About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Tuesday, March 12, 2013 - 2:37amSanction this postReply
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:
    The Evolution of Morality: Adaptations and Innateness
    The Cognitive Science of Morality: Intuition and Diversity
    The Neuroscience of Morality: Emotion, Brain Disorders, and Development

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 - 8:48pmSanction this postReply
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 - 12:03amSanction this postReply
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.



Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.