Science of Morality, Anyone?

Where, in American culture, is the domain of knowledge that we would identify as morality studied and taught?

I suspect that if we do not quickly develop a science of morality that will make it possible for us to live together on this planet in a more harmonious manner our technology will help us to destroy the species and perhaps the planet soon.

It seems to me that we have given the subject matter of morality primarily over to religion. It also seems to me that if we ask the question ‘why do humans treat one another so terribly?’ we will find the answer in this moral aspect of human culture.

The ‘man of maxims’ “is the popular representative of the minds that are guided in their moral judgment solely by general rules, thinking that these will lead them to justice by a ready-made patent method, without the trouble of exerting patience, discrimination, impartiality—without any care to assure themselves whether they have the insight that comes from a hardly-earned estimate of temptation, or from a life vivid and intense enough to have created a wide fellow-feeling with all that is human.” George Eliot The Mill on the Floss

I agree to the point of saying that we have moral instincts, i.e. we have moral emotions. Without these moral emotions we could not function as social creatures. These moral emotions are an act of evolution. I would ague that the instinct for grooming that we see in monkeys is one example of this moral emotion.

We can no longer leave this important matter in the hands of the Sunday-school. Morality must become a top priority for scientific study.

Morality is not a science, strictly speaking. It is too much of a social phenomenon and there is too much of the personal and subjective mixed within, for it to be taught as a rational science (I cited this, do not know the xource anymore).

I agree that a scientifical approach to why ppl do things to each other, how, and what possibilities there are to counter such strats or re-educate ppl (ouch!) might be a great venture to pursue.

In the US American angle, from our European POV, also influences that you guys do not have a real *histotry* of moral philosphy (if we consider history to mean assuming a POV that looks beyond 300 yrs+), as your ancestors and founders just a few decades ago went there just to avoid the confrontation with the secular tendencies coming up.

From our POV this makes you, historically speaking, "teeneagers" (if at all), who over the next 500+yrs *will* delvelop something like your own morale philosophy or accepted ethics as a nation (I was tempted to say 5k+ yrs that we have under our belt discussing those aspects of life, but with the acceleration, you might make it even much faster than in 500).

My guess: Someone will have to start and publish: Ideas, thoughts, doubts, and confront the incoming, that is the way to spark a social discussion/movement (about the European/Asian/MidEast angles there is plenty material on the net giving some nice overviews and controversies, but I have made the experience that US citizens rather refrain from enter in such discussions or resort to simpple insults: Part of the prolem, methinks).

A good book to read in this respect: "Zen and the Art of Motorcyle Maintenance" by Pirsig, an US American IIRC.

For self-education on how to address the problem (also by an US American): "The Elements of Moral Science" by Francis Wayland, 1835 and re-edited 1856 , interesting read (for the time it was written and the Puritan bkgnd it comes from; you were looking for an "American" take on moral science!), here the contents:

Book I: Theoretical Ethics

CHAP. 1st: Of the Origin of Our Notion of the Moral Quality of Actions
SECT. 1: Of Moral Law
SECT. 2: What Is a Moral Action?
SECT. 3: In What Part of an Action Do We Discover its Moral Quality?
SECT. 4: Whence Do We Derive Our Notion of the Moral Quality of Actions?

CHAP. 2nd: Conscience, or The Moral Sense
SECT. 1: Is There a Conscience?
SECT. 2: Of the Manner in Which the Decision of Conscience Is Expressed
SECT. 3: The Authority of Conscience
SECT. 4: Law by Which Conscience Is Governed
SECT. 5: Rules for Moral Conduct

CHAP. 3rd: The Nature of Virtue
SECT. 1: Of Virtue in General
SECT. 2: Of Virtue in Imperfect Beings

CHAP. 4th: Human Happiness

CHAP. 5th: Of Self-Love

CHAP. 6th: Imperfection of Conscience; Necessity of Some Additional Moral Light

CHAP. 7th: Of Natural Religion
SECT. 1: Of the Manner in Which We Learn Our Duty by the Light of Nature
SECT. 2: How Far We May Learn Our Duty by the Light of Nature
SECT. 3: Prefects of the System of Natural Religion

CHAP. 8th: Relations Between Natural and Revealed Religion

CHAP. 9th: The Holy Scriptures
SECT. 1: A View of the Holy Scriptures
SECT. 2: In What Manner Are We to Ascertain Our Duty by the Holy Scriptures?

