Moral and Scientific Progress

[speed]

Since the Enlightenment, scientifc progress has followed an almost upward linear progression--every year, more and more discoveries are made to supplement old ones. Yet, in regards to morals/ethics, no such progress has been made. We follow the same tired, increasingly irrelevant, ancient (in most cases Iron Age) religions; in regards to philosophy, few if any philosophers seem to be concerned with morals and ethics, even though both were of chief concern to philosophers just 100 years ago (even Adam Smith), and our present political/social environment has replaced moral/ethics with that of the morality if you will, of the rational economic man; and as our societies became middle class, the morals and ethics of almost all previous traditions, were essentially replaced with those of the multitude, and of this rational economic man.

The question becomes, can mankind make some advances in regards to morality/ethics, or, will we continue down our present path? Has this decline in morality shaped our present world? Or, am I just a crazy moralist, who wishes Zeno would return?

 

[veil the sky]

i don't know, but you certainly brandish a lot of completely unsubstantiated views.

how is society now more violent and unfeeling?

and why does continual change in scientific concensus constitute a linear upward path?

 

[Seditious]

I'm not sure 'moral progress' is anything but a subjective concept so it would be almost impossible to agree on its happening as there'll always be someone saying we should save every one, free everyone, protect the animals, preserve the environment, help our neighbour, help homeless strangers, get rid of capitalism, stop researching to make more deadly weapons, and then even if we can go and do all that then we'll have the argument of the religions saying 'you also have to do this, and not do that...' while we don't even have any proof that we've made moral progress in simply agreeing with the prior concepts if at some point we decide it's completely moral to not agree with some concepts (like those of islam or satanism or catholicism or scientology or whatever it may be) so why agreeing with some rather than agreeing with our status quo should be imagined as progress is hard to prove beyond a certain point of basic liberty.

 

[speed]

i don't know, but you certainly brandish a lot of completely unsubstantiated views.

how is society now more violent and unfeeling?

and why does continual change in scientific concensus constitute a linear upward path?

I was expecting such challenges. But yes, I changed it to upward linear progression, and deleted the violent part.

 

[speed]

I'm not sure 'moral progress' is anything but a subjective concept so it would be almost impossible to agree on its happening as there'll always be someone saying we should save every one, free everyone, protect the animals, preserve the environment, help our neighbour, help homeless strangers, get rid of capitalism, stop researching to make more deadly weapons, and then even if we can go and do all that then we'll have the argument of the religions saying 'you also have to do this, and not do that...' while we don't even have any proof that we've made moral progress in simply agreeing with the prior concepts if at some point we decide it's completely moral to not agree with some concepts (like those of islam or satanism or catholicism or scientology or whatever it may be) so why agreeing with some rather than agreeing with our status quo should be imagined as progress is hard to prove beyond a certain point of basic liberty.

True, true. But how far can moral relativism go?

In addition, I'm reminded of Foucault's comment about the differences in Modern and Ancient Philosophy: The ancients saw philosophy as a way of life--a better life; whereas modern philosophy is the search for theoretical truth. This is, I suppose subconsciously partially the impetus for this thread.

In saying moral progress, Im actually referring to some, let us say classical notion, of a "way of life". Now, obviously ethics/morals are the centerpiece for such a "way of life"; yet, epistemology,understanding of language, human systems, and even knowledge itself has become the area of study in modern philosophy, and thus the very foundations of any "way of life" will be proven essentially without value. And this I suppose is a major problem, and one that I would like answered.

Therefore, I suppose another question becomes, how can ethics/morality or a "way of life" advance in our current philosophical environment?

 

[cryosteel]

Judeo-Christian morality has advanced considerably. We have freedom, equality, civil rights, humanism, rules of engagement in battle, all of which did not exist before the Enlightenment. Most people consider these highly moral ideas great progress. The effects of this great progress are gross overpopulation, mass financial exploitation, individualism, destruction of ecosystems on an enormous scale, uncontrolled urban sprawl, the dumbing down phenomenon (world average IQ drops from 90 to 82 throughout this century), nanny/police state rights and safety enforcement. This is "progress". Judeo-Christian morality is destructive.

