Any outcome of rationality is only as good as its assumptions. If 'x' is assumed and 'y' is done leading to outcome 'z', then rational arguments and science can reveal whether it happens to be so. We can say 'y' is right (rationally) if it is consistent with 'x' and does lead to 'z'. If not then it is wrong to do 'y'. So the idea of y being wrong or right depends on the assumptions 'x' and the desired outcome 'z'. The problem with moral science is that it determines ‘x’ and ‘z’ arbitrarily and then decides whether y is right or wrong. ‘x’ and ‘z’ are not given in nature. Not everyone has same ‘x’ and ‘z’. For example, assume that 'conscious minds want well-being or well rewarding experience' and hence certain 'y' is right. Some may only care about survival. There are others who do what they think is the right thing to do even at their own peril. So, the idea that all conscious minds have the same desired outcome is wrong. Some might prefer 'smoking' even if it hurts their health for their pleasure and some might prefer 'exercise' just to live up to the image of society. So the idea of absolute or universal outcome is wrong. …show more content…
Suppose it is assumed that the outcome is to "avoid worst fate for everyone." Worst fate for a person is decided by that person not by someone else. Some might prefer death (suicide) while some might prefer going through the worst fate(whatever that may be) for their beliefs(rapture, god, nihilism etc.) So in principle there is no 'worst fate for everyone'. Even if the conscious minds of the people can be measured, it doesn't really make any difference. Just by knowing the temperatures of hot or cold water cannot make the value judgment of which is right. One may choose whatever he wants even if it does harm
In “Toward a Universal Ethics,” written by Michael Gazzaniga, a question is posed to coax his audience toward a science based ethics. “The question is, Do we have an innate moral sense as a species, and if so, can we recognize and accept it on it’s own terms? It is not a good idea to kill because it is not a good idea to kill, not because God or Allah or Buddha said it was not a good idea to kill.”(Gazzaniga, 420 para. 6). Gazzaniga answers the question for us, but he was wrong to assume that the brain’s systematic response to moral situations means that science should dictate ethics and morality. Instead, ethics and morality should be considered a part of humanity, which is influenced and balanced by many things including science, religion, and individual
Probably one of the biggest economic debates is rationality. Whether a decision is rational or irrational. If I were to make a rational decision, it would most benefit me over all of the other choices I could have chosen from. This is how Professor Henry Spearman solves the case of the murder. All of the suspects are proven guilty or innocent based off of the decisions they make. If it is a rational decision, then the suspect is thought of as innocent. If it is an irrational decision, then the suspect is thought of as
... difficult to include morals in decision-making. It is so much simpler not to think of the consequences of one's actions. However, if everyone were to do this, society would quickly disband. People need to start thinking of their actions as having consequences that affect more than just themselves, and that they must keep this in mind when making decisions. Critical thinking is difficult, and it's not the most pleasant thing, but as Plato has Socrates say in the Apology, "The unexamined life is not worth living" (West & West, 92). Unless we incorporate human values into science and technology, we will be living a life not worth living.
Science can give us as good a moral code as any religion. Or so Daniel Dennett claims in his book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. Dennett provides the tools to explain human morality, and inadvertently leads the way to the conclusion (which he does not share) that science can clarify how human morality came about, but not serve as a substitute or model for moral codes, religious and secular alike.
Initially, The book “The Moral Arch” by Michael Shermer talks about as technology advances that we all become more moral to each other. I agree that as we become more technological, we become more moral in majority life, especially when it comes to capital punishment, violent crimes, religion, freedom, and democracy. We can see it through our history during the industrial revolution era, and through our generation today. Science will continue to make us more moral about our daily activities.
Socrates was put to death for “not worshipping the gods of the state” and “corrupting the young.2” The more powerful people of Athens disagreed with, and disapproved of Socrates’ beliefs and handed him a jug of poison. Plato believed that good/morality starts from the powerful government and trickles down to the average person. Women’s and civil rights were both products of the support of more powerful people of these causes. Each new Supreme Court reflects the values of the majority of its members, now liberal, now conservative. The “right” view is the view held by those currently in power1.