Book II: Practical Ethics

PART 1st: Love to God, or Piety - 7k
CHAP. 1st: General Obligation to Supreme Love to God - 42k
CHAP. 2nd: Of a Devotional Spirit - 19k
CHAP. 3rd: Of Prayer - 28k
CHAP. 4th: Observance of the Sabbath - 39k

PART 2nd: Duties to Man.

DIVISION 1st: Reciprocity - General Principles Illustrated, And The Duties of Reciprocity Classified

CLASS 1st: Justice and Veracity
OF JUSTICE

CHAP. 1st: Personal Liberty
SECT. 1: Nature of Personal Liberty
SECT. 2: Modes in Which Personal Liberty May Be Violated

CHAP. 2nd: Justice as it Respects Property
SECT. 1: The Right of Property
SECT. 2: Modes in Which the Right of Property May Be Violated by the Individual
SECT. 3: Right of Property as Violated by Society

CHAP. 3rd: Justice as it Respects Character

CHAP. 4th: Justice as it Respects Reputation

OF VERACITY - 7k
CHAP. 1st: Veracity of the Past and Present
CHAP. 2nd: Veracity in Respect to the Future
CHAP. 3rd: Of Oaths

CLASS 2nd: Duties Which Arise From the Constitution of the Sexes
CHAP. 1st. General Duty of Chastity
CHAP. 2nd: The Law of Marriage
CHAP. 3rd: The Law of Parents
CHAP. 4th: The Law of Children

CLASS 3rd: Duties to Man, as a Member of Civil Society
CHAP. 1st: Of Civil Society
SECT. 1: Of a Simple Society
SECT. 2: Of Civil Society
CHAP. 2nd: Of The Mode in Which The Objects of Society Are Accomplished - 20k
CHAP. 3rd: Duties of the Officers of a Government
CHAP. 4th: Duties of Citizens

DIVISION 2nd: The Law of Benevolence
CHAP. 1st: General Obligation, and Division of the Subject

CHAP. 2nd: Benevolence to the Unhappy
SECT. 1: Unhappiness from Physical Condition
SECT. 2: Unhappiness from Intellectual Condition

CHAP. 3rd: Benevolence to the Wicked
CHAP. 4th: Benevolence to the Injurious

NOTE: Our Duty to Brutes

To see the differences in this take to the European view, I recommend to read David Hume: "Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals", the secular take by this great Scottish thinker from 1752.

A summary:

...the contributions that moral sense and reason make in our moral judgments. Hume claims that moral sense makes the ultimate distinction between vice and virtue, though both moral sense and reason play a role in our formation of moral judgments.

Reason is important when we have to make a judgment about what is useful, for reason alone can determine how and why something is useful to us or to others.


Hume first distinguishes between artificial and natural virtues: Artificial virtues depend on social structures and include justice and fidelity to promises; allegiance; chastity and modesty; and duties of sovereign states to keep treaties, to respect boundaries, to protect ambassadors, and to otherwise subject themselves to the law of nations.

Hume defines each of these virtues and explains how each manifests itself in the world.

Natural virtues, on the other hand, originate in nature and are more universal. They include compassion, generosity, gratitude, friendship, fidelity, charity, beneficence, clemency, equity, prudence, temperance, frugality, industry, courage, ambition, pride, modesty, self-assertiveness, good sense, wit and humor, perseverance, patience, parental devotion, good nature, cleanliness, articulateness, sensitivity to poetry, decorum, and an elusive quality that makes a person lovely or valuable. Some of these virtues are voluntary, such as pride, while others are involuntary, such as good sense.

Hume explains that reason does not cause our actions.

Instead, moral sentiments, or passions, motivate us to act. Our actions are caused by a combination of utility and sentiment. In other words, we must care about the outcome if we are to care about the means by which it is achieved. Several sections of the Enquiry are devoted to utility, the first and most important of the four kinds of virtue, which Hume calls “virtuous because useful.”


Analysis


Because he locates the basis of virtue in utility rather than in God-given reason, Hume's list of virtues implicitly forms a rejection of Christian morality. Items such as ambition are vices under the old model, so Hume's acceptance of them into his catalog is an insult to religious theorists.

However, Hume is consistent in his theory that these traits are virtues because they fulfill his two requirements for moral sentiments: they must be useful to ourselves or others, or they must be pleasing to ourselves or others. Furthermore, Hume rejects the concept of morality as strictly voluntary. Instead, he divides his list into voluntary and involuntary virtues, claiming that separating them is necessary only when devising a system of reward and punishment.

