Talk:Science of morality/Archive 2

Norms vs Principles
Just a comment on the recent edit by User:BenMcLean: while I have no objections to the "principles" language introduced there, I don't see any problem with the "norms" language it replaced. A norm is a rule, something which ought to be, as in the term "normative"; that is its principle meaning, and it is but an unfortunate accident of etymology that "normal" has come to mean "common" or "typical" rather than "correct", with "a norm" thus given the connotations of "a common or typical way" instead of its true sense of "a correct way". The commands handed down by God in divine command theory, or the natural moral laws of natural law theory, are kinds of norms. In this case, being supposedly inviolable, they are also principles: specifically, normative principles, inviolable rules about what ought to be. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Norms" in some contexts implies ethical subjectivism. "Principles" seems more neutral. --BenMcLean (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Multiple Issues
Machine Elf, permit me to start responding to some of the issues raised so far.

Let me say your professionalism is downright time-saving here! Your edit summaries are really helping me sort through your comments.

That footnote about "I think it is unlikely that, here, Bentham meant something..." was a good delete on your part. I forgot to remove that.

I have to say, I disagree that "Most of the material in the footnotes should be incorporated into the new article or removed." There is simply no need for that dichotomy. Maybe some of the footnotes are not necessary, but as described in WP:FN, I reckon the current use of the footnotes is mentioning explanatory material that would make a long reading too much longer.

You ask for clarification about "This branch would examine, but also promote...". I am afraid I must ask for clarification about what needs clarification. If it is the word "promote" in particular, the article does currently discuss how the science would discuss and popularize it's findings like every other science...?

I found it most interesting that you call the rejection of Libertarian Free will dubious. I would think it was quite expected that Harris and Daleiden would reject it. I may be mistaken in my lack of surprise, but that is because I thougt that most philosophers and scientists believe in either "Compatibilism" or else "Incompatibilism, and no Free Will". Anyway, maybe you could expound regarding that tag??

Also

Note that, in the footnote where you mention a contradiction, I had to do some editing. It seems I had read Bentham poorly; from what I read in the first chapter, he is not trying to argue against deontology. Anyway, what is the contradiction?

There was some other stuff I was fine with, like your pointing out that Bentham was writing hundreds of years ago. When all the above is sorted out, there are probably some other tags we'll have to get to, but for now, let's try and take on what I just mentioned.

