Talk:Science of morality/Archive 1

Invitation
This is one of many topics where POV and bias can be difficult to avoid, so I implore everyone to offer any constructive criticisms!

As more information is added to the page, a clearer organizational structure will become possible (rather than a giant "Sam Harris" section like we have now). I suspect that after Sam Harris' book gets released, there will be way more opinions floating around about the idea of a "science of morality". In the meantime, let's talk.Tesseract2 (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Early discussion, suggestions, constructive criticism

 * You've made a good start, Tesseract2. Yes, even before publication there are many other scientific researchers into morality, and the Sam Harris section will no doubt be complemented by sections on the contributions of these others. You've already brought in Seligman and Peterson's work and this could be expanded. I've added brief mention of Jonathan Haidt's work; this too could be expanded.--Annielogue (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I chanced upon this article. I'm an amateur who dabbles in philosophy, morality, thinking, etc. I'm offering advice here only and do not intend to get into any editing battles, but my guess is that sooner or later this article will attract POV concerns. I advise that the first paragraph be written to explain what "science of morality" is first; my impression is that, upon reading the first sentence, that I've jumped into the middle of some kind of ongoing philosophical argument, and I don't know who is arguing, and what sides or positions are. And I don't know quite what I would suggest here, other than trying to explain the basic idea first, perhaps with a brief take on the usual sense of both terms, and how they can be seen as linked. Science and morality, in my view, are two (almost opposite) areas -- or rather, they're like separate circles but each one on a separate plane -- so joining the two -- saying that moral choices can be viewed scientifically, is an interesting choice. If that's the focus of the article, it will become stronger if you can provide all sides of this question, and explore it. This stuff is interesting in my view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Just searching, there is already the short article on Moral psychology (Is the main science that invetigates morality psychology? Perhaps along with sociology and anthropology? If it is, would it be an idea to merge your material into that article?) Books like The Moral Animal would also come into the sphere of this article too. Then there's Kohlberg's stages of moral development... the page on Value (personal and cultural)... --Annielogue (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Annielogue, I agree that Moral psychology is related (I will add a link), but I think the current page will be in a better position to act as a hub linking to any sciences that are relevant to questions of morality. Game theory, sociology, anthropology, biology… I am not sure what other branches of science would come to bear on morality, but I think this page keeps our options more open. Actually, if anyone is going to add A LOT of psychology research specifically, that would help fill up the Moral psychology page – with only the most important references here. And Tomwsulcer, I am just about to try and rewrite the intro – I appreciate all the great suggestions so far!Tesseract2 (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Getting better as it goes. According to Socrates and the definition of a definition, the format of the first sentence perhaps might be something along these lines: (subject) is a (category) that (point of difference). So, for example, a horse (subject) is an animal (category) that has four legs and gallops (point of difference). The category is something that most people understand; the "point of difference" is how the subject is different from others in the category. A unicorn is a fictional creature that has a horse-body and pointed snout. Kind of wondering what science of morality is in these terms, but I don't know if this is the direction you wish to take it. I applaud you for doing this stuff; it's interesting to me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added some pictures and probably since changed some other things. Any suggestions for what to add next? I am sure the list of philosophers and scientists that support a science of morality is much larger than our list of "proponents". There are probably some more interesting criticisms too. Any ideas?? -Tesseract2 (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions on the intro, addition of pictures,
The current intro is good but it may leave you open to POV hunters who think it's too controversial. My suggestion is something along these lines, but it's only a suggestion; feel free to use it or not. My sense is an intro like this will make your article more stable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The science of morality describes an emerging debate in the media and in academia about whether the subject of morality can be examined scientifically. Proponents of the science of morality argue that it can be, and that the subject should be an emerging academic discipline which explores the biological roots of human intuition about what is right and what is wrong. Proponents include thinkers such as Sam Harris who argued that "morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science". Critics, such as Sean Carroll, argue that morality can not be part of science. A fact-value distinction has been traditionally understood to mean science has no place in certain discussions, including discussions of morality. Some philosophers and scientists, especially supporters of scientism, argue that the line between values and scientific facts is arbitrary and illusory, and suggest that the subject of morality can be re-conceptualized as a "budding science" spanning various branches of science. As a result, it is possible that this emerging discipline of the science of morality may grow perhaps along the same lines as the psychology of happiness, according to proponents.

Sam Harris explained in 2010:

I was suggesting that science can, in principle, help us understand what we should do and should want -- and, perforce, what other people should do and want in order to live the best lives possible. My claim is that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics, and such answers may one day fall within reach of the maturing sciences of the mind. As the response to my TED talk indicates, it is taboo for a scientist to think such things, much less say them in public. Most educated, secular people (and this includes most scientists, academics, and journalists) seem to believe that there is no such thing as moral truth -- only moral preference, moral opinion, and emotional reactions that we mistake for genuine knowledge of right and wrong, or good and evil.

RE: Recent changes

Somewhat better; I still question whether it's fair to call it a "budding science" when it may or may not take off, and it looks to me like it's a debate happening which could emerge into a viable academic discipline. Are there any professors teaching Science of morality? Any textbooks with that title? My advice is not to overreach at this stage, and that your article will be stronger & less vulnerable to attack if you follow WP's rules as best you can -- balance, NPOV, including both sides (proponents & critics mentioned in the lead para etc), etc. But I'm limiiting myself here to only advising you excellent people. I think this stuff is interesting. I encourage you to include my references in the text as you see fit. :) --Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your suggestions. I am just about to try and incorporate more elements of your suggested intro into the current one, among my other small changes. I will also include your reference for sure.Tesseract2 (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey I admire you for adding a new article to Wikipedia. This is hard to do. Great going. If I can be helpful, let me know; I'm fairly adept at referencing, only so-so as a copyeditor. Wonder if pictures might help this become more appealing; I may have suggestions if I spot any, and ask what you think.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Some Ideas for pictures

If you're looking to add pictures, I hunted thru Wikimedia Commons. It's kind of hard to find any pictures under the heading "morality"; more under "science". There's also a play called "Science of Morality" but I'm not sure if it's relevant (four people on a stage). I think pictures help a page become more visually appealing, but there's always the issue of relevancy. Here are a few ideas to consider. and you may not choose any but it might get you thinking about better ones. I know the kitty one isn't super relevant but brings readers and describes visually the idea of "happiness"; some of the best pictures are paintings from the 19th century so if I come across anything with "morality" or "science" in it I'll post it here on the talk page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * by the way, I like your pictures MUCH better. Where did you find them, excellent. Makes page much better to look at.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

could be useful
Just came across this article: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/1870/the-science-good-and-evil Some good material in it, that could possibly be used.--Annielogue (talk) 09:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I checked it out. For this most part your article compelled me to add more links to the Science of morality page, since a lot of the information in that article IS relevant, but HAS been mentioned on other pages specifically looking at how either evolution has shaped either altruism&cooperation, or else intuitions about morality in general.
 * -Tesseract2 (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Peaks
In reading the article it sounds like the "peaks" that Harris mentions are in fact mathematical maxima. I'd suggest replacing the photo of mountains with an image from the math article, or a similar one. -- SpareSimian (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I love it, and I was looking for something like this earlier, but I could only find some kind of evolution peaks which would be a confusing picture. I'll change the file. Thanks for that suggestion.

-Tesseract2 (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Science of Morality and Ethical Naturalism
IMO...

Pfhorrest is right to point out that the two are intricately related. To the article I have added some discussion on the nature of their relationship. Generally, I think the difference between the two is that this page is discussing how morality might be scientifically investigated (despite the fact that it has, even more than evolution or positive psychology, particularly obvious implications for morality). In contrast, Ethical naturalism is the very general, philosophical parent viewpoint. Actually, this article is still missing a very important section: Research. I will try to play a part in rectifying this when I can.