.

Rattler

Why is grooming, as displayed by monkeys, an indication of moral emotions?

Emotions are instincts; they are something that is part of our genes. They are part of our genetic makeup because they were necessary for the survival of the social species. Some species are loners but some are naturally social. The social species needed emotions that facilitated social unity. Mutual grooming is one means for bonding between individuals and the group.

Would morals count as knowledge? Do emotions count as knowledge? Directly I must say that the emotion of fear is not knowledge. The emotion leads to a feeling and the consciousness of the feeling becomes knowledge. Morality is about relationships, i.e. certain instincts make a social group possible.

Without social cohesion social groups cannot survive. Reasoning about facts is a human means for survival and thriving. The more we know and understand about relationships the better will be our lives. In fact, because we have developed such powerful technology and thus have placed in the hands of people such power that if we do not do a better job about relationships our species cannot long survive.

Where's the connection between morals and emotions ???? One is an expectation of society, the other is probably genetic.

I don't think you have enough to do, is this some pet theory of yours?

I think that emotions like fear, passion, abition, etc. are rather antagonists to the christian model of morality, as this model assumes we act based on reason and knowledge and on the virtues described by it.

OTOH, while not individual knowledge, they sure are species knowledge that has evoluted over the times.

I think in this sense Hume meant to include them in his moral virtue catalogue.

Rattler

Originally Posted by senojekips

Where's the connection between morals and emotions ???? One is an expectation of society, the other is probably genetic.

I don't think you have enough to do, is this some pet theory of yours?

Emotions are instincts that evolved. Morality is an instinct. Morality evolved because social creatures need to bond and the instinct we call morality is this inherited instinct to bond with the group.

It seems clear to me that we all have very different ideas as to the purpose and meaning of morality. Perhaps the most important domain of knowledge for our survival now that our technology places such great power into our ands and we have no science to help us comprehend why humans do the things we do and can we do better.

Another problem we have is a mutual comprehension of the meaning of the word "science". All this makes clear to me that our educational system is a mess that needs a great deal of work.

Religion has not supplanted morality they have been allowed to define morality. I seek a science of morality to define morality just as physics and chemistry defined many knowledge domains of our natural world. This sounds like a crazy idea because we have all grown up in a world that thought that morality was the business of priests, imams, preachers, and rabbis. A grave error on our part.

The problems that I see on the horizon are such matters of WMD, the consumption of the planet by bigger populations, a lack of water for those billions of people, a financial system that is at this moment collapsing, a world ecology that we are destroying such that at some point it may no longer be able to heal it self, etc.

If the people are not sufficiently sophisticated to comprehend these problems how can they be part of the solution?

in⋅stinct

1. an inborn pattern of activity or tendency to action common to a given biological species.
2. a natural or innate impulse, inclination, or tendency.
3. a natural aptitude or gift: an instinct for making money.
4. natural intuitive power.

Morals are learned.
Definition fail.

sci⋅ence

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency

Generally, another definition fail.
Often number 4 isn't really accepted as a real definition of "science" because it renders the word meaningless.

Originally Posted by coberst

Emotions are instincts that evolved. Morality is an instinct. Morality evolved because social creatures need to bond and the instinct we call morality is this inherited instinct to bond with the group.

Morality is not instinctive, it is a learned behavioural expectation,... in those who have it, and there are plenty who lack it,.... because they were never taught.

Instincts are something genetic, something you are born with, this is not the case with morals. Please at least do us the favour of consulting the dictionary,... any dictionary before posting this crap.

I think that you'd better go away and start again with this. So far you haven't said a single sane thing. Your line if reasoning reminds me a lot of a loony we had here several months ago who tried to lecture combat veterans on tactics.

Just what is your point with all this "very deep and meaningful" twaddle, I seem to smell a pseudo "intellectual" here.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Morality is not instinctive, it is a learned behavioural expectation,... in those who have it, and there are plenty who lack it,.... because they were never taught. -snip-

While I agree completely, the ability to develop/learn a personal ethics based on society morality is inborn (and has, as instincts, evolved over the times) to the extent that we cannot avoid to build a personal value structure that we base our conduct on when confronted with emotions.

Even those who "lack" it (from your and the majoritie´s point of view) have a personal ethics concept, just a very different one than socially accepted.

Rattler