Parallel, entertwined technological progress is not linear. http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1

 

[speed]

Judeo-Christian morality has advanced considerably. We have freedom, equality, civil rights, humanism, rules of engagement in battle, all of which did not exist before the Enlightenment. Most people consider these highly moral ideas great progress. The effects of this great progress are gross overpopulation, mass financial exploitation, individualism, destruction of ecosystems on an enormous scale, uncontrolled urban sprawl, the dumbing down phenomenon (world average IQ drops from 90 to 82 throughout this century), nanny/police state rights and safety enforcement. This is "progress". Judeo-Christian morality is destructive.

Parallel, entertwined technological progress is not linear. http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1

Yes, I suppose I was not considering these things moral progress. Amazing how poorly worded and developed my thread is; regardless, we're gettng somewhere I hope. (ample reason why one should not be embarrased about posting threads--one learns something in the end)

That article is highly, highly interesting, and I think, possibly merits a thread of its own--on singularity at least.

 

[Seditious]

True, true. But how far can moral relativism go?

In addition, I'm reminded of Foucault's comment about the differences in Modern and Ancient Philosophy: The ancients saw philosophy as a way of life--a better life; whereas modern philosophy is the search for theoretical truth. This is, I suppose subconsciously partially the impetus for this thread.

That's an interesting point. In a lecture I heard recently an interpretation of Kant was given suggesting we can't merely appeal to truth to decide how to act since we have entire freedom to act however we aspire to rather than being determined to some lowest common denominator animality and seeing that as an end in itself simply because anything built beyond that foundation isn't necessarily true.

I guess perhaps it's just a fact of modernism that we're trying to break free of the tradition of 'the good life' and religious doctrine so that we don't feel restricted to something with no objective truthful foundation that makes us focus primarily on truth, and then from there go back into ethics with Hume's Guillotine and decide on it's own merits if an idea good for us or not.

In saying moral progress, Im actually referring to some, let us say classical notion, of a "way of life". Now, obviously ethics/morals are the centerpiece for such a "way of life"; yet, epistemology,understanding of language, human systems, and even knowledge itself has become the area of study in modern philosophy, and thus the very foundations of any "way of life" will be proven essentially without value. And this I suppose is a major problem, and one that I would like answered.

yeh it brings up that old radical freedom - if we're free from any divine guidance or knowable ultimate truth. how do we decide how to act. But I think having no truth, surely whatever we decide to value, we're right to value, as long as only those who agree to value it are affected by that perception.

Therefore, I suppose another question becomes, how can ethics/morality or a "way of life" advance in our current philosophical environment?

perhaps only by being given freedom. Freedom, education, liberty to do as you please as far in as you harm no one else -- if no one can be proven to be right in their view, their view has no value in being global as if others shouldn't be allowed to choose what another person thinks may damn them for eternity or ruin their health so, to me, the only advance to make is to create the most freedom of personal opinion and ability to live their good life possible.

 

[speed]

perhaps only by being given freedom. Freedom, education, liberty to do as you please as far in as you harm no one else -- if no one can be proven to be right in their view, their view has no value in being global as if others shouldn't be allowed to choose what another person thinks may damn them for eternity or ruin their health so, to me, the only advance to make is to create the most freedom of personal opinion and ability to live their good life possible.

And so spake Zarathustra. True, but few people can ever have such freedom, and those who do attain it, do so after quite a bit of struggle.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Unknown, so it would seem, to most people, there have been huge strides made in recent years regarding ethics and morality. Thanks to sociobiology and in particular the scientist Richard Dawkins, we have the ultimate philosophy of life. Science has spelled out the way to a new moral reasoning, based on the laws of nature: the selfish gene, natural selection, etc. These laws are the laws that Nature, in all her eternal wisdom, has decreed for the survival of all her creatures from the beginning of time.

Science has demonstrated to us what has been staring us in the face throughout all human history. It is puzzling why humans have taken so long to be able to figure this out. The ancient Egyptians failed to grasp it, and nor did the Romans and the Greeks.

Had we realised these important facts, we would not now be trapped in the idiotic and precarious position that we now find ourselves facing.