-Tesseract2 (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So if I understand you correctly, you're saying the relation between these two articles is like that between Metaphysical naturalism and Science simpliciter? Ethical naturalism is about the position that moral questions are just like physical questions and can be answered in the same ways; Science of morality is about the science & research done under the assumption of that position?
 * If so, I'm inclined to suggest that the more philosophical discussion in this article be moved into Ethical naturalism and briefly summed up here, and this article be focused on the more specific areas of scientific research purporting to answer moral questions. As it stands now this article looks like it is mostly arguing that a science of morality is legitimate (which is just an argument for ethical naturalism), rather than mostly describing research activities within said science.
 * Even then, I'm unsure how much material there will be for this article once the philosophical parts are moved thus, since this is admittedly a very new and still-controversial field of research. But I'm willing to see what you can find in the way of such. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that the philosophical discussion would better fit in the ethical naturalism page, and I will move it there shortly. As for research, I am as curious as you to see what I can find. My search will probably start by scanning positive psychology for normative suggestions about society, as well as any suggestions that come from sociology/social psychology. Hopefully my adding a Research section will lead others to add to it as well.-Tesseract2 (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: I have moved over most of the philosophical stuff to Ethical naturalism. The introduction may need some rewriting now to reflect this shift in emphasis to Morality as a science rather than philosophical issue.-Tesseract2 (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tesseract2, are you saying this article should be maintained in addition to merging the "philosophical" paragraphs into Ethical naturalism? That wasn't the original suggestion (which would end this article's separate existence). I'm not sure it was a good idea and I think the recent edits are not going in the right direction besides. My apologies if I'm not seeing where you're going with it. Like an earlier comment mentioned with regard to the article being "campy", I had originally wondered if you weren't cleverly demonstrating the hyperbole/fallacy of the "new" question "can there be a science of morality". Harris was speculating on the future in the various videos. The question has currency in the realm of science fiction... but framing it to be a fringe opinion in current science/philosophy would take some extraordinary sourcing. In response to criticism, Harris himself says the conventional answer, "quite correctly", is a resounding "no" and some his most enthusiastic support has been "for all the wrong reasons".
 * I realize you've left things in an intermediate state but, would you consider reverting your recent edits to the two articles or, at least, restoring the merge proposal templates? Needless to say, you don't need to clarify your intentions/beliefs in general, just clarify the intended end state of the recent edits. As a reflection of the dialog in popular media, I suspect this article should enjoy a long life quite distinct from Harris' humble achievements, if any, to advance the philosophy of Ethical naturalism.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As the one who initially proposed the merger, I still think that just about everything which is currently on this article would be best merged into Ethical naturalism; even the section labelled "scientific issues" is still basically philosophical issues. I gave credence to Tesseract's suggestion out of good faith; if there is actual research being done in some "science of morality" field, then having a separate article could be justified, though even then not necessary unless there is too much of it to fit together into a merged/enlarged article on ethical naturalism. I don't know how long is appropriate to wait to let sources about such research be gathered, though. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't mean to imply bad faith. I should explain, what I found so enigmatic was labeling it as scientism; just a complexity I find intriguing. Tesseract2 is totally easy to work with; he's perhaps, a natural salesman. For instance, where the Ethical naturalism article has "...inquiry into the natural world can increase our moral knowledge in just the same way it increases our scientific knowledge." He's added "Indeed, proponents of ethical naturalism have argued that humanity needs to invest in their Science of morality."
 * Maybe a title like "Speculative moral scientism" would clarify? I think Harris' description was roughly: something that might someday be within reach of the sciences of the mind. The thing is, scientists currently address questions that have moral implications, for example, the various disorders removed from the DSM. Here's science at work too: Human experimentation in the United States.
 * As an article on Harris' popular science speculation, it's great. But I'm concerned that he hasn't actually engaged in proper academic philosophy with the peers of Ethical naturalism, has he? And how can this article emphasize the "science" of Science of morality if that's just kind of a buzz word?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 08:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been a good conversation in English.

I absolutely agree that science and scientists have made moral strides. My point to Pfhorrest was merely that I think the Science of morality page still serves the purpose of discussing how science might define, and work with, a word as powerful as “Morality”. Harris addresses many such issues, starting with the importance of operationalism, and even though everything in life could be justifiably called 'philosophy' - I argue that this article concerns the methods of a science. For now the article is mostly a theoretical methods section in that vein, but I hope to (and that others will) add more information. This might include a Research section where we can include more reputable scientific articles making normative suggestions.

I am not sure why (or if) you’re saying “morality” is being used as a buzz word; for now let me offer Harris' own point that “moral” does not need to be any less powerful OR scientific as the word “health” can be today. Still, your point about Sam Harris and Ethical naturalism is well taken. He has acknowledged his sort of “end run” around philosophical scholars. He seems to have done so for the sake of introducing the plausibility of a controversial idea: that science can deal with morality in an exceptionally applicable sense. The solution, it seems, is to now add any and all criticisms we can find. Every paragraph mentioning one of Harris’ views that are relevant to Ethical naturalism probably has some equally relevant critic. We might start by finding some of those "peers" you mention who might make for good links on one of the pages we are discussing? This could only make the articles stronger. In the meantime I am making small changes. I can certainly agree to return the headers recommending a merging (I was probably too rash in their removal the first time).-Tesseract2 (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The science that dare not speak it's name? Here's the thing. The researchers/scientists need to identify with or otherwise be referenced in connected to "Science of morality" in WP:RS or else it's WP:SYN/WP:OR. Similarly on the Ethical naturalism side, just because they're compatible, we can't play match maker. Specific connections must exist in WP:RS, so if Harris hasn't been using the "words" Ethical naturalism, he probably shouldn't be in that article.
 * Actually, don't restore the templates if you want to keep this article... besides, it sounds like they can't be merged.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You mention "match-making" between Harris and Ethical Naturalism where there is a lack of "self identification". I wonder, what more of a connection would you seek from the scientists listed so far? Is it truly necessary that they use the words "Science of Morality"? Sam Harris, for example, explained about his own communication style that

“discussion of philosophy is unavoidable, but my approach is to generally make an end run around many of the views and conceptual distinctions that make academic discussions of human values so inaccessible. While this is guaranteed to annoy a few people, the prominent philosophers I've consulted seem to understand and support what I am doing." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-science-of-morality_b_567185.

