RoR: Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : Towards a Moral Science

Monday
March 11, 2013

Towards a Moral Science by Joseph Rowlands

Philosophy, properly understood, does not lend itself to the methods of science. It deals with fundamental assumptions and understandings about the world. It provides a mental framework for understanding and evaluating. Philosophical premises are not as easily refuted as a scientific theory. Science can make predic... (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (3 messages)

Post 0

Tuesday, March 12, 2013 - 2:37am

Bookmark

Link

Edit

Joe, thank you for this conception. It is innovative and thought out well. I imagine the moral science you have framed would have some overlap with economics. I gather Sean Carroll* would be skeptical of your proposal.

In the Subject Index for Objectivity, the entry for Evidence is subdivided into three subdivisions: Evidence and Belief, Philosophic Evidence, and Scientific Evidence. If you decide to study further by way of developing your theory further, you might like to read the V1N4 pages 50–54 cited under Philosophic Evidence. That is from Tibor Machan’s essay “Evidence of Necessary Existence.”* Ethics might stand not only on that philosophic evidence for ultimate foundations, but on some additional philosophic evidence special to ethics, and if so, that further philosophic evidence would likely have to be part of the foundation for scientific exploration of morality.

In his presentation in OPAR, Peikoff layers in nicely the additional metaphysical circumstance, beyond Rand's most general metaphysics, that must be recognized for what Rand called her scientific morality. That was the circumstance of the existence of life and its nature, including its relation to value. Recognizing that relation has some feel of distinctly philosophical analysis, specifically, consideration of what depends on what conceptually. I wonder if this biological picture and Rand's location of value within that realm would need to be part of your assumed framework for the scientific investigations of morality you have in mind. (Related: a, b)

There is a three-volume work, out in 2008 from MIT Press, that is likely pertinent to further elaboration of your idea. It’s title is Moral Psychology, and it is edited by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. The subtitles of the volumes are:

Your expectation that a moral philosopher standing on deontology would not get with this program is assuredly true. I saw the most brutal Author Meets Critic session (of APA), over a related divide, when Thomas Hurka* commented on Patricia Churchland’s* Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us About Morality.

(Edited by Stephen Boydstun on 3/12, 5:20am)

Post 1

Tuesday, March 12, 2013 - 8:48pm

Bookmark

Link

Edit

Joe,

I like how you kept issues clear and separated (e.g., forecasting vs. evaluation). A problem I see popping up is that there are many kinds of "consequentialisms." Even Mill disagreed with Bentham; both of them consequentialists. While this aspect is more important on the evaluative side of the ledger, that in itself does not necessarily mean that it is totally unimportant on the forecasting side. For instance, an effort has been made to improve the consequentialist approach to medicine. It's called "Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM)." However, a common problem with "Evidence-Based Medicine" (sometimes called "scientific medicine") is that it can be performed with blinders on and it can, therefore, be self-reinforcing in an illegitimate way. The very picking of a goal or focus is as important as is measuring the progress toward a goal, or the changes within a focus.

Back to the first point, I'd say that in order for a consequentialism to escape subjectivity enough in order to make it commensurate with a code that is moral for human beings, it would have to be a principled consequentialism, not an unprinciple one like Bentham's -- or even Mill's! -- version of "utilitarianism." Here are 2 recent, scientific attempts to measure morality, or the consequences of morality. It'd be interesting to get your feedback on them:

Masters of the Universe: How Power and Accountability Influence Self-Serving Decisions Under Moral Hazard. [abstract only]

Coevolution of Trustful Buyers and Cooperative Sellers in the Trust Game [full-text study]

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/12, 8:54pm)

Post 2

Sunday, April 14, 2013 - 12:03am

Bookmark

Link

Edit

Thanks Stephen. That was a very nice compliment. I'm glad you appreciated the article.

You mentioned Peikoff's discussion of the relationship between life and value. I think that would be necessary in a different approach to making morality scientific. In the other approach, it tries to show how the Objectivist values and moral standard are grounded in facts of reality, potentially showing them to be provable and/or scientific.

In my approach, there is a clear divide between the normative and the predictive aspects of what is traditionally thought of as a unified topic. The predictive aspects are open to scientific discovery and analysis independent of someone's value system. Even someone who accept deontology could contribute to a predictive science, although he wouldn't accept any connection between the findings in that field and his moral beliefs/conclusions.

I'm not sure about the three volume set you mentioned. Have you read them? From other reading I've done, attempts to bring science and morality together usually take different approaches. Some try to show scientifically why we have the moral feelings we have. Others try to use neuro-science (does the need to put science in the name suggest a defensiveness?) to explore happiness. None of this is related to the predicting of results. It's more targeted at refining moral goals. That could be useful as well, but it inevitably starts making assumptions about moral goals.