Cheers- Tesseract2 (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I meant the footnotes included under References as opposed to Notes.
 * Science isn't PR. Every other science isn't doing it as part of their science. In their opinion, wouldn't popularizing it contribute to the overall well-being and thus be a direct “goal”/subject? If not then how does it differ from positive psychology, which I assume is limited to study like a conventional science?
 * You linked to: “Libertarianism is the political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the organizing principle of society. Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs, all advocating minimization of the state and sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty and political freedom. In some parts of the world, the term is synonymous with anarchism.”
 * I'm sure you meant Libertarianism (metaphysics). However, I seem to recall you're a strong advocate of "hard determinism". Free-will and determinism are unlikely candidates for the sort of heads-down "shut up and calculate" operational definitions the article mentions. I have no idea what the economist you cited actually had to say, but his book appears not to qualify as an WP:RS for science articles on Wikipedia opining on what? physics? metaphysics?
 * Now that it's a science article (rather than an article about a particular debate in popular culture) can it cite even one peer reviewed journal of a purported science of morality?—Machine Elf 1735  04:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My response would be the same regarding the "References" section's footnotes: Maybe if you could be more specific... but I often quote the relevant text to make sure it's clear that these are not simply my opinions. In my eyes, this makes the accusation of WP:SYN especially unwarranted.
 * There are many senses in which PR is present in science. Researchers are constantly trying to promote their theories, and trying to get in more and better journals. Media attention is often welcome. Not to mention that researchers often promote basic knowledge of their domain and methods in general to the public. But again, I would reiterate that even Harris has been explicit in this case: PR, to the extent that it exists in any science, would exist in this science. I do not think we would need a clarification tag if the biology page talked of scientists "promoting evolution", and I think the tag is equally superfluous here. I would like you to remove that one.
 * You are correct: I meant Libertarianism (metaphysics). Correction made.
 * At one point you expressed confusion about where the science of morality has been criticized. In fact, the idea of such a science has been criticized for various reasons, and this is another case of my being completely confused, because the article definitely gives various examples (e.g. Controversies section).
 * I am not sure why you say "I have no idea what the economist you cited actually had to say..." As we discussed above, I have included many of his direct quotes in the article (wasn't that a problem for footnote length, a moment ago?).
 * The article is, I reckon, quite clear about the page and even the quote where I found each thinker's opinion.
 * As far as journals go, I hope that (within a few years) mainstream journals will get comfortable acknowledging a science of morality as the background against which they make claims like "we ought not to let patients blablabla..." I do not expect to see this too soon. Still, I was surprised to at least discovered some peer reviewed papers that may deserve to be on this page. One is "Towards Supreme Morality: An Attempt to Establish the New Science of Moralogy (2008), Chikuro Hiroike and Stephen J McKinnev, Journal of Moral Education, Volume 37, Issue 4, Pages 553-555". In this case, support for a "Moralogy" is coming from Japan, and they are talking about using science to validate (I would have prefer they emphasize the word falsify) the practices of sages and wise people (e.g. extremely strong empathy or benevolence). I am not so sure about this source yet, because I have not acquired a copy. To my surprise, already there was another source alluding to science and morals in the way this article describes. I have included it in "Other Proponents".
 * I am starting to get a sense that you could have been a bit slower, and more conservative, with the red ink here, MachineElf. I hope you will not be offended if I do not keep all your tags on the article throughout discussion here; some of it strikes me as a bit excessive.
 * That's all for now, man. I'll check back soon.- Tesseract2 (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: I removed some of the lead header-tags and article tags. I am trying to stay open minded to things that we have not yet discussed, or where I do not feel I have clearly understood remaining critiques. There are even some tags I left because you identified a valid issue that I will have to address (e.g. some CN for the claim about positive psychology). Finally, there were some tags prompted immediate change.- Tesseract2 (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I know it means a lot to you. And I am trying be quick about it, because morality isn't my favorite subject in philosophy, and because there are other edits I'd rather be making. My hope is that you'll make whatever substantial improvements you see your way clear to making. My edits were by way of example. Remove all the tags if you like, the only advantage to keeping them up is if you want to attract some help. From your edits to other articles, I'm sure you know this stuff. Any advice is disposable, so take it or leave it, and better advice is, no doubt, easy to find. That was conservative, not excessive (small sections of a big article), not superfluous, and wow, this took a long time.
 * The Bentham ref is still enormous. If it's reverent to include in the article, (and it probably isn't), it shouldn't be squirreled away in the refs. There really are quite a few quotes from the two main authors. I think they'll generally be of interest to the reader. I'll explain why I moved the quote to the body of the article: exposing the context helped pay-down the whimsy deficit. Roughly the refab scientific method and philosophy of science that "deal with" the is-ought problem and turn a series of debates into science, (like it's all a days work). So, the following starts to seem, more than a little Orwellian:
 * redefining science to include philosophy and critical thinking,
 * science and philosophy annexed as a specialized branch of some Big Over-science
 * with a double-plus red-flag simple mandate, to make an effort to form our true beliefs about events.
 * But when you hear the lack of reasoning, it's just too goofy to be sinister. (Denial of the Kennedy assassinations as “scientific” facts would “betray” a profoundly deranged mind, therefore 1984 ought to ensure)…
 * You are editing WP, you are not a PR scientist engaged in PR scientific activities. You can take down the tag if you like. Let me know when my issue has been addressed, as I'd certainly be willing to take it down in that event. Which tag are we talking about? I'd be happy to explain, but wouldn't it be superfluous?
