Could science prove that vanilla is better than chocolate? (via No Right to Believe)

On By southwerkIn ethics

Philosophy does enter into business ethics. Our author here discusses the idea that we can derive moral standards from science. It is an interesting take on the subject. Very practical from the author’s point of view. He does in the end agree with the idea of the significance of science in morality.

I enjoyed it. Please read it. The author has many other posting about the nature of belief.

James Pilant

Science can undoubtedly help us get what we want, but could science ever tell us what we ought to want, or what we ought to value? Sam Harris thinks so: he argues that the only reasonable source of value in this universe is the well-being of conscious creatures, which is constrained by the laws of nature — placing morality under the purview of science. But if that were true — so goes one of the criticisms Harris engages — couldn’t we say the s … Read More

via No Right to Believe

5 thoughts on “Could science prove that vanilla is better than chocolate? (via No Right to Believe)”

  1. Thanks for the pingback!

    You may have misunderstood my own opinion, though:

    Our author here takes issue with the idea that we can derive moral standards from science.

    Actually, I think Sam Harris’s basic thesis on this matter is correct. My post presents one of the criticisms Harris addresses, and part of his reply. If you think Harris is wrong, though, I’d be happy to hear why.

    Like

    1. I have modified the opening of the post. Is that better from your point of view? If you would like to write something to add to what is here, I will be happy to publish in full or in part with a link, which ever you prefer.
      James Pilant

      Like

  2. Andrew's avatar Andrew

    I disagree with Mr. Harris. Science was designed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, science is meant to describe how things are or how they appear to be. Not how things ought to be.

    The scientific method could be used to examine how and why different cultures end up with their specific philosophical values systems. It is not equipped, however, to determine which system is “better” and which ought to be followed.

    Sam Harris and the other founders of the New Atheist Movement (NAM) have been trying, for the past few years, to make science into more than what it is. They’ve put it up on a pedestal and seem to be almost worshiping the idea of science as this perfect process for the attainment of knowledge and reason. They’ve run into a few roadblocks, however, when trying to reconcile the notion of morality and “what we OUGHT to do” with the scientific method that they worship. The funny part is, by doing this they fall into the very same philosophical traps that they accuse the followers of religious philosophies and doctrines of doing.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m an atheist as well (not as militant as the NAM though), and I am very familiar with a few areas of science (mainly physics and mechanics) so I know how good of a tool science can be at helping us further our understanding of the universe we live in. Having said that, however, let me emphasis that it does have its limits.

    A good example of this is in the topic of nuclear weapons. Science helped us understand how to build the atom bomb. The ethics behind building and using such a weapon, however, is a completely different ball game. As such, we can see that there is more to being human than what science can help us see.

    Like

  3. Pingback: Andrew Comments On My Post: “Could science prove that vanilla is better than chocolate? (via No Right to Believe)” « Pilant's Business Ethics Blog

Comments are closed.