Scientific Thinking And Moral Philosophy

Science & Reason on Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/ScienceReason

Richard Dawkins @ Big Think: While science is indelibly distinct from the field of ethics, Richard Dawkins believes that there are a number of ways in which its facts and reasoning could greatly benefit our ability to understand and repair the worlds suffering.

---
Please subscribe to Science & Reason:
• http://www.YouTube.com/Best0fScience
• http://www.YouTube.com/ScienceMagazine
• http://www.YouTube.com/ScienceTV
• http://www.YouTube.com/FFreeThinker
---

Question: Can science shed light on any moral issues?

Richard Dawkins: Science is not in the business of shedding light on moral debates, but I think it can do sometimes -- the whole subject of moral philosophy, of examining moral questions in a logical way to expose inconsistencies, for example.

When you're looking at moral questions, so-called moral questions, like abortion or euthanasia, you can show that people who take a very strong absolutist line may be being inconsistent with themselves because they are taking a strong line on one thing while at the same time inconsistently not taking a similarly strong line on another.

So that would be a scientific way of thinking; it's not science per se. It's moral philosophy, but it's a kind of scientific way of thinking. But also I think scientific facts can illuminate moral debate. In the case of abortion again, for example, a scientist might contribute to the debate information about at what point during the development of an embryo the nervous system comes into being.

And presumably, before the nervous system comes into existence there is no ability to feel pain or to suffer. And so maybe something important happens at the moment when the nervous system comes into being.

On the other hand, you might say, well, even when a human embryo develops a nervous system and develops the capacity to perhaps suffer, it's still a much smaller nervous system than the nervous system of an adult cow. And so what about balancing the suffering of a human embryo against the suffering of an adult cow when it's being slaughtered for meat.

An absolutist moralist would say, well, humans are just plain special, and cows are not humans, so they don't deserve the same moral consideration. But a scientist might come along and say, well, what do you mean by that? I mean we are, after all, all evolved; we're all cousins.

At what point in the evolution -- since we know evolution is a fact -- at what point in the evolution of humans would you suddenly draw the line and say, all right, from now on they're all human and before that they're not?

In the evolutionary progression from the common ancestors with chimpanzees, who lived about six or seven million years ago, to modern humans, going through creatures which might have looked a bit like Lucy, might have looked a bit like the newly discovered fossil Ardi, would you have given special human moral ethical consideration to Lucy? Or would you count Lucy as though she was a chimpanzee?

Does this perhaps suggest to you that we shouldn't be in the business of drawing lines between species in this kind of way, and maybe these lines should be regarded as more fuzzy and less clear cut. Our absolutist moralities that do draw hard and fast lines between humans and all other species -- even taking a human fetus and calling that human, whereas an adult chimpanzee is not and doesn't deserve the same moral consideration -- is that consistent with science? These are ways that science can at least inform moral discussions.

Question: Is there ever a point where scientific reasoning can harm society?

Richard Dawkins: You can, I suppose, make a utilitarian justification for obnoxious practices. You could make a utilitarian justification for torture. Moral philosophers sometimes pose the hypothetical case where the world is about to be blown up.

Only one person knows the secret password to stop the doomsday bomb going off. This one person is a suicide bomber who refuses to give up the password. Are you right to torture him? And most people, I think, say you are. I mean, it's a horrible thing to torture somebody, but under those extreme conditions, to save the world you would torture somebody. And that would be a utilitarian justification for an otherwise obnoxious practice such as torture.

http://bigthink.com/richarddawkins
.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• richard
• dawkins
• scientific
• thinking
• morals
• philosophy
• atheists
• experience
• atheism
• bible
• secular
• humanism
• skeptics
• skepticism
• christianity
• christians
• religion
• theory
• evolution
• science
• creationists
• creationism
• intelligent
• design
• religious
• faith
• belief
• gods
• jesus
• christ
• satan
• hell
• catholic
• delusion
• harris
• hitchens
• darwin

[heylookurdead]

If satan punishes the evildoers, does that make him the good guy?

[Jiaxis]

@Leivinn20 Science is only relative because it pertains to the objective analysis and observation of reality as it pertains to humans. It deals with reality from a human perspective, built upon unbiased, objective observation, systematic experimentation, and usage of evidence to support all claims. Following science is following reason, logic, rationality, and evidence. Blind faith in ideas without evidence leads to delusion, unnecessary conflict, and denial. That hurts.

[Gazadaman86]

Do you think that human life alone is too cherished when considering abortion? After all, at what point can one say wether a newborn child will go on to help or to hurt others?...

[ZachWulf]

4:05 EHH HRRMM HRRM

[MsPerduta]

I think it is wrong to abuse science as an excuse.

Abortion should never become accepted practice as a form of contraception.

Torture should not be used when you can just drug the terrorist.

[tony5996e]

@heylookurdead YES..... but there are no sants or satan

[Colton8646]

@heylookurdead No it doesn't, as he enjoys hurting anything and doesn't punish evil doers out of a sense of justice.

[Jiaxis]

@Billyothon I am all ears. Enlighten me.

[Jiaxis]

@bradley1107 "Life can be very difficult and you can't rationalize away the suffering of the world."

Absolutely, life is very difficult, yet even though suffering cannot be rationalized away, each human has his/her own way of dealing with suffering. I personally choose to accept its reality and remain objective, but that is simply how my personality is.

But I agree wholeheartedly on your emphasis on compassion. Well spoken.

[Billyothon]

@Jiaxis

Yes, I can.

[bradley1107]

@econogate

or perhaps an optomistic mind glosses over some of the troublesome specifics a pessimist has discovered..just playing devil's advocate :)..Luckily no one is purely one or the other as we need both. Pessimism to find obstacles, optomism to overcome, pessimism to critique the methodology, optomism to fix the errors. pure optomism is blind to faults & so can lead to recklessness, pure pessimism is blind to virtue & can lead to catatonia. They need eachother

[bradley1107]

@Jiaxis

And yes I agree, there is no one right way to think about the world..there are misinformed ways. We should be as honest and objective as possible, and accept demonstrated truth, and consider plausible alternatives. We should be reasonable and seek truth. We should be informed, to the best of our abilities. But ultimately what works for one person may not work for another. Life can be very difficult and you can't rationalize away the suffering of the world. Compassion is key