 * Explain to the reader what difference it makes. You don't seem to be saying that particular ref I was talking about had a quote? Do you quote his views on determinism throughout the article? Had there been a quote, I'd have read what the economist had to have said about determinism.
 * I didn't put a {cn} tag on it. You don't have to explain but knock it off with the non-explanations.
 * Dido, Bentham.
 * Zealous much? Why on Earth would you say something like that?
 * You can read the Journal of Moral Education, Volume 37, Issue 4 here and they have an English version of their website.
 * “Moralogy, which legally is organized as a foundation rather than a religion, can be considered a New Religion in terms of our criteria for new religious movements.”—
 * “Moralogy is an indigenous six-decade-old Japanese approach to business ethics which has been particularly influential amoung middle-sized business.”—Iwao Taka and Thomas W. Dunfee, 'Japanese Moralogy as Business Ethics', Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16, No. 5 (Apr., 1997), pp. 507-519
 * WP:IDHT Please decide if you still intend this to be a science article despite the WP:RS problem, i.e. the not being a science problem. It can't continue to posture as a science article, nor can it usurp ethical naturalism/moral realism. However, it can merge, and you can suggest a name change. It is not permissible for you to carry on Harris' punditry, and you have yet to comment on why this article is no longer explicitly about the debate surrounding Harris' Science of Morality book, which was, after all, why I argued for keep at the AfD… As Hussey's appeal for naturalist education in nursing says, “(e.g. Railton, 1986, 1996, 2003; Sayre-McCord, 1988; Dancy, 1993; Casebeer, 2003; Shafer-Landau, 2003; Baghramian, 2004; Smith, 1994, 2004) moral realists generally agree on two principles… It can be argued that it is an implication of this thesis that moral judgements are subject to the same kinds of rational, empirical examination as the rest of the world: they are a subject for science – although a difficult one. If this could be shown to be so, morality would be contained within naturalism. However, I will not assume the truth of moral realism here. It is sufficient to say that it has at least as much credibility as any theory claiming a supernatural or divine foundation for morality: views which, while popular among the general public, do not have widespread support among moral philosophers – for what that is worth.” (Emphasis added).
 * Surprise? How does Hussey allude to half–baked conclusions like “‘science,’ therefore, should be considered a specialized branch of a larger effort to form true beliefs about events in our world”?
 * Just from the sections I edited: it's unrealistic to argue that science will meed to change in significant ways in order for accommodations to be possible for science-via-debate; and simultaneously argue that “Science of Morality” already is a science by either definition, under the aegis of which, real science in various fields, is being carried out because, why? a future historian might might so?
 * —Machine Elf 1735  07:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You can read the Journal of Moral Education, Volume 37, Issue 4 here and they have an English version of their website.
 * “Moralogy, which legally is organized as a foundation rather than a religion, can be considered a New Religion in terms of our criteria for new religious movements.”—
 * “Moralogy is an indigenous six-decade-old Japanese approach to business ethics which has been particularly influential amoung middle-sized business.”—Iwao Taka and Thomas W. Dunfee, 'Japanese Moralogy as Business Ethics', Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16, No. 5 (Apr., 1997), pp. 507-519
 * WP:IDHT Please decide if you still intend this to be a science article despite the WP:RS problem, i.e. the not being a science problem. It can't continue to posture as a science article, nor can it usurp ethical naturalism/moral realism. However, it can merge, and you can suggest a name change. It is not permissible for you to carry on Harris' punditry, and you have yet to comment on why this article is no longer explicitly about the debate surrounding Harris' Science of Morality book, which was, after all, why I argued for keep at the AfD… As Hussey's appeal for naturalist education in nursing says, “(e.g. Railton, 1986, 1996, 2003; Sayre-McCord, 1988; Dancy, 1993; Casebeer, 2003; Shafer-Landau, 2003; Baghramian, 2004; Smith, 1994, 2004) moral realists generally agree on two principles… It can be argued that it is an implication of this thesis that moral judgements are subject to the same kinds of rational, empirical examination as the rest of the world: they are a subject for science – although a difficult one. If this could be shown to be so, morality would be contained within naturalism. However, I will not assume the truth of moral realism here. It is sufficient to say that it has at least as much credibility as any theory claiming a supernatural or divine foundation for morality: views which, while popular among the general public, do not have widespread support among moral philosophers – for what that is worth.” (Emphasis added).
 * Surprise? How does Hussey allude to half–baked conclusions like “‘science,’ therefore, should be considered a specialized branch of a larger effort to form true beliefs about events in our world”?
 * Just from the sections I edited: it's unrealistic to argue that science will meed to change in significant ways in order for accommodations to be possible for science-via-debate; and simultaneously argue that “Science of Morality” already is a science by either definition, under the aegis of which, real science in various fields, is being carried out because, why? a future historian might might so?
 * —Machine Elf 1735  07:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * —Machine Elf 1735  07:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have the time or energy to be really involved in this right now, but I want to add my support for most of what Machine Elf has said here. Where I left off with my argument here, I was giving opportunity for this to become an article about some kind of actual scientific research into what is or is not moral. Yet it remains mostly about arguments about why or how science can answer questions about what is or is not moral, which is just an argument about ethical naturalism (which is one form of, but not synonymous with, moral realism). As such, I still think the valuable content on this page (no opinion at the moment about how much of it is valuable or not) should be merged there, and this page redirected; or else replaced with content about actual science about morality (if such a thing is not only possible but occurring already), rather than merely opinions that such a thing is possible. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