I am not surprised, then, that even he has not yet used the words “Ethical Naturalism”. My point is that I think there is little doubt that his opinions are (if not obviously related to) those of Ethical naturalism. I would also argue that my choices of included scientists has so far been generally very reasonable. -Tesseract2 (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think it's good to get too mechanical about exact words but even so, at face value, things need to be WP:V. I'm sure prominent philosophers have nothing against engendering discussion or selling books. A good argument won't help unless you find it in WP:RS; a lousy one works too. Off hand, my advice for a mention would be to try and find philosophers who identify as Ethical naturalists and who have published arguments in favor of Harris.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Improving Verifiability
Including other philosophers who actually argue for Ethical Naturalism is for sure a good idea. I'll have to add that to the list of things I want to for these articles, including adding a 'Research' section. If you want to make it easier on me, you can recommend or cite certain utilitarian's from the List of utilitarians (utilitarianism is, as I understand it, an ethically natural view). You could also throw me some tags for the bits you find the most contentious and in need of better sources? -Tesseract2 (talk) 06:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Utilitarianism isn't necessarily ethically naturalist; its founders (e.g. John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham) certainly seemed to be, though they predate the metaethical debate entirely so they wouldn't have called themselves that. I'm unsure if anybody since has explicitly called them such. G.E. Moore, who started off the metaethical debate, did so via an attack on naturalism in favor of what's now called ethical non-naturalism (not everything that's not ethical naturalism falls into that category, despite the names), and I believe he specifically attacked utilitarian claims that goodness could be defined in terms of the satisfaction of certain psychological states, so that might be a good place to look for references of utilitarians as ethical naturalists.
 * Anyway, for a counterexamle of a utilitarian who is not a naturalist, see R.M. Hare, who is an ethical non-descriptivist ("non-cognitivist" in the terminology used here on Wikipedia), and thus not a moral realist (in the "robust" sense used here, though he is a universalist), and thus not an ethical naturalist; but still he is a utilitarian, and actually claims that utilitarianism can be derived from his metaethical theory of universal prescriptivism. Utilitarians could also consistently be some form of universalist subjectivist (like ideal observer theory or divine command theory), though I can't think of any examples of that off the top of my head.
 * This line of inquiry seems more suited to the Ethical naturalism article than here, though. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that those sorts of information would be better presented on the Ethical Naturalism page, and that the Science of Morality had might as well just refer to it. As for SciMo itself, I have found a potential ressource for a RESEARCH section: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/morality10/morality10_index.html (although it seems that some of this information might fit better with moral psychology, and I will have to remind myself of any differences between the two -Tesseract2 (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The Abolition of Man
C. S. Lewis predicted in his 1943 philosophy book The Abolition of Man that a future generation of "conditioners" could change human nature through eugenics, pre-natal conditioning, and an education and propaganda based on a perfect applied psychology so that all future generations will share it's moral values (or lack thereof) which they would presumably justify through science. This is not seen as a good thing however, as Lewis argues that it would be the effective end of the human race. (Thus the title, "the Abolition of Man") He asserts that, ""From propositions about fact alone no practical conclusion can ever be drawn." but calls morality a "science" only in an ancient sense of the word, saying, "Aristotle said that only those who have been well brought up can usefully study ethics: to the corrupted man, the man who stands outside the Tao, the very starting point of this science is invisible." I don't know where that quote from Aristotle came from but I think this book is one of the most relevant must-read books in the world and deals directly with this subject. (science of morality and morality of science) Orwell's 1984 (novel) and Lewis's own That Hideous Strength were inspired/influenced by it's ideas. --BenMcLean (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I could only attempt to critique (rather than make) relevant contributions to this page based on that book, because I have not read it. Did you have any specific additions in mind? Regardless, it does sound like Lewis is engaging many ideas relevant to this page. -Tesseract2 (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been thinking alot about what I could write about this for the article and it's difficult to stick strictly to Lewis's ideas about it and not interject my own. Basically, Lewis objects to the premise that we can get our ethics from science or scientists, but does believe in an objective moral standard which is subject to logical laws. The distinction between logic and science would have to be explained to express this point of view and I think Lewis pretty much assumed everybody knew there was a difference between the two, where nowadays everyone seem to intuitively think that science = logic and logic = science. Basically, Lewis would object to much of the modern premises that seem to be unquestioningly accepted here. --BenMcLean (talk) 17:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been resisting the urge to make a similar point here for a while, since it's arguing with the content and not with its suitability for inclusion in the wiki. The position described on this page -- and, indeed, most metaethical and moral psychology theories, much to the chagrin of people like R.M. Hare -- conflate objectivism, cognitivism, and descriptivism. While I'm not contesting the conflation of the two (in fact I would vehemently argue for it), and only mention it to make the link between objectivism and descriptivism, there are notable contestations of the conflation of cognitivism and descriptivism (Hare being the most notable, but there are others after his kind). You don't have to say that a proposition is about the way things are (as opposed to the way things ought to be), much less collapse the distinction between the two entirely to bring all the latter class into the former, in order to say that the proposition is objectively true. Nor do you have to do that in order to say that (descriptive, natural) science can and should investigate the kind of things which lead to a good outcome. You can say that (that science can investigate what kinds of things lead to good outcomes), without saying that which outcomes are good is something that a scientific investigation can reveal.
 * But like I said, that's mostly me arguing with the content, not challenging its encyclopediality. I do feel like something of this position does need to be stated here, but I'm not really sure how to integrate it into the structure of the existing content, or for that matter what exactly to say. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been generally trying to keep the myriad of philosophical issues discussed on the Ethical naturalism page, and you may find it easier to make additions on that page, with it's more philosophical context?

Either way, we should narrow down what exactly to write, since this seems like it could be relevant.

Pfhorrest, you mentioned that we do not need to collapse the distinction between "is" claims and "ought" claims. I am not sure that I am capturing all the nuance of your point here, but it is not obvious to me that Harris is using ought in any particularly new way. He seems to be arguing only that what we call "moral oughts" can be effectively defined in a scientific context.

That science (from medicine to physics) can help us pursue what we value is not, I think, much debated. And so I think you are right to point out that it is a different proposition to say that science can determine what we ought to value. Still, it is this second claim that the science of morality seems to be pursuing.

I am actually reading Sam Harris' Moral Landscape soon, and I will have many more edits to make...-Tesseract2 (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ted Bundy!
What's with the fetching photo of Ted Bundy and the caption, "The scientific community does not take just any disagreement (even over definitions) seriously"? Did Ted not take definitional disagreements seriously? (I'd contend that Ted took all disagreements seriously.) Was Ted a member of the "scientific community"? (Arguably, yes.}  He no doubt bears an eerie resemblance to Sam Harris, but I'm assuming that there must be some additional reason for the photo's inclusion.  Cloonmore (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A late explanation of the logic. Although the fact that he could be mistaken for Sam Harris played the largest role in this decision, I was also including him (a) because it is Harris' own preferred example in the book of...(b) individuals that might not agree on what is 'moral'- and yet that the scientific community should almost certainly ignore.-Tesseract2 (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion
This underdeveloped, undersourced, hodgepodge of an article seems to exist solely to promote the latest notions of Sam Harris, who is quoted liberally in the lead and throughout the article. The term "science of morality" seems even to be his. I think the article should be merged into Harris's bio or The Moral Landscape or as a virtual footnote to a more well-developed philosophy article, such as ethical naturalism. Cloonmore (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is best merged into ethical naturalism (as I advocated near its creation), with some parts perhaps dispersed to Harris's page or that of his book. I just haven't had the energy to really fight this point with an article this large, and Tesseract's writing is generally good quality and not significantly harmful to the encyclopedia so I've not been pressing the issue or flat out blanking or reverting as I admit I was somewhat tempted to do early on.
 * An aside, Cloonmore: I approve of most of your edits to this article today, but you have introduced some weasel words like "so-called" in a few places, and I think renaming the "Theory" section to "Harris's contentions" or whatever is pushing your point (that this is mostly about Harris's views) a little too hard. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair comment as to use of "so-called", Pfhorrest. My use of it reflects my frustration with parts of the article that present the theory as an actual science.  However, I'd defend the re-titling of the Theory section.  It's vitually all Harris, as is much of the article. I think there's also a good argument for deletion on basis of notability. Cloonmore (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As a casual reader of wikipedia, I agree this article is very, very bad. Like, one of the worst I have seen in a long time. With all the random pictures and stuff, the page seems to be vandalized at first glace, and with all the "citation" and "clarification needed"s, it's hard to even be confident that what is on the page is right. I can't speak to the notability of it, although I did come here to read about it, but the article is so unclear, I would advocate for its deletion.

Terrible article
Sam Harris' half-baked ideas on morality no more constitute "a scientific theory" than does Intelligent Design theory.

