A definition of morality

Science is always imploring us to use its 'breakthroughs'.
The selfish gene? Yes, its old testament ethics resurrected.
Psychology, medicine, therapy? Social Ethics is their foundation, their guide.

If you say that 'finding out things' defines the neutral activities of science, then you are wrong. First the 'things' we define, look for, interpret as, or find out, are defined by ethics. Second, if science is merely 'finding out' then when did we ever not engage in this activity? Science is not the process of finding out.

joefromchicago wrote:

If the aim of morality is to minimize harm, then that merely invites the question: why should we minimize harm? If the answer is "all things considered, less harm is better than more harm," then I think we can conclude that less harm is good and more harm is bad. And if that's the case, then "harm/no harm" is just another way of saying "bad/good."

Hmmm... it's still not circular...

...but I can see the objection "why should we minimise harm?" is a fair one. I would counter that it doesn't require answering, in the definition you don't have to, but if you wanted to morality would be a tool to help you.

Rather like: "A wristwatch is an object that helps you tell the time". "Why should I want to tell the time?" "I don't know, but if you did, a wristwatch could help you". Any moral system faces this problem - anyone could say "Why should I want to be good?"

Well now you have a real problem. If you choose to use harm as a noun then you might want to look at an actual dictionary definition.

harm (P) Pronunciation Key (härm)
n.
1. Physical or psychological injury or damage.
2. Wrong; evil.

So now you are back to your circular argument since harm is defined as wong and/or evil.

(definition courtesy of dictionary.com)

Quote:

Science is always imploring us to use its 'breakthroughs'.
The selfish gene? Yes, its old testament ethics resurrected.
Psychology, medicine, therapy? Social Ethics is their foundation, their guide.

If you say that 'finding out things' defines the neutral activities of science, then you are wrong. First the 'things' we define, look for, interpret as, or find out, are defined by ethics. Second, if science is merely 'finding out' then when did we ever not engage in this activity? Science is not the process of finding out.

You are wrong.

Science is a process. It is people who implore you to do things.

Let's take the cure for Polio. It was discovered that we could develop a vaccine that could save lives by preventing this disease.

This was just a fact. Whether we should distribute it, to whom and how... or even whether it is right to save lives this way, are not scientific questions. In fact, there are still people who, aware of the scientific fact that the vaccine stops polio, believe that it is unethical to give kids this vaccine.

How was the polio vaccine developed.

Well, as you say it was society that decided that a cure for polio was a priority. Society made a big investment and offered fame and fortune to the scientists who met this challenge.

This decision was based on the values (or ethics if you will) of society, not on the process of science.

When society decides that there is an ethics based priority, it can motivate science to act, and in the case of facts based, objectively measured goals like eradicating polio, science often succeeds brilliantly.

But science is a process. It says nothing about ethics.

Not at all JJ.

Science is the disinterested exercise of curiosity primarily,possibly exclusively,as a type of play with no particular aim in view.Try any other definition and opening a can of beans becomes science.

You are confusing science with technology.Galileo was piss-balling about with glass spheres off the floor in a glass blowing workshop just for the hell of it.After that he was after making money with what he found.The applications did the rest and they were either military or novelty stall things for ladies to pass the time with.He played around with numbers and algebraic symbols as well much as some of us play around on Trivia and Word Games.

May be we will discover something earth shaking.

I was going to ignore it, but my curiosity is getting the best of me... so I will bite.

How do you say Dawkins' idea of the "Selfish Gene" is a resurrection of Old Testament ethics?

I never said science is the "process of finding out". I agree that the values (i.e. ethics) of a culture will, and probably shoule, effect the science that is being done.

When I am talking about science, I am talking about the hard sciences-- i.e. Physics, Chemistry and Biology. Psychology and therapy is a different debate (although the use of scientific research is valid in these fields).

Saying that Social Ethics is the "guide" of the "hard sciences" like physics doesn't make sense . It was true that Christians very forcefully resisted the idea that the Earth revolved around the Sun... and they had biblical reasons for doing so. But Physics went ahead in spite of the ethical objections

Medicine is based on science. Two hundred years ago we were much more religious than we are now, but had much less of an understanding of the science behind medicine.

