dariusllama

[dariusllama]

Philosophy and Science: Morality

Without the right moral questions, there wouldn’t be progression in the world we reside in, or even in one’s self. A question that should be thoroughly thought about, though, is whether or not philosophy is truly the right option when it comes to answering the question of morality? The way of philosophy, which Rebirth of Reason’s Philosophy vs, Science explains, “Philosophers like to start with their conclusions, and work to prove them” (Rowlands, 2005, p. 1). This may typically be the only method of answering the question of morality among many people’s minds since it is entailing decisions upon principles and values. There is, in fact, another possibly well- looked-over method, and it is the way of science, which tries to provide logic through experimentation and research that ultimately ends up leading to fact. We, as intellectual beings, have come to be taught about the abundant methods between the ways of philosophy and science, with some saying philosophers are a bit out there in relation to their ideas with odd questioning. When it comes to science, it is hard headedly driven--out to prove something--with every ounce of theorized reasoning and data there is to be seen.  This makes the question of morality come off as something that philosophy can only and best answer. Values versus facts is philosophy versus science, yet values can be facts, and over all, the other side, science, can indeed possibly better answer the moral questions to life and how humans ought to be in the lives they lead.

To begin with, philosophy entails what Wikipedia simply states as “the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence” (“Philosophy,” 2010), which one can probably relate to a deity as being their reason, or formation for their existence and their connection to doing good or being good, which is in direct correlation to morality; this is human value, not fact, which is in opposition to science. This is seen in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy through the statement “The apparent connection between morality and religion appears to many people to support the claim that moral truths require a religious foundation, or can best be explained by God's existence, or some qualities or actions of God” (Evans, 2014, p. 1).  Philosophy, in its general self,  can and does delve itself into the notion that there is deity, for philosophy as stated, concerns itself with matters such as existence. The classic ontological example that was articulated in relation to morality was in 1070 by a philosopher, St. Anselm, as stated in The 7 Most Intriguing Philosophical  Arguments for the Existence of God. This scholar proclaimed, “we have a conception of an all-perfect being in which nothing greater can be conceived. He can’t just merely exist in our minds because that would be less perfect than our definition of God, an all-perfect being. Thus God exists solely” (p. 5).  

The way in which morality connects to this is the philosophical concept that speaks of God, in which people derive morally good ways of living from, notes perfection. As the definition for the word perfect is stated in the Oxford Dictionary: “having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics; as good as it is possible to be” (“Perfect,” 2017). In taking into account the definition of perfection, with a focus on the part talking about “as good as it is possible to be,” people have an idea of a perfect being, and it can be seen that an answer to morality is there. Philosophy indirectly answers morality. There is good in God, so there is good in us, for we see the perfect being in our head, as philosophy states. Philosophy has its odd question and statement of God, perfection, and morality, yet ultimately does what philosophy’s intent is: to have something such as morality be thought provoking and be explored from human nature and the thoughtfulness of being that derive principle and value, which makes it best to be the thing answering morality as opposed to something like science, which will focus on observable physical evidence.

On the other hand, science will often bring to mind facts, stats, studies, evidence. These actions and this view of science will often disconnect it from having a relationship with human values and morality. In 2010, during a Ted Talk, Sam Harris, a man who is both a scientist and a philosopher, states “The separation between science and human values is an illusion.” Harris then adds on “values are facts about the wellbeing of conscious creatures. Why don’t we have ethical obligation towards rocks? Because we don’t think rocks can suffer. This is a factual claim. Something we could be right or wrong about” (2010).  Harris is presenting a connection  not just to fact and value, but to the ontological thought as well. We know adding something like bleach to a town’s water supply is wrong. One could ask if it’s wrong and the answer will almost always be yes. Truths are to be sought out in how human species flourish whether it is comprehended or not. Morality is in correlation to these truths. Values are facts that are about the conscious experience of beings. Questions that affect human well being means that there is right or wrong answers, and a science, whether it’s psychology or neuroscience, can prove the principles of morality, for it is the human mind making the conscious choice.  To say science cannot give answers to morality is like saying there have been no answers to the study of human nature. For instance, the key to crime prevention, or moral based inclination, may simply lie in cognitive behavioral therapy. Jack Bush, who specializes in this, even stated “since 2011, there has been a 68 percent reduction in the number of prisoners at Red Onion confined to solitary; a 78 percent reduction in incident reports; and a 91 percent decrease in inmate grievances, efforts praised in a January report from the Department of Justice” (Bush, 2016, p. 17). It can be observed that science is an effective method in answering morality and getting down to the thoughts of right and wrong. The bottom line is, science may look to the facts, but values can indeed be considered conscious fact, which makes science viable and best in answering morality, for human study is better than just discussion and thought as philosophy tends to only do.