This whole article is just a Sam harris promo piece. It should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.126.102.101 (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We seem to be getting a lot of comments along these lines here, and very few positive. As much as I hate to rain on Tesseract's parade, as I believe he is developing this article in complete good faith, I think perhaps it is time for an AfD (my vote on which, as stated several times above, would be to merge it into ethical naturalism). --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree, both that the article is made in good faith, but also that it is far too concentrated on Sam Harris, who is by no means the only or first proponent of the view that there are objective ways to measure if an action is more or less moral than a another action. I.e. that moral can be examined, and compared, scientifically. (this is not to say that he, and his views are not important to include, of course). The claim that this view is no better than ID, is ridiculous, as there is already plenty of peer-reviewed papers, that scientifically examine morals. (e.g. studies on corporal punishment, studies on the evolution of morality, which includes the objective reasons for its occurrence...)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, do pardon my lack of involvement in discussion sometimes. I am glad to see there has been so much reasonable debate going on. I must, first of all, disagree with Pfhorrest that "we seem to be getting a lot of comments...and very few positive".

Watching the timeline of comments, there have been some users who enjoyed the article even in its admittedly infantile stages - contributing various suggestions for my (or someone's) incorporation. Pfhorrest and MachineElf have been ongoing critics (in a good way) and this has been good for the article. Besides the now odd IP who equates a science of morality with intelligent design (what?) Cloonmore remains the main advocate of drastic merging, and possibly the only advocate of deletion. Again, all criticism has been helpful. But my point is that it seems we are quite far from serious discussions of deletion.

So what role is this article playing outside of Ethical naturalism? Why not merge it? I should first agree that Sam Harris's role in this article must decrease with time. And it has. What's more -it will continue to decrease. The philosophy of ethical naturalism may be old, but the idea that scientists (not just philosophers) can and should be explicitly discussing "what is moral"...that is a relatively new concept. That is also the concept this page explains. And as more sources become available, they have been, and will continue to end up here. Some growing pains are altogether expected.

I would use the example that, just as the multi-disciplinary positive psychology (the science of individual flourishing) needs a page for that directed scientific inquiry, so too does the even more controversial science of flourishing for societies of people. For now, there is no better place for these topics than here.-Tesseract2 (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I take back my ID slur. Nevertheless I believe it is wrong to label this body of ideas "a scientific theory of morality". It's not within the domain of science nor is it clear that it ever will be. Note that I am not talking about studies of human morality, evolutionary psychology, etc which of course science can look at. I am referring to the specific notion that science can tell us "what is moral" as that is the core idea of this article. By all means have a page discussing these ideas but stop calling it "scientific theory".202.126.102.101 (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Studies on corporal punishment shows whether or not it's good to do. The evolution of morality and such, show (or at least strongly imply) why an increase of morality is beneficial. How does that not go into "what is moral"? ...and what should be our morals and what is more or less moral, than certain other things? I agree on the use of the word "theory" however, as that comes after acceptance from the scientific community (which is inevitable, IMO, as anything else would be hypocrisy). A simple replacement with the word "hypothesis" should fix that.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Scientific descriptions of the human moral sense and its evolutionary origins are simply that. They do not tell us "what is moral". They just tell us why humans might happen to believe that certain things are/aren't moral. As to whether things really are moral or whether we can even ask such a question scientifically is another matter altogether. Do you not see the distinction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.128.4.46 (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How can you have a scientific description of the human moral sense, in any sensible way, without in some way defining what "moral" is? What do you mean by what "humans happen to believe" morals to be? It's a word, which like all others, has the meaning that humans happen to arbitrarily choose for it to have.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"Theory" section/header
Anyone who's read about the science of morality knows it's not quite a theory, unless we want to call "psychology" and "biology" theories. The science of morality, according to its advocates, is another branch of science.

That having been said, the "Theory" section explains the general theory behind the science - the way we might talk about music theory. It is not meant to be read as a formal theory like evolution. If enough people are bothered by the word, I will change the header to "The Ideas" or something, but I thought Theory was fine. Any thoughts? - Tesseract2 (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thoughts? For me, that's simple: I take back my agreement on the word theory being inappropriate. It is theory, in the sense you meant it ...though I think that you may not have written it in an appropriate way, in the article. I'm not sure, but... When speaking of e.g. music theory, my gut instinct, tells me that you wouldn't be able to call it a theory. "Theory" yes, but "a theory" no. I don't know if this is right, so please correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, I'd love for someone more knowledgeable, to explain the how and why of it.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right! The intro once contained the language you are talking about - and actually I was not the original person to write "the science of morality is the theory..." That actually was one of the changes I made based on the discussion here, and it now reads "it is the idea". I just wanted to emphasize why I didn't change the header.- Tesseract2 (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible references
As per your request, I sifted through some mainstream media sources. Sometimes reporters and writers have a knack for getting to the essence of a rather abstract debate like the Harris-Carroll debate on this subject. Plus, there are some other viewpoints. I did a quick search and here's what I found. Note there were many back-and-forth debate articles in the Huffington Post which I tried to avoid. I didn't have time to read through them or analyze them. I included much of the content within the quote section of the reference. So you can decide if you wish to use any of this stuff merely by editing out the chaff. And there's more material in the articles themselves if you wish to use it. Click on the "extended content". Generally I think you've made excellent progress on a difficult topic; my hat's off to you. Hope it's helpful; don't feel obligated to use it if it doesn't connect with you. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: Content from sources (direct) is first, followed by reference. Here goes:


 * Many people believe that the problem with talking about moral truth, or with asserting that there is a necessary connection between morality and well-being, is that concepts like "morality" and "well-being" must be defined with reference to specific goals and other criteria -- and nothing prevents people from disagreeing about these definitions. I might claim that morality is really about maximizing well-being and that well-being entails a wide range of cognitive/emotional virtues and wholesome pleasures, but someone else will be free to say that morality depends upon worshipping the gods of the Aztecs and that well-being entails always having a terrified person locked in one's basement, waiting to be sacrificed.


 * Interesting article in NY Times on the subject. Which of the following people would you say is the most admirable: Mother Teresa, Bill Gates or Norman Borlaug? And which do you think is the least admirable? For most people, it’s an easy question. Mother Teresa, famous for ministering to the poor in Calcutta, has been beatified by the Vatican, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and ranked in an American poll as the most admired person of the 20th century. Bill Gates, infamous for giving us the Microsoft dancing paper clip and the blue screen of death, has been decapitated in effigy in “I Hate Gates” Web sites and hit with a pie in the face. As for Norman Borlaug . . . who the heck is Norman Borlaug? ...


 * "Harvard University announced last Friday that its Standing Committee on Professional Conduct had found Marc Hauser, one of the school's most prominent scholars, guilty of multiple counts of "scientific misconduct." The revelation came after a three-year inquiry into allegations that the professor had fudged data in his research on monkey cognition. Since the studies were funded, in part, by government grants, the university has sent the evidence to the Feds. ... Mr. Hauser's particular specialty has been in studying the cognitive abilities of New World monkeys such as the cotton-top tamarins of South America. He has cranked out a prodigious body of work, and bragged that his field enjoyed "exciting new discoveries uncovered every month, and rich prospects on the horizon," He and his colleagues, Mr. Hauser proclaimed, were developing a new "science of morality." Now his science is suspect. As rumors swirled that Harvard was about to ding Mr. Hauser for scientific misconduct, prominent researchers in the field worried they would be tarnished by association. The science magazine Nature asked Frans de Waal—a primatologist at Emory University and author, most recently, of the widely read book "The Age of Empathy: Nature's Lessons for a Kinder Society"—about what Mr. Hauser's predicament meant for his discipline. He was blunt: "It is disastrous." Mr. Hauser had boldly declared that through his application of science, not only could morality be stripped of any religious hocus-pocus, but philosophy would have to step aside as well: "Inquiry into our moral nature will no longer be the proprietary province of the humanities and social sciences," he wrote. Would it be such a bad thing if Hausergate resulted in some intellectual humility among the new scientists of morality?" ...