But we now live longer, have a much lower rate of infant mortality, have stamped out polio and can easily cure diseases which before the scientific discovery of antibiotics would have nearly always ended in death.

Science has been quite effective-- and this is true no matter what is your faith or morality. What religion can say that?

The fact that we are having this discussion with computers, which were designed using advanced theories of the Quantum States of electrons is ironics. The scientific process that you say is subject to the whims of "social ethics" is the foundation of things you rely on daily and take for granted.

1. The "selfish gene" (as proposed by Richard Dawkins) says nothing about humans being born "sinful". Dawkins does theorize that altruism developed because it has an evolutionary advantage. It does not propose a Christian view, or any "remedy".

2. Mediicne did not invent the idea of a "destructive spirit". Medicine focuses on biologically based disorders-- usually either pathogens, or genetically caused problems. I don't know much about psychology or therapy, but I am pretty sure they don't talk about "destructive spirits".

3. Christians continued to insist the Sun went around the Earth long after they were presented with evidence. Galileo faced the Inquisition for providing evidence.

4. To answer your personal quiestion I have both an Engineering degree and a Physics degree. I have taught Physics and am currently employed as a software engineer.

5. This discussion is no longer interesting and with this talk of "destructive spirits" it is getting a bit goofy.

I think I stop here.

fishin' wrote:

Well now you have a real problem. If you choose to use harm as a noun then you might want to look at an actual dictionary definition.

harm (P) Pronunciation Key (härm)
n.
1. Physical or psychological injury or damage.
2. Wrong; evil.

So now you are back to your circular argument since harm is defined as wong and/or evil.

(definition courtesy of dictionary.com)

Now this is a wee bit silly. Clearly, in this context (as I have already defined) it is meaning 1 of harm ('physical or psychological injury or damage') that is relevant, not meaning 2. The fact that the four letters h-a-r-m have another meaning, which, were it relevant, would make the argument circular, means nothing. It's like me saying 'bats can fly' and you saying, 'no they can't, look at these definitions of 'bat' '...

fishin' wrote:

Well now you have a real problem. If you choose to use harm as a noun then you might want to look at an actual dictionary definition.

harm (P) Pronunciation Key (härm)
n.
1. Physical or psychological injury or damage.
2. Wrong; evil.

So now you are back to your circular argument since harm is defined as wong and/or evil.

(definition courtesy of dictionary.com)

Argumentum ad verecundiam.

There is nothing silly about it at all. You stated that "the word 'harmful' is not defined as wrong/bad/evil" and that is plainly false.

You are picking and choosing whichever definitions you want here to claim that the use of right/wrong or good/evil present a circular set of definitions when intertwined with morals and morality and then propose that another word be used in place of them and discard a plainly accepted and common definition of the word you proposed be used in their place that ends up with the exact same circular set of definitions.

And?? An appeal to authority can be entirely valid if the source is competent in the area being discussed and is unbiased.

When someone presents a proposition that contains a false premiss and that premiss is that a word has or doesn't have a specific definition, countering with a dictionary definition and citing the source is providing as close to factual evidence as exists that their claim is based on a false premiss.

I don't think you can reasonably argue that several dictionaries combined don't have requisite competence in the area of definitions of words or are somehow biased in regards to the content of this thread.

Your comment falls into it's own logical fallacy - the Irrelevant Conclusion.

Unlike 'a system of morals', and 'a system of beliefs concerning right and wrong and/or good and evil', this definition does not have the somewhat circular requirement of agreement on that 'morals', 'right', 'wrong', 'good' or 'evil' mean. It only require that we agree on what 'harm' means.

So, if this definition were accepted, and 'harm' defined adequately, could we move towards an non-theistic objective morality?

Ray wrote:
Also, what about a person stealing your items for no good reason? They are certainly not doing any observable "harm", but we can see that the action is wrong morally.

Have you never been robbed? It certainly causes psychological injury.