Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bestest_name_ever t1_ivc89vf wrote

Reply to comment by Wizzdom in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

>I think science can be useful for studying what makes people happy/content and what causes the most harm/suffering. In that way, science can help direct your moral framework to actually achieve the greatest good.

No it can't, you've also fallen for the naturalistic fallacy. What science can help determine is the the greatest happiness/contentment and least harm/suffering, those are not the same as "good" (or bad, respectively).

18

Wizzdom t1_ivcf3a7 wrote

Maybe I wasn't clear, but I meant to say exactly what you said.

13

Angelo_Maligno t1_iveby8u wrote

Yeah morality is more complex than that, for instance you could eat a lot of food for pleasure, except it would bring harm/suffering later in the form of diabetes and bad knees. Generally there are short-term choices and long-term choices. Religions tend to make long-term choices.

2

bestest_name_ever t1_ivf7b2c wrote

No that's not the point. You're talking about practicalities, i.e. predicting the full consequences of an action. (Which only matters for consequentialist ethics anyway).

The fundamental problem is that you cannot simply equate suffering with bad and pleasure with good, it needs to be justified, and it is this justification that science can never provide.

1

LZeroboros t1_ivfe15d wrote

I'd say it's more an is-ought-fallacy, rather than a naturalistic fallacy.

1

bestest_name_ever t1_ivfk8jx wrote

Those are the same.

2

LZeroboros t1_ivflk12 wrote

No, there is a difference. In an is-ought fallacy, the first normative premise is missing, whereas in a naturalistic fallacy, this premise is present but has been transformed into a definition.

1