MachineElf, I do hope I have not come across as ungrateful. I realize this is a long ass article. I also never pretend it doesn't mean a lot to me, so I want to thank you for all your critiques. Really. You have already helped provoke real changes and deletions, and there are still tags I left to remind me of other stuff that does need attention.

Bentham was writing about early versions of the ideas on this page - as first pointed out by Colonel Warden at the AfD discussion. I keep rereading these quotes; they sound too interesting not to give to readers, so I put them in a note in the actual "Notes" section. This way readers might expect the longer reading. I beg your forgiveness: you may need to spell out for me (again, I know, I'm sorry!) how else I might improve that part.

We may be talking past each other about that tag I removed about the science "promoting" findings. My argument was not at all supposed to be that I am a scientist engaging in PR here. I meant that, to the extent that there is promotion in science (and there is, to a great extent), it would be present in the science of morality as well.

Oh jeez. Was that what you were saying? I completely agree that it seems I did not include any of the economist's quotes on Free will. I added them in the section on scientific methods where free will is discussed more at length.

Let me again thank you for all your patience and energy. I imagine I can be a bit wild or difficult to work with. It doesn't help that there are sometimes legitimate misunderstandings and errors in my writings on the page, which are then compounded by more errors and misunderstandings on these discussion pages here.

Ok about what you saw as "zealotry". You misunderstand me. First of all, I did skim (very, very quickly, late one night) over those other ressources on "Moralogy". They teach altruism and sound like a fine bunch. Don't get me started on how important the sages are. What I meant was that I just did not find much about the sort of stuff I see this science of morality article covering: the use of the methods of science, from axioms of increasing wellbeing, to formulate and revise norms. What I did see in the Moralogy sites was people talking about using science to "validate" the ideas of sages, which to me sounds like they are using science for promotion and not for investigation. When I have time to inquire into supporters of "Moralogy" further, I hope to find more explicit mention of abandoning norms according to evidence. Otherwise I may have to avoid temptation to study or mention them further. That link doesn't work, and yet I remain especially interested in that particular article "Towards Supreme Morality: An Attempt to Establish the New Science of Moralogy (2008)" because it appeared in a journal, but also because it sounds like it would be more concise.

I should not have put Hussey in the "proponents" section. I have made some edits to try and make it more clear precisely how much he talks about the ideas on this page (which is: practically as an aside).

To Pfhorrest now too: A main thought that comes to my mind is that the ethical naturalism page only currently looks like it should house details of a Science of Morality. But the Ethical naturalism page is meant to be too long. That is, that page is currently disturbingly short, considering how much information there is over at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page. At very least, ethical naturalism should be full to the brim with links to other articles. As it stands, my mention of science of morality is like 1/3 of the page! This content does not belong there, it belongs here.