Lastly, when it comes to the point of view I pose in the regards of the best method of answering morality, science would have to be the position to side with. Not only is it the best method, it is a method that should be widely considered while one is first thinking of philosophy. Science appears to me as the best and most accurate as opposed to philosophy because it is, as stated previously,  a method that tries to provide logic through experimentation and research, which ultimately ends up leading to fact; as one can recall from Sam Harris’ Ted Talk, “values are facts about the wellbeing of conscious creatures,” (2010) and we are indeed conscious creatures. Whether it is conscious creatures having the idea of a deity and following it, in which philosophy poses, or conscious creature that commit crime, yet prevent future crime through cognitive behavioral therapy. Values are there, and they are connected with fact. Truths are found in the flourishment of the human society. Science and morality find themselves embedded in one another when in comes to something such as psychology and neuroscience, which takes questions of human behavior, whether it is good or bad, and provides the data, research, and implemented answers of morality. The world as we may know it could be different simply though the connection of philosophy and science, especially in this case of science being able to answer the question of morality. Philosophy and philosophers have a particular skill set to ask ontological questions and bring on thought-provoking ideas with their statements that they work to prove. Yet, if the gap is bridged with science, then there could be advancements and greater answers not just towards human morality, but in other sectors of life and the world. For instance, you have a man like Albert Einstein who was a scientist, yet quite big on imagination. He provoked the thought of the block theory that correlates with eternalism, which Sam Woolfe, in his article Presentism and Eternalism: Theories about Time, states “takes the view that all points in time are equally real and synonymous” (p.3, 2013). This is accepted as a philosophical concept of time. To me, philosophy paired with science is imagination that can cause an escalation to the world we see around us. This is all only if science can be considered just as viable, if not better, in otherwise philosophical instances such as the answer of morality conundrum.

References

Rowlands, J (2005). Philosophy vs. Science. Retrieved from

http://rebirthofreason.com/Articles/Rowlands/Philosophy_vs_Science.shtml

Wikipedia (2010). Philosophy. Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Evans, S (2014). Moral Arguments for the Existence of God. Retrieved from

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

Dvorsky, G  (2014). The 7 Most Intriguing Philosophical Arguments for the Existence of God. Retrieved from https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-7-most-intriguing-philosophical

-arguments-for-the-e-1507393670

Oxford Dictionary (2017). Perfect | Definition of perfect in English by Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved from  https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/perfect

Ted Talks (2010). Science can answer moral questions | Sam Harris. Retrieved from

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

Bush, J (2016). To Help A Criminal Go Straight, Help Him Change How He Thinks.      Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/06/26/483091741/to

   -help-a-criminal-go-straight-help-him-change-how-he-thinks

Woolfe, S (2013). Presentism and Eternalism: Two Theories about Time. Retrieved from

http://www.samwoolfe.com/2013/05/presentism-and-eternalism-two.html

[dariusllama]

One of the most courageous decisions you’ll ever make is to finally let go of what is hurting your heart and soul.

Brigitte Nicole (via purplebuddhaquotes)

People can often believe that closure is throwing out that bottled up anger or pain, but there is, in fact, another option. One can ultimately decide that they’re worth more that what’s hurting them and let the happiness they deserve come through.

[dariusllama]

Being rich is not about how much you have, but about how much you give. Somehow, when you give, you'll be happier.

JO MOMMA

[dariusllama]

Llamas

Me:Llamas

Me:Llamas

Me:Llamas