Controlled experimental evidence.
Yes, evidence.
But so far, not yet controlled.
Can you - i.e., anyone here who loves ethics and also science - aid in speeding up the progress?
[size=89]p.s. to James: by the way, my friend, the author, toward the end of the book, borrows [and rephrases] an idea he got from you, on the issue of transparency, in re its relevance as an ethical policy - consistent with the themes derived in the book’s framework.[/size]
The purpose of Science is to make a subject more indisputable, more ce3rtainly true through empirical evidence. The problem with applying science to ethics (or any social issue) is that one would have to do the following:
1) State a falsifiable principle or theory to be tested
2) State a hypothesis using the principle to predict an outcome
3) Experimentally demonstrate that using the principle caused the predicted outcome and not using it prevented the outcome (aka “falsifiable”).
When dealing with people, such a scientific method would require subjecting the people to specifically altered life styles, most of which must be intentionally less than the preferred. It is like proposing that a certain food is good for everyone and then proving it by denying that food to a large sample group to demonstrate that they die. Such is often done with animals and secretly to people, but consumer science can hardly advertise that it has scientifically proven that any particular set of ethics is superior.
Science must experiment with both the presence and the absence of the proposed ethics principles, strongly affecting people’s lives. And using history does not count and is not science. One can logically and rationally prove ethical principles to those few who can think rationally, but science cannot be used to empirically prove them. Such would be unethical.
I solved ethics and morality definitionally and falsifiably:
When suicide is committed, that is definitionally entailed from the premise that life has no meaning or purpose.
So you make suicide really hard to do, and nobody does it on one planet…
Then on another planet you make suicide easy and humane and nobody does it.
BY DEFINITION!! The culture of the second planet represents more purpose and meaning to live than the first one. Definitional; falsifiable.
People don’t like the factual answers to questions… Especially short ones for the big questions…
It makes them feel like they have nothing to do.
That however is the factual solution to both ethics and morality:
Whatever causes zero suicides when suicide is as easy and humane as possible is perfectly the science and solution to ethics and morality
Science is about matters of “is”, not “ought”. Ethics is about “oughts”. Ethics cannot be a science.
Science is about what works, not what is or what ought.
Newtonian forces never really existed, but the formulae presuming them worked pretty well. Space and Time aren’t really bent or warped, but Einstein’s and Lorentz’ formulae work really well. Particles don’t really appear and disappear in and out of reality but Quantum Mechanics formulae still work well.
Science doesn’t really care what is true, only what can be used … to control.
Yes, I agree that science is about what works.
The author of Living Successfully :
amazon.com/LIVING-SUCCESSFU … 83948953&s
argues that if one lives by the principles offered in that book, then it not only will work in your own life, but also work to benefit the entire human race, in that it will make an ethical world more probable …by the example you present and represent.
Logically, what works falls under the category of what “is”. “what works” as in, what is the most effective means at accomplishing a goal. The goal itself is based on an ought and subjectively decided.
There is no such thing as a science of ethics in the sense that “oughts” can be scientifically determined in the same way as statements of “is”.
I couldn’t totally agree with that.
Typical science principles are in the form of “Situation A leads to Situation B”, such as the behavior of gravitation and electromagnetic effects. Ethics does presuppose that a particular outcome is preferred rather than merely being concerned with a more neutral, "If we all do X, we can all get Y". But the science part of it is still valid (presuming actual science experimentation has been done).
Is it true that “If we all do X, we all will get Y”? That is a scientifically answerable question as long as abusing people in order to find the answer doesn’t get in the way. Whether anyone wants Y is also a question and requires a rational proof rather than an experimental proof, thus is outside of the scientific method. One could also ask if anyone wants gravity to pull things downward.
So I guess that I would say that the science involved in ethics is more a science of social interaction, Sociology and/or Psychology, with a presupposition that specific outcomes are preferred - not purely science but not void of scientific method.
The act of projecting a goal (what ought to happen), aka which outcome is preferred, is completely subjective. This is why ethics cannot be a science - because even if there is overlap between the preferred outcomes of a group of subjects, the preferred outcomes are still subjective.
But yes, once that goal is projected it is possible to objectively determine the most effective way of achieving the goal, and it is possible to evaluate the probability of that goal being achieved at all, aka how realistic it is.
I suspect that you have been misled into thinking that Science has always been objective. Most scientists probably think they are being objective, but such isn’t the case.
An example is the very notion that the Newtonian “forces” were ever observed to exist. They were not. They never existed. But from a subjective standpoint, they seemed to exist and thus the “Laws of Newton” were established. Later, Einstein proposed a different ontological perspective concerning Relativity. Relativity directly states that ALL measurements are subjective (aka “relative to the observer”). And Relativity is very largely accepted as “Science” merely because experiments were done to substantiate the predictions. Quantum Physics gets very seriously subjective in claiming that reality itself only exists when the observer is conscious of it - shamefully subjective, yet Quantum Physics, an obvious fairy tale mythology, is strongly sold as “Science”.