I also think that there was an unexpected amount of literature on the idea of a science of morality, and I believe I have shown it. I suppose I would like to ask you guys whether and why we need to identify whether this is simply "a philosophy page" or a "culture page" or a science page as if it can only contain one type of information. On another note, I hope no one was expecting "The Journal of What is Scientifically Right" to emerge too soon. It won't, if it ever does. I was surprised to see these ideas seem (Hussey?) to be getting any mention in journals at all so soon.

To my mind, the Science of Morality page is supposed to be a page discussing however much, or however little literature there is about how and why science might make moral prescriptions. This, including recent literature like Harris or Daleiden. I think this page is serving it's purpose quite well.

Thank you all for your time and for these discussions.- Tesseract2 (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that Ethical naturalism is unreasonably short at the moment. That's part of why I think it would be good to merge the content here into there. Wikipedia articles are about subjects, not about terms, and "science of morality" is a term for the thing which the position termed "ethical naturalism" argues is possible. Ethical naturalism is nothing more than the claim that moral facts are the same kinds of facts as those which the natural sciences investigate, i.e. natural facts; so to argue that a science of morality is possible is just to argue for ethical naturalism, and vice versa. Not everyone who argues for ethical naturalism calls themselves an ethical naturalist; most historical ethical naturalists, like Bentham, predate the term, which IIRC was coined by G.E. Moore in contrast to his "ethical non-naturalism", right around the time that antirealist positions like expressivism started getting popular in philosophical circles; so ethical naturalism hasn't been popular much since the term was coined, and thus few people self-identify with it, but plenty of people, including those you are discussing here, espouse it without naming it.
 * Basically, I'm saying that you'd doing a pretty good job of pulling together an article about (mostly contemporary, but some historical) ethical naturalists and their arguments, and I think it's a shame that that's happening here instead of fleshing out the stubby little ethical naturalism article which needs this kind of attention. It also needs other kinds of attention (more historical arguments and counter-arguments too), but this would be a good start. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There are important distinctions between quantifiable facts, qualitative empirical observations, and values. Ethical naturalism doesn't claim values are amenable to scientific investigation in the sense Harris alludes to, merely in the way that they're commonly investigated in philosophy and the social sciences. That they're “natural facts” in a non-rigorous manner of speaking, presumably as opposed to “supernatural facts”, goes without saying. However, in a context touching on Harris, it's crucial to emphasize that they are, in fact, “values”. Harris was pushing intellectually dishonest arguments for a radical agenda. His progect was patently bad for science, and in part, immoral. I'm referring, of course, to developing a brain-altering technology to “convince” me I'm wrong about that. Not to mention a scientific overhaul of the legal system, a Science of Humor, (no joke) and his response to space aliens that would really be pleased to eat everybody…
 * Anyway, according to SEP, ethical naturalism has become quite popular over the last three decades. About a third of that article is currently a demonstration of Harris' scientism and rhetoric. It seems the material that could potentially be salvaged to expand it, including some of the Daleiden, would nonetheless leave most of what's here in limbo. Perhaps some could go to the article on Harris' book as well? I'm curious what material you have in mind.—Machine Elf 1735  05:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * T, you're not difficult to work with yet and I hope ethical naturalism does capture your interest. Scientists develop hypotheses and make falsifiable predictions. It would be dreadful PR to say "falsify sages and wise men" due to the hubris of concocting sagacity and wisdom. It's not what science can do. (See also phronesis).
 * Try http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03057240802436970 (pp.553–555 = pdf pp.12–14) but it's just a book review. They mean science as in a study or knowledge of, like Political Science.
 * “I suppose I would like to ask you guys whether and why we need to identify whether this is simply "a philosophy page" or a "culture page" or a science page as if it can only contain one type of information.”
 * I'm sure you've surmised that WP articles are about particular topics, notable as such. You're the one saying it's a science. You changed the article from the original “theory” companion to Moral Landscape, to one about the debate surrounding Sam Harris' vision of a future science of the mind, and now one about what “the science of morality” says, and what those who agree or disagree with it say. Portraying it as something that's been around for two hundred years, (not hedonic utilitarianism), but something which Bentham, Daleiden, Harris, Gould, etc. were referring to. I think Pfhorrest is correct that you've run across some ethical naturalism material, and although it's emphatically not identical with Harris' vision, as the article's written, it's synthesized heavily with Harris. Daleiden is a big improvement, but again, there's heavy synthesis, and I don't see his definition of “science of morality”. He must have defined what he's talking about… If he doesn't say it's identical with ethical naturalism, it would be WP:SYN to just put it in that article when, ostensibly, he was specifically referring to “the science of morality”. On the other hand, the quotes from Churchland, for example, seem fairly generic.
 * Having established that “the science of morality” does not exist in the way that Exobiology exists, for example, the article needs a topic that's notable as such. It wouldn't survive another AfD like this. Merging it to one or more other articles would be the only option unless it's changed back to the debate topic or you choose a notable one.
 * At any rate, the WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE issues have not been addressed. It should probably be removed from WP:WikiProject Neuroscience, as the sources don't comply with WP:MEDRS: “it is vital that the biomedical information in articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge”. I don't see a guide for WP:WikiProject Psychology.
 * Here are the redirects:
 * Moral landscapes
 * Science of Morality
 * Scientific moralist
 * The Science of Morality
 * Scientific moralist is used on Is–ought problem#"Moral" oughts as a subclass of ethical naturalists, presumably meaning moral scientists.—Machine Elf 1735  20:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that book review. I may check it out later, but if Moralogy is anything less than a scientific approach to normative rules for society (ie. it is descriptive), then it's not the stuff I am keeping an eye out for. I am also glad that you put up Churland's comments in more detail. I do not believe she has written about those ideas yet, otherwise I too would have preferred a written source.