 * "Can scientific research, by digging up new facts about the development of a baby or the origins of the universe - could science influence the very values we hold? As scientists uncover more facts about the way the world works, could these facts make people rethink some of their moral stances? Could the science even determine, in some empirical way, what is right and what is wrong? And where do we get our sense of right and wrong? Is it some innate sense that we've evolved - like our opposable thumbs - something that gave our species an edge, or more a product of our culture and our civilization? And if all this thinking and morality is in our brains, could neuroscientists poke around inside there, and find some answers to moral questions by learning about the circuitry in the brain that controls the way we think? These are just some of the things we'll be talking about this hour - a lot to chew on, if you'd like to join us. And we're being joined by scientists and philosophers from the great debate. Can science tell us right from wrong? That's an event happening this weekend at the Origins of Morality Conference at Arizona State University in Tempe." ...


 * In "The Moral Instinct," Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology at Harvard University, describes a new sixth sense. "The moral sense," he calls it. It's the way we, as human beings, determine what issues are moral or amoral. Take smoking, for instance. Years ago, it was widely considered to be a health issue. Many non-smokers didn't smoke because they worried about how cigarettes could affect their lungs and heart. When scientists determined that second-hand smoke was unhealthy too, smoking became a moral issue. By Pinker's estimation, there is a new science of morality. Scientists study how we decide what we think is moral, and why and how our interpretation of morality changes. In our second hour, Pinker will join us to talk about our moral instinct. How have you decided what is right and wrong? Has your sense of what is right and wrong changed? ...


 * Where does our sense of right and wrong come from? Most people think it is a gift from God, who revealed His laws and elevates us with His love. A smaller number think that we figure the rules out for ourselves, using our capacity to reason and choosing a philosophical system to live by. Moral naturalists, on the other hand, believe that we have moral sentiments that have emerged from a long history of relationships. To learn about morality, you don’t rely upon revelation or metaphysics; you observe people as they live. This week a group of moral naturalists gathered in Connecticut at a conference organized by the Edge Foundation. One of the participants, Marc Hauser of Harvard, began his career studying primates, and for moral naturalists the story of our morality begins back in the evolutionary past. It begins with the way insects, rats and monkeys learned to cooperate. ...


 * Morality --- Much as scientists are exploring the biology of political leanings (see post directly above), so too are the natural sciences studying the nature of human morality: “The picture emerging shows the moral sense to be the product of biologically evolved and culturally sensitive brain systems that together make up the human ‘moral faculty.’ ”


 * In May, several months after the suicide of 15-year-old Phoebe Prince, the Massachusetts legislature passed an emergency law designed to stop schoolyard bullying. Among the bill's provisions are the designation of the fourth Wednesday in January as "No Name Calling Day" and a mandate that each school district provide age-appropriate and "evidence based" instruction on how to prevent bullying. That is to say, the anti-bullying efforts should be based on reputable scientific studies of the issue. While Slate was publishing Emily Bazelon's series on the Prince case this week, I happened to be in Connecticut for a meeting of psychologists who study the science of morality, organized by the Edge Foundation. The focus was more analytical than prescriptive, and the speakers didn't spend much time on the question of how ethical behavior might be taught or encouraged among, say, a group of high-school students. (Such interventions almost always fail, said one participant, Jonathan Haidt.) But there was some discussion about how the minds—and, of course, the brains—of children might differ depending on their status as bullies or victims. Marc Hauser, professor of psychology at Harvard, described his recent (but still unpublished) work in this area. Do bullies and their victims possess the same understanding of right and wrong? Are they equally capable of compassion and empathy? Together with a pair of Italian researchers, Gianluca Gini and Tiziana Pozzoli, Hauser looked at data from more than 700 children aged 9 to 13 years. The kids were asked to read a story and then rate what happened as being either good or bad. In some stories, one person deliberately harms another, or at least attempts to—e.g., by giving her a box of poison instead of sugar when they're making lemonade. In a different version, the same act is done by accident. When it comes to making moral judgments, adults and adolescents tend to focus on intention rather than outcome. That is to say, the "attempted harm" scenario seems worse than the "accidental harm" version. The ability to make this distinction seems to develop throughout childhood, however. In the study, the younger kids were more inclined to assign negative ratings to the "accidental harm" scenario. So how does this relate to bullying? The researchers used peer descriptions to categorize the children as being either bullies, victims, or defenders of victims. It turned out that the bullies and defenders were similarly advanced in their moral judgments as compared to the victims. They each behaved more like adults, by rating the "attempted harm" scenario—I tried to poison you but failed—more negatively. The victims seemed to be delayed in their moral development; like the younger kids, they focused on the outcome as opposed to the intention. A second analysis compared the three groups of children according to their responses on a quiz that measures moral disengagement, which relates to a child's ability to suppress feelings of conscience and compassion. (The subjects had to rate their agreement with statements like, "Kids cannot be blamed for misbehaving if their friends pressured them to do it.") According to the researchers, the bullies seemed more inclined to disengage than either the victims or the defenders. In other words, the bullies knew right from wrong, but didn't care. The victims cared, but were confused about right and wrong. Other research suggests that about one-tenth of the population become bullies at an early age and persist in their bullying behavior. There's also some evidence that victims may assume their roles at a young age. The new work from Gini, Pozzoli, and Hauser suggests that such tendencies might arise from relative deficiencies in moral psychology.


 * Hauser's book = Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong ... According to Marc Hauser, "morality is grounded in our biology". We've heard this sort of thing before, of course - from evolutionary biologists, for instance, who claim that natural selection favours altruistic behaviour, since acting benevolently towards other people is a way of securing our genetic posterity. Some proponents of the evolutionary explanation go further, and infer from this that what seem to be our moral concerns aren't our real concerns at all, and that what looks like altruism is in fact just a disguise for the operation of selfish genes.