The experiments themselves MUST be objective, but the proposed truths of the principles involved (e.g. Newtonian forces, Einsteins bending of spacetime, Schrodinger’s half alive cat) have always been subjective. Science can only tell of what is necessarily NOT true. It cannot tell of what IS true. The scientists simply don’t know enough philosophy to realize it (and certainly not the general public).
And that is the “science” part of anything called “Science of Ethics” - the objective measurements and experiments.
It might take a while to realize that gravitational force was accepted as a real entity merely because the resultant effects from experiments subjectively inferred that a force was involved even though there never was any such force. In a similar way, “The Science of Ethics” might presume that an ethical goal is that everyone wants to be happy (the “force”) and then provide the formulae involved. It might turn out that in reality, everyone doesn’t want to be happy (although that would be strictly an issue of definition), but that fact would not prevent it from being a science any more than the subjective presumption of Newtonian forces prevented Newtonian physics from being a science or the proclamation that all measurements and reality itself is subjective prevented Relativity and Quantum Physics from be “Science”.
There is a physics of psychology that might very well lead to a physics of ethics. Personally, I can testify that such really is true, but my personal testimony is not “science”. 
Damn you guys piss me off!
How is suicide defined?
Taking ones own life.
Who do people take their own life?
Because it becomes meaningless to them in that context.
So, if there were no suicides, nobody would find meaninglessness in any context.
Meaning is what ethics and morality are about, an over arching drive for purpose laden life; Adding purpose to life’s equation.
So here’s the deal… That means there’s a lot of work to do!! Life on this earth has zero purpose, because a person commits suicide. Zero. None. Zip. Zilch.
And that’s in a world where people make it as hard to commit suicide as they can (because humans are just property to them and like spoiled brats they don’t want to be accountable or do any work to represent purpose) - imagine how much more work you must do if suicide is as easy and humane as possible…!!!
Now, it’s a no brainer that the premises are logically entailed in this instance, both definitionally and through experience.
That, and nothing else, is the science of ethics.
You are scrambling in your denial, because, to accept this necessary logical entailment, proves this universe has no current purpose, and you have no work to do. Existential work is much more difficult than manual labor.
James sidetracked me.
Science is about logically entailing definitions in a falsifiable manner.
It is not subjective to that regard.
When I am objectively alive, that pebble on the ground get kicked a bit while I’m walking, people notice I’m here. Etc…I am objectively always a subject that is objectively having an impact.
It is objectively true by definition, that if I suicide, I have made the decision in context of anti meaning to ethics and morality of living. If I’m murdered, I have not necessarily made that decision.
Science can’t tell you what goal you “ought” to choose. Only how to accomplish that goal and how probable (realistic) it is given human nature and circumstances.
The name “science of ethics” seems to me like it implies something else entirely, as if there was one ethical system which is superior to all others and which all must follow and abide by.
As if ethical matters of “what ought we do” can be solved by appealing to a standard external to the subject.
I understand and agree to your point, but I suspect that you might have missed mine.
Camus had it right.
The only thing of value in all philosophy is whether to commit suicide or not… The rest is just commentary.
You guys try with all your psychological might to avoid the deep psychological work.
The psychology of suicide is zero point purposelessness from the point of the subject… It’s irreducible:
There is no life meaning for me in this context.
Ethics is about meaning making for life.
You guys are still avoiding the answer
I admit I don’t know enough about relativity to comment on it, but I don’t see your point about the Newtonian forces, no. “Force” is just a name assigned to an observable phenomenon. When physical things of big mass pull towards themselves other things, we call this pulling “gravitational force”, no? What’s so non-existent here?
I agree with this though:
That there is no “pulling” (nor pushing).
“pulling” is just another word we use to describe this observable interaction where one object attracts towards itself another object. What exactly is the issue here?
The issue is that there is no direct interaction between two distant objects. In other words, pushing and pulling is an appearance. That’s how I understand it.
Even if that was true, there is no “attracting” going on either.
The objects merely migrate into the more dense region of space. In most circumstances that is the region directly between the two or more mass objects. But such isn’t always true. A dense region of space CAN BE intentionally formed off to one side or even in the opposite direction, causing the objects to not migrate toward each other, but to a different point in space. And it can even be arranged that they migrate away from each other entirely, resulting in “anti-gravity” behavior.
The point is that mass objects are only responding to their immediate surroundings, not to distance objects. Einstein didn’t belief in “spooky action at a distance” from neither Newton nor Bohr. In that regard, he was right.
Exactly.