Sunday-School Morality

[coberst]

Sunday-School Morality

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

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

 

[lunamoth]

Should we use evolution as the scientific model for a scientific moraility then?

 

[Tao_Equus]

Should we use evolution as the scientific model for a scientific moraility then?

Lol, well we left evolution in charge of the money markets....and look what happened. So no, not evolution, but Cob is right - it would be better to apply the methods of critical thinking to morality, especially as it is taught in schools, than to leave it to religions which are oft guilty of perverting it.

tao

 

[Snoopy]

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

Psychology? But it does (unsurprisingly) all seem to be "hopelessly muddled"

(quote from:Mixing Memory: Moral Psychology I: Where Is Morality in the Brain? )

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.

I agree it does seem like we are moving swiftly towards killing the planet, but do you really think that we can / will "quickly develop a science of morality", whatever that may mean?

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

The study of a subject is one thing, but then it's application is an entirely different matter. Morality involves subjective judgments and decision-making; IMO the materialist paradigm of science does not provide the appropriate theatre for that.

s.

 

[Tao_Equus]

I agree it does seem like we are moving swiftly towards killing the planet, but do you really think that we can / will "quickly develop a science of morality", whatever that may mean?

No, we will not. Religion, the 'wrong kind' of religion, is too deeply ingrained in the collective psyche. Far too many people use religion as a cop-out on several levels. As a salve, as a distraction, as a surrogate for genuine reflection and action, as a defence against facing reality and as an abdication of personal responsibility. As the global environment deteriorates, as more people are pushed to the brink, the wrong extremes of religion will manifest ever more powerfully. As desperation and misery increases so too will the reliance on mystical nonsense. The world is facing unparalleled change and the masses will choose the wrong tools with which face them. On this forum it is possible to view with clarity the intractable mindset of those that think truth and the answer to our problems are all to be found in some corrupt old texts. This is a tiny snapshot of why we are doomed. We cannot hope to meet the challenges ahead with such paradigms at the forefront of our response to them. The misery and death that religion has caused through all the ages is about to be dwarfed by its next chapter. We live in interesting times.

tao

 

[coberst]

Should we use evolution as the scientific model for a scientific moraility then?

The scientific method is to form a hypothesis and then test the validity of that hypothesis. I use that method in everything that I do. I recommend it for everyone.

Philosophy is the mother of science but is no substitute for scientific empirical study similar to other human sciences. I think that psychology and SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) can be useful in starting such an effort.

I shall have to delay any definition of morality, norms, and etc for awhile because I am in the very early stages of studying this matter.

I am studying "The Sense of Beauty" by George Santayana, "Moral Imagination" by Mark Johnson, and "Art and Visual Perception" by Rudolf Arnheim. I have discovered that the study of values, morality is a species of value, has led me into a study of visual perception, the meaning of 'meaning', and the science of art.

The study of psychology and cognitive science has provided a foundation for this effort.

 

[coberst]

The study of a subject is one thing, but then it's application is an entirely different matter. Morality involves subjective judgments and decision-making; IMO the materialist paradigm of science does not provide the appropriate theatre for that.

s.

I am studying "The Sense of Beauty" by George Santayana, "Moral Imagination" by Mark Johnson, and "Art and Visual Perception" by Rudolf Arnheim. I have discovered that the study of values, morality is a species of value, has led me into a study of visual perception, the meaning of 'meaning', and the science of art.

The study of psychology and cognitive science has provided a foundation for this effort.

The wise man and wise woman uses knowledge to develop plans for action. We must constantly work at becoming wise.

 

[Snoopy]

No, we will not. Religion, the 'wrong kind' of religion, is too deeply ingrained in the collective psyche. Far too many people use religion as a cop-out on several levels. As a salve, as a distraction, as a surrogate for genuine reflection and action, as a defence against facing reality and as an abdication of personal responsibility. As the global environment deteriorates, as more people are pushed to the brink, the wrong extremes of religion will manifest ever more powerfully. As desperation and misery increases so too will the reliance on mystical nonsense. The world is facing unparalleled change and the masses will choose the wrong tools with which face them. On this forum it is possible to view with clarity the intractable mindset of those that think truth and the answer to our problems are all to be found in some corrupt old texts. This is a tiny snapshot of why we are doomed. We cannot hope to meet the challenges ahead with such paradigms at the forefront of our response to them. The misery and death that religion has caused through all the ages is about to be dwarfed by its next chapter. We live in interesting times.

tao[/size][/font]

But the global environmental deterioration is surely being driven by greed, consumerism, ignorance, money, capitalism, nationalism, (whatever…) and enabled by technology (one physical expression of science) is it not? You don’t need to add religion to the mix (whether or not it’s in there) do you? Could we not all be atheists but yet still be driving in the same direction; courtesy of greed, consumerism, ignorance, money, capitalism, nationalism…?

s.

 

[Snoopy]

I am studying "The Sense of Beauty" by George Santayana, "Moral Imagination" by Mark Johnson, and "Art and Visual Perception" by Rudolf Arnheim. I have discovered that the study of values, morality is a species of value, has led me into a study of visual perception, the meaning of 'meaning', and the science of art.

The study of psychology and cognitive science has provided a foundation for this effort.

The wise man and wise woman uses knowledge to develop plans for action. We must constantly work at becoming wise.

Well enjoy your studies.
Psychology is what I studied at university, so I’m not holding my breath.

From the link I gave above:

“The cognitive scientific literature on moral psychology, on the other hand, is hopelessly muddled. This is due in part to the fact that most of the research on the topic has taken place outside of the core cognitive sciences, in fields like developmental, social, and clinical psychology. It's also a product of the fact that much of the empirical and theoretical work on moral psychology within the cognitive sciences is dominated by conflicts of ideology. You see, cognitive science, while it does have a dominant paradigm (the computationalist paradigm -- though its dominance is diminishing fairly rapidly), is a fairly fractured discipline. You've got the old computer metaphor people, the connectionists (who sometimes, but not always, mingle with the computer folks), the dynamic systems people (who sometimes mingle with the connectionists), the embodied cognition folk (who sometimes hang out with the dynamic systems or connectionist people), and then within each of these, a host of subgroups, all of whom have pictures of the mind that may vary a little or a great deal. Thus there is a growing debate between "rationalists," who are less wedded to old school rationalism than they are to the symbolist (computer) view of mind, and the "intuitionists" who are less anti-rationalist than they are pro-connectionist or anti-symbolist. It's a big mess, full of speculation and less-than-empirically-based conclusions, and as a result, it's hard for little old me (someone with symbolist and embodied cog. tendencies) to sort things out”

This bit I’ve bolded jumped out at me: they’re scientists all testing hypotheses to perhaps establish facts but guess what? They’re all full of ideologies…wonder what effect that might have on what they look for and what they think they’ll find? Good old objective science!

s.

 

[Dogbrain]

Lol, well we left evolution in charge of the money markets....and look what happened.

No, what happened was we had a half-way, half-assed, half-measure non-system that was neither fish nor fowl. Regulations were emplaced willy-nilly, with no systematic theory behind them, and many of those regulations required or rewarded foolish behavior. Then, in areas where some old-fashioned "cop-on-the-beat" behavior was actually needed from government, we did nothing.

After more research, I've come to the conclusion that blaming everything exclusively on regulation or exclusively on free market tactics, either one, as a single "cause", is simple-minded, stupid, and will only lead to worse problems later.

In many ways it's as stupid as arguments over whether or not neurological disorders are "genetic" or "environmental" in origin. The answer is YES.