 * As you say, I think Pinker's article in the Times is especially good. Contrasting it with this (WP article) might be beneficial... Everyone seems to be saying the article is (or was) too focused on Harris, but (at least to some extent) maybe that's a more general observation about giving undue weight to media personalities and fashionable debate. I think there's a place for any material that's benefited from such notoriety, but to the extent this article is a vehicle for something more... something otherwise missing... After a review (too brief) of recent changes, I've become a little concerned that the number of attributions to Harris is being reduced in places where the view point should be WP:ATTRIBUTEd.
 * More generally on WP, even when Harris is conciliatory about philosophy, (that "philosophizing" should continue to play a role—presumably apart from mere solipsism) that does little to warrant his prominent inclusion in philosophy articles linking back here.
 * The addition of supporters (?) from hundreds of years ago, when "science" was still natural philosophy, complete with a note saying that counter-arguments should include citations on the talk page... to me reads as a sign the article's struggling to be something it wasn't (and perhaps shouldn't become).
 * I'd want to hear more about reasons in favor of merging to any philosophy article, because to me, it seems intent on being anything but, (despite the softening of terms like scientific method to read "a philosophy of scientific method", for example). I think the article about Harris' book is the natural candidate for a merger... but, IMO, it's not a problem to have a separate article about the popular debate Harris engenders.
 * I think playing Harris down is a problem, and I think casting a wider net will ultimately weaken this article. Although it seems like a normal reflex in answer to the AfD, I think it's quite unnecessary in terms of notability. Let it be about "one person's opinion" (mostly) but whatever we do, please, let's not obscure that. The material should find little purchase in the philosophical traditions of which Harris makes his naïveté painfully obvious. Even if it's not a proper science article (perhaps arguably) it does have a foothold in popular culture, and maybe it will "someday soon...", as Harris himself might say.—Machine Elf 1735  08:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The scientific method is merely an application of Philosophy of Science, which is what science is. Such things as astronomy and chemistry are merely areas of scientific research, and scientific facts are merely the fruits of science. What science is, is the philosophy, attitude and methodology. The idea that Sam Harris promotes, is that morals can be examined by science, to see what effects they have and thus which are better and which are worse (and what constitutes "better" and "worse", and how "moral" should be defined). Even before the philosophy and methodology of science was as developed as it is now, it was still about observation, logic, reason and evidence. It may have been a bit primitive by our modern standards, but that does not disqualify those early supporters, any more than Plato and Aristotle can be disqualified from the history of science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZarlanTheGreen (talk • contribs) 08:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I know what you mean but Science isn't Philosophy of science, and Philosophy of science isn't Science. The last thing Harris wants is to be encumbered with philosophy... and who can blame him? (a little metaethical humor there, very little).
 * There are serious problems with the idea that science can determine what $$B$$ or $$W$$ the effects of $$M$$ produce, (the meanings of which science is to determine). And meanwhile, any scientist who gets funding for that, (?) can just fill in the blanks with "operational" definitions of $$morals$$, $$better$$, and $$worse$$... How could the scientist fail?
 * Morals aren't supposed to be loose: i.e., it's immoral, to some extent, for one's morals to be subject to change in the way hypotheses, and even theories are tentative. Also, modern science acquired a very shaky track record when it comes to ethics. There's no reason someone ought to ask a scientist for help with a moral dilemma. One might ask a judge, if she wanted to be secular...
 * Plato makes for a whimsical scientist. But I certainly agree that Aristotle cannot be disqualified from the history of science, (much to the chagrin of some scientists, if anyone). However, what I meant by "supporters", would be Harris supporters and perhaps you did too, (for Aristotle, ethics and rhetoric fell under the most authoritative science, political science). Unless an appropriate WP:RS has published the opinion that someone 200 years ago, much less two and half millenia ago, would "support" Dr. Harris, (or unambiguously that modern scientists ought to be making the determinations you aptly mention), then it's WP:SYN, or WP:OR, regardless of how true it might be.—Machine Elf 1735  11:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "I think I know what you mean but Science isn't Philosophy of science, and Philosophy of science isn't Science."? That statement is rather useless, without any form of explanation, isn't it? Also, I fail to see how your disagreements with Sam Harris' ideas, are in any way relevant to this discussion (WP:NOT). As to WP:RS that others have published opinions, largely the same as Sam Harris'... Those are provided in the article and on this Talk page. (and yes, I meant people who support Sam Harris' idea, and no I didn't cite Plato and Aristotle as examples of that. They were examples of people who have a place in the history of Science, even though science wasn't nearly as well developed as now. This was to counter your idea that the people who support Harris "from hundreds of years ago", are disqualified because of how long ago they lived)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:CIVIL As you say, it's not a forum, so I won't bother explaining my “” (self-evident) statement to you. I don't know what “” you're referring to and frankly, I'm not sure why you think “” is relevant, or how that might “”. Nor, do I need to know... Despite the fact that they're dead and they have no opinion on the subject, what I said was that an appropriate WP:RS needs to give an unambiguous opinion on who or what they would "support" [if they weren't so very dead]. That too seem more than a little self-evident. Thanks, and have a nice day.—Machine Elf 1735  13:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see how my comments were uncivil, unlike what you just said (especially the last sentence). Your statement you don't wish to bother explaining, is directly relevant to the article, and therefore not something you can avoid, with WP:NOT ...and it's clearly not self evident. As to WP:RS... as I said: Go and check the references in the article. (and the explanations on this Talk page. One made by myself. I see no reason to do the same thing twice)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As I go through the article, I try to make the nature of Dewey’s and Benthams contributions more qualified or tentative. You’ve no doubt noticed that I’m partial to being a little bold in editing, rewritting or removing- but this page is really still taking shape. These discussions are getting very passionate. I suppose that's good in a way. More importantly: these are some relevant points. I intend to pay discussion more attention.
 * I do not intend, at all, to quote out of context. Nor to misrepresent these philosophers. Nor to be over presumptuous about requesting counter-citations. I am only trying to clarify whether anyone is thinking that Bentham and/or Dewey used science to mean something qualitatively quite different than Harris. If so, why? I am obviously doubting the doubt. To be sure, the scientific method is still evolving. You guys can correct my history/philosophy of science details- but falsifiability really started to define science after Popper, and that wasn’t until the 1930s (according to our Wikipedia). To say that anyone was talking about "science" back then thus raises questions right away. That having been said, I think Bentham and Dewey were dealing with the same creature as Harris. Certainly enough to warrant some properly phrased mention. I'm careful not to imply that Harris has been able to discuss with the other guys or anything.
 * Harris is certainly not a philosopher. And in my mind, this article is not supposed to be much of a philosophical one per say. Still, even Harris admits in that TSN debate that philosophy must play a part in a science of morality (as it does in all science, since philosophy retains its vital right to be skeptical of ANYTHING). But I was thinking this article might focus on the scientific method's contributions to moral investigations. In discussing how a moral science might measure well-being, compare and contrast practices, attempt to make prescriptions… there’s no mistaking that we are in territory so far only navigated with the lenses of what we call philosophy proper. But that’s sort of the point.
 * Thoughts?- Tesseract2 (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Listed for AFD
Per the discussions above, I think this should be deleted. PROD failed, as did a redirect, so I've listed it at AFD: Articles_for_deletion/Science_of_morality William M. Connolley (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well of course those measures failed. Contrary to those, this latest attempt seems to be in accordance with Wikipedia policy, from what I can tell.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice . All those measures were policy-based; just less painful than AFD William M. Connolley (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Policy based? How so? Show me the relevant policy. (I stand by what I said BTW, I just thought it might not be appropriate on wikipedia)--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand you. You appear to be suggesting that adding a PROD template, or adding a #REDIRECT, is against policy. Neither are; both are permitted William M. Connolley (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the context? I think not. When adding a PROD, you should add a motivation ("a clear and non-generic reason". Yours was anything but clear), and preferably a section in the Talk page. The same should go for a redirect, surely? ...and it says right on the PROD, that you shouldn't put it back, right after it's removed. adding a redirect right after failing to add a PROD (especially when it's the second one)... that seems no better, or indeed different, than an edit/revert war. Please correct me if I'm wrong. With references to Wikipedia policy, that supports you.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My reason was Just one person's opinion. This was both clear, and non-generic. As for putting the PROD back: I didn't. So: all your accusations of acting against policy are spurious. Meanwhile, I look forward to you actually trying to improve this dreadful article William M. Connolley (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You consider that clear? As for not putting the PROD back... well, given that the motivation was exactly the same, and that the redirect was made right after the second PROD was removed... Well you can surely see why I suspect who made the anonymous edit? Even if it wasn't you, the timing of the redirect still makes it suspect. As for improving the article.... you have made it abundantly clear, that you have no interest in that. You wish to remove the article, and nothing else.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the suspicions, concerning the second PROD, were a bit against policy I see. The issues of whether your reason was clear and whether you are honest in your claim that you wish to improve the article (You've made it clear you want it gone, not modified), however, don't seem to be out of line, as far as I can tell.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The anon was nothing to do with me; your bad faith, and lack of any attempt to improve the article, are noted William M. Connolley (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I never made any claims that I attempted, or even wished to, improve the article. My lack of improving it, is thus not in any way dishonest, so I fail to see the relevance of it.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, and on that note, falsified claims aside, shall we remove the deletion tag?- Tesseract2 (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be better if you read it: Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed is clear enough, yes? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Better yet; Tesseract, if you have an opinion on the topic of whether to keep or delete this article, or merge it, you should weigh in on this page using the same format as previous persons. That is, write keep or delete or merge using boldface, to the right of the star, etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Dewey
What links Dewey to Science of Morality? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you perhaps fail to follow the link that was provided? I'd say that, that site should explain it.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Still don't see it. Can you provide some quotes? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes? Yes, you failed to follow the link, or yes it explains it? As for a quote... well, I'm a bit too lazy to find a shorter one, so: "Dewey argued that ethical inquiry is of a piece with empirical inquiry more generally. It is the use of reflective intelligence to revise one's judgments in light of the consequences of acting on them. Value judgments are tools for enabling the satisfactory redirection of conduct when habit no longer suffices to direct it. As tools, they can be evaluated instrumentally, in terms of their success in guiding conduct. We test our value judgments by putting them into practice and seeing whether the results are satisfactory — whether they solve the problems they were designed to solve, whether we find their consequences acceptable, whether they enable successful responses to novel problems, whether living in accordance with alternative value judgments yields more satisfactory results." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZarlanTheGreen (talk • contribs) 18:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a strange quote (I mean, the idea that I might test alternatives to the judgement "do not kill", as he appears to suggest), but it doesn't seem to be the idea that morality can be prescribed scientifically. It might support the idea that morality can be developed scientifically, if that made any sense William M. Connolley (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You ask an interesting question, Connolley. But I think reading through that source makes it pretty clear that Dewey was talking about how to make prescriptions. Check it out. If you could, check for citations, because as I've written in other parts of the Science of Morality page, he even offers some possible prescriptions.