We should not have attempted to propose a manmade morality assuming a superiority to Nature. We either obey the laws of Nature and work in harmony with those laws, or Nature will phase us out just as surely as she has so many other species.

 

[speed]

Unknown, so it would seem, to most people, there have been huge strides made in recent years regarding ethics and morality. Thanks to sociobiology and in particular the scientist Richard Dawkins, we have the ultimate philosophy of life. Science has spelled out the way to a new moral reasoning, based on the laws of nature: the selfish gene, natural selection, etc. These laws are the laws that Nature, in all her eternal wisdom, has decreed for the survival of all her creatures from the beginning of time.

Science has demonstrated to us what has been staring us in the face throughout all human history. It is puzzling why humans have taken so long to be able to figure this out. The ancient Egyptians failed to grasp it, and nor did the Romans and the Greeks.

Had we realised these important facts, we would not now be trapped in the idiotic and precarious position that we now find ourselves facing.

We should not have attempted to propose a manmade morality assuming a superiority to Nature. We either obey the laws of Nature and work in harmony with those laws, or Nature will phase us out just as surely as she has so many other species.

Interesting. Of course Social Darwinism emerged right after Darwin published. Did you read that article on singularity? I'm thinking of posting a new thread on it when I work up the willpower. Anyway, the point of this very Arthur C Clarke-like article is that we thinking biological lifeforms may very soon be replaced by non-biological thinking beings; thus, how much will nature and the environment even matter to the non-biological life-forms? Thats sci-fi nonsense I suppose; but it seems plausible.

And, even though socio-biology is making such an impact, and the environment is on the tips of everyones tongues, man still is intent on conquering nature with our brains/technology/creativity. Sure, our behavior, bodies, etc. bear the mark of nature, but our creativity and technology has allowed us, and will continue to allow us to spurn nature, and overcome it.

 

[Seditious]

We should not have attempted to propose a manmade morality assuming a superiority to Nature. We either obey the laws of Nature and work in harmony with those laws, or Nature will phase us out just as surely as she has so many other species.

while I agree with that to some extent, I like Kants notion that we need not rely only on what truth is known to determine how we should act since we have the human freedom of acting towards any end we aspire and that too should be a consideration in our lives. we need not reduce ourselves to some helpless animality at the mercy of nature.

After all, if Dawkins points out anything it's that nature isn't every species looking out for eachother, it's everything looking our for itself, so there's no reason humans should reduce themselves to helping our the rest of the natural world unless he aspires to, he can instead, like all other animals, do whatever he wants to his own ends no matter what harm it may cause nature, because nature is used to harm and always recovers in some new way, so if we act in some way which ultimately wipes us out that's our problem not natures and we have as much right to do it as the ebola virus does.

 

[Norsemaiden]

while I agree with that to some extent, I like Kants notion that we need not rely only on what truth is known to determine how we should act since we have the human freedom of acting towards any end we aspire and that too should be a consideration in our lives. we need not reduce ourselves to some helpless animality at the mercy of nature.

After all, if Dawkins points out anything it's that nature isn't every species looking out for eachother, it's everything looking our for itself, so there's no reason humans should reduce themselves to helping our the rest of the natural world unless he aspires to, he can instead, like all other animals, do whatever he wants to his own ends no matter what harm it may cause nature, because nature is used to harm and always recovers in some new way, so if we act in some way which ultimately wipes us out that's our problem not natures and we have as much right to do it as the ebola virus does.

Realising our place in nature's scheme of things would make it far less likely that we would do things to damage the ecosystem. With a more holistic view on life we would see how things are connected and that we would be damaging ourselves. Indeed it is natural to put one's own kind first, but there is also the benefits of symbiosis with other living things to consider.

Really it is the man made morality that seeks to deny the supreme authority of Nature that leads to destructive behaviour and is punished by extinction.

Unlike animals, the intelligent among us can have a conscious understanding of our position in Nature's scheme, but we should use this awareness to work with Nature and not to attack it or attempt to escape from it.

