocated by past and present cultural moral norms)? I think science's methods (such as inference to best explanation) are critical. Which, if any, of moral philosophy's methods do you think would be suitable? — Mark S

Your posing this reinforces the view that you haven't understood the misfire in your approach.

It's not science against ethics. Sure, anthropology can show us what humans do. But that's not the question addresses in ethics.

So again,

I am not trying to do ethics. I am trying to 1) show how the science of descriptively moral behaviors can be useful in ethical investigations into what we ought to do, and 2), in that absence of conclusively argued-for imperative oughts, that science is an excellent source of moral guidance. — Mark S

You really can't see the inconsistency between claiming to not be doing ethics while advocating science as a source of moral guidance?