You have made me wonder whether a caveat is in order though. Perhaps an "...although Dewey never uses the words science of morality" somewhere? We could mention that, since all he talks about are systematic empiricism, complete with hypothesis testing, falsification, experiments...he never says the word "science of morality" like Bentham and Harris. That caveat having been added, I would argue in favour of bringing back the mentions of Dewey I had.

Thoughts?- Tesseract2 (talk) 01:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Bentham
CW points out that Bentham wrote ''Deontology or, The science of morality : in which the harmony and co-incidence of duty and self-interest, virtue and felicity, prudence and benevolence, are explained and exemplified : from the MSS. of Jeremy Bentham (1834)''. However, it is by no means clear that the subject Bentham was talking about under the name SoM is the same as the SoM this article calls the idea that morality can be prescribed scientifically, as well as the possible scientific methodologies that might be involved. Indeed, there is no source for that defn, so I've added a cn William M. Connolley (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have tried to provide a more explicit citation. I was lucky enough to find the book online.- Tesseract2 (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Pervasive social engineering
BenMcLean recently deleted some discussion about how a science of morality (specifically Sam Harris in this case) can respond to Lewis' criticisms. I agree that the point about condemnation missed it's mark, but I think the comment about an Orwellian future only needed revising. Lewis is basically talking about Big Brother - the 'forces of science' somehow taking over everything (e.g. eugenics, pre-natal conditioning, perfect propaganda; the only thing missing is recording devices everywhere). I'm not sure in what sense this could be considered a non sequitur.- Tesseract2 (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What was a non-sequitur in this statement was the distinction it makes between "scientific moralists" and "unscientific moralists." This isn't either defended or defined, just thrown out there, essentially categorizing anyone who disagrees with the conclusion merited by Sam Harris's book as "unscientific." It also fails to actually address the argument in Lewis's book about scientific "progress" - the bottom line here is that all this is saying is that people who will disagree with it will disagree with it, which is obvious. Rather than trying to show where in the argument there is a false premise, ambiguous term or invalid logical form, it simply expresses disagreement with the conclusion. If this needs to stay then it still needs major revision so that it's relevant to the argument. --BenMcLean (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, Lewis offers much more than rantings about fears of future pervasive social engineering. He offers a philosophical apology for "natural law"-based objective moral values and lays out a fundamental ethical framework and philosophy of science which pretty much settles what science can do and what it can't. He offers an alternative philosophy of history and education. There is just tons of deep stuff packed into that little book which offers an entirely opposite view of the world from Sam Harris's, but just like Sam Harris, Lewis's philosophy styles itself as a defense of objective moral values. --BenMcLean (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, also I made a video about it YAAY!!


 * I completely disagree that "scientific moralist" has not been defined. By the time the reader gets to this criticism section, they've been wading through the very definition of a moral scientist's views (as described by Harris, but also Dewey, Bentham, and others I will soon add). I think it is important to note that you can be scientific without being a moral scientist as it has been here defined. A simple example is if, right from the get-go, a person doesn't want to define "morally good" as anything at all related to the wellbeing of conscious creatures. Personally I think serious discussions of practical morality should simply ignore such individuals... my point is that such a scientist would not be a "scientific moralist" - and the entire page has been explaining what that is. It was not thrown out there, and it is certainly not making the categorizations you describe. At very least I will change the wording back to "could" disagree, because not all of them would disagree (for example, that eugenics need be a bad thing).


 * To be honest, I am not terribly familiar with this work by Lewis. That having been said, if the current counter does not show "where in the argument there is a false premise, ambiguous term or invalid logical form" then it's because there currently are no premises, there is no logical form. The article just says "Lewis made these scary predictions". Ok, the counter that deserves is "why would these predictions come true? And need all of them be bad?" So long as the section we are discussing simply asserts Lewis' conclusions, a counter needs do little more.
 * I am not saying this book might not have other relevant criticisms. I'm saying they're been dealt with appropriately, given what we've seen of them. I don't know what else you want - some suggestions of what should be written are always appreciated.


 * Also, the movie you made is awesome. I am still not clear on why Lewis' predictions would be compelling, however. Deeply entrenched nihilism, and a group of powerful leaders that operate on whims would all be very bad. But what does that have to do with this page?- Tesseract2 (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

My movie is about part 1 and there's three parts to the book, and it's parts 2 and 3 which are especially relevant here because they deal with the possible corruption and misuse of "science" to demolish traditional moral values and replace them with some new set. When I referred to the "argument" I meant the argument of Lewis's book which my clumsy attempt at a summary has, I think, botched very badly. Basically the Abolition of Man would purport to prefute by decades a large portion of what Harris and these others have to say point by point.

