Science and Morality

After watching the debate around scientism, I feel the need to defend the idea that science can say something relevant about moraliy. What it is, how it works and how it got to us.

This will likely be a three part program.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• michael
• payton
• dasamericanatheist
• philosophy
• ethics
• morality
• dawahfilms
• science
• scientism
• animal
• cognition
• monk

[volbla]

Where did you get those clips from? It looks interesting.

[MichaelPayton67]

@volbla

I just found them on YT, originally I was going to take clips from Franz De Waal, but I thought these would make better material

[MrKingatheist]

@MichaelPayton67 Your video's are like a breath of fresh air.

[MichaelPayton67]

@MrKingatheist

Thanks man! i'm glad you enjoy them.

[SocialistCatgirl]

But couldn't Vulcan's behavior be just as easily interpreted as selective consumption? He saw that the other subject had access to a preferred food item (a product of ecological development) and sought to continually probe the perceived source to gain similar access?

I just don't want to engage in unnecessary imposition of thought processes on the test subject. It could just as readily be that Vulcan just wanted access to a more nutritive food. Is there further evidence of moral judgment?

[timeofwonder2009]

BTW, there is a nice vid on TED in which the evidence presented indicates that apes even suffer from the same cognitive biases concerning economics as we do (Santos, Monkey economy).

[Abu7929]

Hi Micheal. Interested post, but I don't think those experiments tell us anything about morality, and even if they did, it would not create any moral ought, for more reasons than one.

[rphamning]

@Epydemic2020 you love that word "ought" you say that more than a pirate says argh

[ghjurx452]

great video, very thought provoking.

a question: how do you determine what human morals are the result of evolution and which are resulting from subjective experience (from parents or a religious culture.)

another question: do you assert that the morality that humans have evolved is objective? if so how can something be objective and constantly changing? (I have never heard of anything that is both objective and changes with time.)

thanks for responding if you do : )

[musekiteer]

I think that those who would deny the evidence of the evolutionary psychology of morality are actually rejecting its implications---rather as the Capuchin rejects the biscuit. For these evidence-deniers "God's existence" is the grape.

[SvendsenAtheist]

Michael! I love your discussion with William Lane Craig.I find your very interesting,you got a blog or something also?

[insidetrip101]

I think the problem here is that people are forgetting that science is a branch of philosophy, specifically metaphysics. If we understand Science as this then it can contribute, but never definitively define morality. If you think otherwise this then you need to read some Kant.

I also find it laughable that you cite "moral psychologists" when most people who accept scientism would accept psychology as a science. This gets us into the philosophy of science. Scientism then falls apart.