 

[Seditious]

Really it is the man made morality that seeks to deny the supreme authority of Nature that leads to destructive behaviour and is punished by extinction.

well I guess that's your moral interpretation

I dont see nature as a supreme authority as if it has intentionality or consciousness, and I dont see extinction as a punishment or I'd have to ask what did all those poor dinosaurs do to deserve that moral judgement upon them?

 

[derek]

Realising our place in nature's scheme of things would make it far less likely that we would do things to damage the ecosystem. With a more holistic view on life we would see how things are connected and that we would be damaging ourselves. Indeed it is natural to put one's own kind first, but there is also the benefits of symbiosis with other living things to consider.

Really it is the man made morality that seeks to deny the supreme authority of Nature that leads to destructive behaviour and is punished by extinction.

Unlike animals, the intelligent among us can have a conscious understanding of our position in Nature's scheme, but we should use this awareness to work with Nature and not to attack it or attempt to escape from it.

That seems very valid.

Gaia theory supposes the world is like an organism, not necessarily sentient but comparable. This lends itself to what Norsemaiden was saying without actually attributing notions of teleology to the situation, I think.

 

[speed]

Here's another way to ask this question:

Does scientific progress improve our quality of life? It seems to me it does from a purely material and health-related standpoint, but perhaps not, or it is even harmful from a psychological, social, and philosophical standpoint. (I know, I know, sweeping generalizations).

 

[derek]

Buckminster Fuller, among others adopted a very holistic view upon the sciences and how they could genuinely help people in a big way.

Scientific advances have no intrinsic factors which are detrimental, but the question of how benevolently we implement them does. Having said that, there is a theory that the more we advance scientifically the more we take things away from ourselves.

 

[Norsemaiden]

That seems very valid.

Gaia theory supposes the world is like an organism, not necessarily sentient but comparable. This lends itself to what Norsemaiden was saying without actually attributing notions of teleology to the situation, I think.

I am glad you agree Derek

I was hesitant to make Nature seem like it has a mind and anthropomorphising it, but it is only meant metaphorically of course. Nature is god-like in a sense.

Could Gaia theory be said to be an advancement in the philosophy of morality/ethics to some extent also? Or at least, it gives one a new perspective on morality, without having to prescribe it. If one is shown the consequences of one's actions, like Ebenezer Scrooge was in A Christmas Carol, one can draw conclusions that are the equivalent of being given a new set of morals to obey.

 

[Seditious]

I am glad you agree Derek

I was hesitant to make Nature seem like it has a mind and anthropomorphising it, but it is only meant metaphorically of course. Nature is god-like in a sense.

Could Gaia theory be said to be an advancement in the philosophy of morality/ethics to some extent also? Or at least, it gives one a new perspective on morality, without having to prescibe it. If one is shown the consequences of one's actions, like Ebenezer Scrooge was in A Christmas Carol, one can draw conclusions that are the equivalent of being given a new set of morals to obey.

many of us know the consequences, but that doesn't mean we should value those things more than our lives

I can't even imagine how many rabbits we've killed here.
I can't imagine how many animals died when their habitats were burned by native americans to make the forests easier to hunt for deer.
I can't imagine how many viruses we've murdered outright!
But just because other organisms live on this planet doesn't mean it's our job to protect them. Millions of anaerobic organisms died out, Millions of dinosaurs died out, Millions of men have died out and man will become wiped out entirely. -- nature isn't picky about who runs the world, if we act to preserve the way the world is today, we're only doing it because this state of the world suits us, not because it's 'good for nature' as if nature decided all biological progress should stop here and all these current creatures should prolong forever.

 

[OldScratch]

I've attempted six replys and can unbosom nothing that seems entirely sensible! What I'm trying to make sense of is how we can dispassionately consider our role in Nature, when we are essentially the only organism capable of doing so one way or another - we must necessarily be biased. Thus, I always have difficulty being objective(if it's even possible)about where man fits in the big natural picture. How much 'progress' is too much?(how many dead rabits or viruses are acceptable - managable?) We can see the consequences eventually(like Scrooge) but why do we often seem inclined toward doing legitimate harm before we see it? Do we possess an innate selfishness unknown to rest of Nature? Is that just being Human? Sorry if this too rambling or obtuse...