The difficulty in explaining the relevance of the Abolition of Man to the so-called "science of morality" lies in finding where to start; it's like trying to swallow an elephant. --BenMcLean (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read Harris's book yet but I plan to. However I rather think the phrase "more relevant scientific publications accessible to the public" is a little scary, because it seems to translate to, "The new 'scientific ethicists' will tell us not how things work as every other science does but what we should think." Instead of an individual being able to read a philosophical essay and decide whether to agree or disagree, this seems to be saying that philosohpical Dogmas in all fields will be handed down as Bulls from the High Priests of Science, which they will be able to "prove" that you are dangerous to society if you disagree with. It seems to eliminate just about all freedom of thought! --BenMcLean (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This Article is NOT NEUTRAL
I'm shocked by the tone of this article as if it's ridiculing the idea altogether. Wikipedia is NEUTRAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.146.169 (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is a mess and seems highly biased. The size of the article seems disproportionate to its philisophical significance which probably only merits a sentence or two. Was this whole article merely written to promote someone's book? That is my suspicion here. The 'criticism' section seems like some fan of a so-called "science of morality" tried to write an apologetics for the idea; it reads like something written by a religious cultist when trying to defend their cult. -- another unsigned comment from a random wikipedia user —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.24.130 (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Another ressource
I discovered a book called The Science of Morality: The Individual, Community, and Future Generations. It seems relevant to this page. Unfortunately I cannot find a copy of it to read! Otherwise I would add it's thoughts on a science of morality.- Tesseract2 (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Stupid article should be deleted
This stupid article should not exist. A caption like "All sciences start somewhere", with a picture of early astronomy, shows what I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The stupid and revealing astronomical caption and picture have now been taken out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.83 (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Calling an article "stupid" is hardly a good way to start a conversaton. To suggest just throwing it out, with out any explanation, suggests an impulsive comment, which I don't think we need to belabor.  As a matter of fact, there has been substantial discussion of whether morality can be objectively derived, and scientifically studied, going back at least two hundred years, and has received much attention in recent years, often invoking this very phrase, "science of morality".  That this article does not do justice to the subject means that the article needs to be improved, not that the subject go unreported. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Complete article overhaul
Greatest edit of all time
 * a great deal of expansion (e.g. now includes the work of Joseph Daleiden)
 * sections that appear deleted have probably actually been better integrated
 * vast rewriting, for readability and clarity
 * Better sourcing (main references now safely named as a reflist parameter. Also added a "cited literature section")
 * Trying to keep the length down... I used notes in some places.

Any constructive comments welcome!- Tesseract2 (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree this needs a major re-write. For one thing, whatever Sam Harris says, morality/ethics is not an ordinary branch of mainstream science as it exists today. Whether ethics can or cannot be considered a science or subjected to scientific methodology is a question which is openly in dispute in mainstream modern culture, not something that is settled for us by Sam Harris writing one book, however great of a book it may or may not be. We need to bring both the philosophical and the religious counter-viewpoints to the table. And I would like to see and/or help develop a comprehensive point-by-point analysis that pits C. S. Lewis "The Abolition of Man" against Sam Harris "The Moral Landscape." --BenMcLean (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * We may agree, for I think that the idea of a "normative science of morality" IS controversial. Notable philosophers, scientists or thinkers discussing such a science of morality belong on this page. The article is long enough that we need to seriously make sure they are contributing, however.


 * As for C.S. Lewis, am I mistaken in believing that his conception of morality starts with the assumption of borderline-supernatural "right and wrong"s? Perhaps share some of Lewis' points that you find relevant? I suppose I am worried that he is politely excusing himself from a reasonable scientific discussion - by not holding to at least methodological naturalism.- Tesseract2 (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * C. S. Lewis is a supernaturalist and attacks the philosophy of naturalism in Miracles (book). However, the argument in The Abolition of Man does not depend on supernaturalism. It would style itself simply as an appeal to everyone's basic humanity and attempts to show the inhumane nature of the abandonment of natural law. "The Abolition of Man" is not a religious book. It attacks, on purely secular, common-sense grounds, all those modern systems of ethics which disregard natural law on supposedly "scientific" grounds. Lewis would, I think, strongly oppose the reduction of any branch of what we presently call philosophy to purely scientific methodology, especially ethics. This, I think, makes his book an excellent antagonist to Harris's book.
 * To claim that the study of ethics, the development of ethical systems or the giving of ethical justifications is a purely scientific endeavor and thus to dismiss any non-scientific ethics would be begging the question in favor of the thesis of Harris's book, which let's face it is the main source here. There is something to be said for a more limited definition of science which makes room for other disciplines. --BenMcLean (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no such thing as supernaturalism, apart from the doctrine in science. C.S.Lewis was a Christian, a scholar, and a popular author. He opposed scientism. Even contemporary mad-scientists would have considered it indefensible, but it's a braver newer world in so many ways. Is the article still conjuring up the dead to debate a Séance of Morality?—Machine Elf 1735  00:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand you here, Machine Elf. To Ben, I may simply be demonstrating my ignorance of Lewis' writing, but I do not yet see why he is relevant on this page. Maybe you could tell more more about what Lewis is calling "natural law"? I did not mean to imply his argument was particularly religious. Maybe we agree that the "Abolition of man" section could use some more in-text links to supernatural conceptions of morality? That could be appropriate, although I think we must be careful to avoid simply listing every other conception of morality that exists; it would seem to suffice to link to the morality page often.

I think I have managed to expand this article quite beyond Harris. He is at least sharing this article with Daleiden, and at this point there are many other notable people who have commented on these ideas. I would be happy to report on anyone new. Mainly, Daleiden was especially careful to describe how other domains are still involved in a science of morality, the way they are in any science.

Hope this is speaking to some of the comments you guys have made.- Tesseract2 (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I still haven't really had a chance to check out the revamp. No worries, I hope Ben didn't think I was trying to give him a hard time. I know it's hard to tell when someone's to be funny in this, medium.—Machine Elf 1735  07:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, for the record, I caught the allusion to Huxley! I just didn't know what "the dead to debate a Séance of Morality" meant, so I erred on the side of diplomacy.- Tesseract2 (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it was just an obscure allusion to a post awhile back. Harris' debate was notable in straightforward way: an article about a particular debate about something vs. an article about the something. To the extent a pretext has been abandoned, or that the debate is carried on, or that it can no longer be distinguished from topics in philosophy… risky.—Machine Elf 1735  17:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could tell more more about what Lewis is calling "natural law"?

Lewis's book is defending "a dogmatic belief in objective values" - the very thing that Harris's book is trying to get rid of and replace with what he regards as scientifically-justified objective values. They are thus discussing many of the same questions and giving answers that are polar opposites. --BenMcLean (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Confusing part
"At the time of writing his book, Daleiden summarizes empirical evidence on various topics: he declares that evidence supports decriminalization and regulation of drugs, euthanasia under some circumstances, and allowing certain non-normal sexual behaviour (he says that evidence indicates homosexuality is clearly an example of this). Daleiden further argues that empirical evidence about what enables people to suffer renders abortion not just permissible to some extent, but at times a moral obligation to the mother and future child. Like all empirical claims in his book, however, Joseph Daleiden is adamant that these decisions remain grounded in empirical data."

Empirical evidence for what, exactly? I'm not sure what this means? That it makes people flourish? Using what standard, or how exactly would this help people flourish? Through happiness? I am totally confused what this is about. Cskla (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Another thing I wanted to add was, what exactly does this man mean by "empirical"? Does he mean that the majority of citizens would react in such a way? Because for every single issue mentioned there, I guarantee you there are others who would react in the opposite way, even non-normal sexuality (both for some who wish to change their sexuality and those who react negatively to such a thing). There's way too much variety in human personality and behavior to simply say this is how everyone should react to things. I can speak from personal experience that drugs does not make everyone happy and that they can in fact be harmful both physically and psychologically. Also, when were these studies done (societal attitudes change over time), and where? I doubt the data would be identical in the Islamic world as it is in the comparatively more liberalized atheistic West. Cskla (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. I have finally gotten around to making a first pass at clarification in the article, but also discussing them with you here.

Happiness, if it is not synonymous with Flourishing, is certainly a part of it. Mainly, I think it is important to realize these terms are in dreadful need of widespread operationalization, or defining; otherwise our science cannot get started. The article does mention some attempts from Positive Psychologists to describe what we can mean by "Flourishing" (e.g. Seligman's PERMA acronym).

It seems very important to know how the average human would react, and what factors have led them to react that way. These two questions: what are the norms and why, are the surface of a moral project humans have only just begun to scratch. The field of law is an example of how complex these issues can get at the ground level.

It seems at once perfectly true that humans are more similar than they are different, yet also have importantly different desires. All of this must be taken into consideration.

Have I begun to engage your ideas?- Tesseract2 (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)