Morality is defined as “neither mysterious nor irrational but furnishes the necessary guidelines for how we can promote human welfare and prevent suffering” (Fisher 134). Moral relativism suggests that when it comes to questions about morality, there is no absolute right and wrong. Relativists argue that there can be situations in which certain behavior that would generally be considered “wrong” can also be considered “right”. The most prominent argument for moral relativism was posed by a foremost American anthropologist, Ruth Benedict, who claimed that absolute morality does not exist because cultures and individuals disagree on moral issues and because of these differences, morality cannot be objective (Benedict). For example, in the United
James Rachels expresses his thoughts on what a satisfactory moral theory would be like. Rachels says a “satisfactory theory would be realistic about where human beings fit in the grand scheme of things” (Rachels, 173). Even though there is an existing theory on how humans came into this world there is not enough evidence to prove the theory to be correct. In addition to his belief of knowing how our existence came into play, he also has a view on the way we treat people and the consequences of our actions. My idea of a satisfactory moral theory would be treating people the way we wish to be treated, thinking of what results from our doings, as well as living according to the best plan.
It has been stated that a person’s sense of morality deals with how he should act as a person, as opposed to acting on the basis of his race, ethnicity or religion. This statement therefore implies that all people should have the same set of morals. People should be concerned with how they should act as people in general and not let other aspects of who they are influence their sense of morality. But in the end this belief has been proven to be false. Different people across the world have contrasting moral reactions, natural responses and thoughts to moral dilemmas. (Fleischacker, 1994, p.8)
Morality is not a science; it is an ever-changing view of what is right and wrong, good from bad throughout the course of human life. Science deals with facts, measures of values, where there are only “personal” opinions. Morality is subjective, where I don’t believe that there is such thing as moral facts. People disagree/ agree over ethical questions all the time, it is subjective matter. In a subjective matter, the speaker conveys feelings, where as in a scientific matter, the speaker would report facts (tested/proven). I feel that there are no moral facts for this exact reason, when we say something is wrong or right, we are expressing what our personal approval or disapproval may be, although their might be a common consensus,
Every human being carries with them a moral code of some kind. For some people it is a way of life, and they consult with their code before making any moral decision. However, for many their personal moral code is either undefined or unclear. Perhaps these people have a code of their own that they abide to, yet fail to recognize that it exists. What I hope to uncover with this paper is my moral theory, and how I apply it in my everyday life. What one does and what one wants to do are often not compatible. Doing what one wants to do would usually bring immediate happiness, but it may not benefit one in the long run. On the other hand, doing what one should do may cause immediate unhappiness, even if it is good for oneself. The whole purpose of morality is to do the right thing just for the sake of it. On my first paper, I did not know what moral theories where; now that I know I can say that these moral theories go in accordance with my moral code. These theories are utilitarianism, natural law theory, and kantianism.
Such a simple revelation of similarity between species powered multiple rights revolutions for beings that we originally thought to be “too different” or inferior to us. As Gay rights, Women’s rights, and Animal rights were born out of scientific logic and reasoning our moral arc began to increase. Shermer examines and defines the link between humanity and science by introducing the notion that we all come into this world with some sort of moral compass, inherently already knowing basic rights from wrongs. However, Shermer makes it clear that how we control our moral compass comes from how we are “nurtured”. The levels of guilt that we feel for violating certain social obligations can and will vary depending on the environment that we are raised in .This leads Shermer into introducing the most simple and effective way of measuring morality in an action. Shermer defines an action as being morally correct only if the action increases an individual’s chances of survival and flourishing. The idea is to stretch the boundaries of the moral sphere with the help of science and its tools of reason. He then goes on to state how we would not be as far as we are in the progression of morality today if
Psychology, the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, has been giving us information regarding human behavior and decision-making since the late 1800’s. The field itself is one of the most controversial in all of science, especially when it comes to the morality behind psychologist’s experiments. Morality is the distinction between what is considered to be right or wrong behavior. The famous psychology experiment known as the Stanford Prison Experiment is notorious for being considered an “immoral” trial; however, it was accepted by society because it was conducted in the name of science. This raises one question: should science trump morality even if it means putting some people at risk?
Imagine being faced with an important decision that affects a group of people. In order to make this decision you would have to decide which choice is wrong and which choice is right. There are two notable theories that believe a single moral principle provides the best way to achieve the best outcome to a moral judgement. These theories are utilitarianism and Kantian ethics.
world. What this means is that there is no one moral law that fits every