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.
Sounds to me like our disagreements are mostly of a semantic nature, so whatever.
James here speaks of “consumer science.” Also we have heard of Musicology, The Science of Chess, Alternative Approaches to health and healing (such as The Science of Acupuncture.) Perhaps the word “science” here is being employed in the older Continental sense of a systematic study, including research …as in the original sense of the etymological word Sciencia - the root of the word: science.
In Ethical Adventures {a link to which you will find in the list below} M.C. Katz quotes Kant, who said: “Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play.”
Then, in his Preface, Dr. Katz notes:
“What [the concept ‘science’] is meant to be is a search for truth, a way
to increase the amount of useful information in the world, offering
a frame-of-reference for understanding of the scope {in this case, of ethics}
and indicating how useful ethics actually is - and can be even more so - for
living a valuable life.”
Later, on p. 8, the writer - reminding us of some empirical facts - has a character say: " We are social animals. We desire to live together and
to pursue things together. Anything that is important to us we often want to do with others, and we then develop structures and institutions for doing that.
Nearly all societies develop something that could be called a “state” – i.e. a structure of laws, with an authority to proclaim and enforce them. Countries, however, are not essential; they can, and are, being replaced by regional authorities. Also, many of us live by the principles that “One good turn deserves another” (reciprocity); and “What goes around comes around."
James writes: [i]“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.”
Not necessarily!! Many in high places (of power) today constantly violate the Principles offered in the Kindle book cited in the o.p. of this thread …principles derived by the science - such as Inclusivity, Accountability, Respect for self and others, the Means/Ends Relationship, concern for Human Rights, the Consistency Principle - all of which are merely guidelines, not rules nor laws… so we have now plenty of examples of what not to do. This conduct can be meaningfully contrasted with morally-healthy conduct that those of good character would display, as explained in some depth in the book… In this way we would get the negative and the positive instances to which James, in his role of Philosopher of Science, alludes in the quoted passage.
As Dr. Robert S. Hartman elucidated, science is a set of unordered (or partially ordered) data along with a frame-of-reference [a theory, a model of models] that with the aid of some bridge laws (of interpretation), order and explain the data …thus, as James said, increasing the truth value, or degree of confidence, we have in the formerly chaotic swirl of ideas relative to a topic. When the specific topic is ethics {in the considered analysis of some of us, based upon the findings of the new science, the Science of Ethics} we note lots of chaos - such as the current state of ethical understanding and insight that prevails. Today we see an utter lack of moral clarity; the situation is incongruent, and it is an incoherence. This is so from The White House on down. And we, in the USA, have the best Congress money can buy. Hypocrisy and the corruption are thick and rampant. …the U.S.A. and much of the world is morally sick.
Every proposition and conclusion of science is highly-tentative, is dated and indexed, and is subject to revision when new findings come along. Science is the opposite of dogma. We have nothing to fear from the advancement of science 
Your views and comments are welcome !
So what do you think about all this?
Ophthalmology, especially its sub-branch Optometry - like Ethics is a science that is both subjective and objective at the same time.
Science is about what works.
The claim is being made here, {and in Living Successfully,
amazon.com/LIVING-SUCCESSFU … B01NBKS42C
[A Kindle app is necessary to read it…}
is that if you live by the principles offered in this 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.
That it will help you have a harmonious life is a testable hypothesis. And it is falsifiable; for if you ignore the principles and behave in a contrary way the theory predicts you will have friction and disharmony in your life.
Once a goal is projected it is possible to objectively determine the most effective way of achieving the goal,. It is possible to evaluate how realistic it is, by calculating the probability of that goal being achieved at all.
Gravity still works. And harmony still works.
Life has value. Value is based upon meaning. Every individual wants life to have some meaning. For if not, life is empty, devoid of meaning. When life has no meaning for an individual, he or she is likely to commit suicide, to end life. In an ethical society, one made up of ethical individuals, we can predict that spousal abuse rates, crime rates, suicide rates, and murder rates will be way down. And war will be nearly absent. Statistical studies will confirm this. A society, region or culture with minimal crime and suicide statistics may have earned the right to regard itself as ethical.
In an ethical world people will live in harmony. The opposite of harmony is conflict, chaos, murder, and war. The logical argument being made here is:
The more ethical individuals there are, the nearer we all are to living in an ethical world.
An ethical individual would find life to be meaningful, would evaluate life as having some meaning.
Those who find meaning in life, in living in this world, do not normally commit suicide.
If a state or society (or local region) arranges its policies so that crime rates and suicide rates are close to zero, then it is justifiable to conclude that the society or region is an ethical one.
The more regions of this planet that are ethical, the closer we have come to an ethical world.
What is meaningful to us we speak of as having value.
Some commit suicide slowly by being destructive either to themselves or to others; they spread the opposite of harmony. Their conduct results in chaos and/or confusion. Or they display indifference to the intrinsic value of the human person, in all of its beautiful depth and complexity.
Some do things they will later in life regret – especially if they later develop an awakened, sensitive, educated conscience, for it may then bother them for the remainder of their years. It is best to avoid a guilty conscience in the first place. A person of good character knows this.
He or she will not permit himself to be dominated by, nor intimidated by, a selfish individual. In the long run the unselfish people who practice harmonious human relations will triumph. Harmony still works.
What say you?
.
So does anyone here care about the advancement of Ethics, either as
I) a body of knowledge; or
II) as a discipline
or both 
and if you do, what are you doing about it
As a service, I shall now announce for those who are interested - and if you read the book cited in the o.p. you will know why this is relevant - the development of a new Ethical Technology, which uses earth-friendly materials for its anode and for its electrolyte, and it is solid-state, with all the advantages that implies: see
news.utexas.edu/2017/02/28/good … technology
Thus the widespread introduction of electric cars can now become a reality.
Connecting the dots…: less air pollution means less illness, less brain-damage, means less stupid conduct, viz., less-immoral conduct, means less chaos, friction and/or needless conflict, means possibly more harmony in this world.
And more harmonious human relations brings us closer to living in an ethical world.
.
.
.