 * I disagree with claims that I have been changing this article's purpose. This page is about anyone's ideas on how a science of normative morality could operate, or criticisms, which was at first focused only on Harris' ideas. But that is not the only place that, over and above ethical naturalism, the idea of a scientific approach to morality has been discussed.


 * I have started a couple new sections for housekeeping purposes, and to keep each discussion more focused. Does anyone know how to archive discussions? Is it just a matter of copying and pasting to a new page?
 * - Tesseract2 (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it's not just copy/paste. The prior discussion on this page is directly related to the current discussion. In particular, it makes it clear that the purpose of your article depends on which way the wind is blowing.
 * Like Harris, you would do well to familiarize yourself with meta-ethics but I'd be surprised if even he'd so blithely muddle a rule based approach, much less the meaning of the word descriptive and ummm, stuff.—Machine Elf 1735  21:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Like Harris, you would do well to familiarize yourself with meta-ethics but I'd be surprised if even he'd so blithely muddle a rule based approach, much less the meaning of the word descriptive and ummm, stuff.—Machine Elf 1735  21:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Firmware upgrades
The article contained a quote from Harris' response to critics. It is a section where he is discussing which sorts of preferences people can hold that could be considered "morally wrong" (e.g. psychopaths who want to torture others). Harris adds to his hypothetical that, if their minds were different (e.g. as a result of a futuristic mind-change or "firmware upgrade") then they would therefore think differently - they may be glad to be more integrated into society. He reiterates that his point is that some preferences, like torture, are obstacles to society's flourishing.

I have made some edits because this quote is being brandished in blogs, where Harris' other arguments are ignored, and you can almost sense that the words "firmware upgrade" are being accompanied in the blogger's mind by "government controlled" and "not just for violent psychopathy, but religious preferences". In any case, there is no mention of government (or for that matter, much exploration of the possible nature of firmware updates) in the source, and the quote's inclusion in the "Role of Government" section of this page did not help to make that clear.

I want to be candid, and I happily share my own bias towards transhumanism. Even if we could establish that Harris is, not just using firmware updates in a thought experiment, but saying we should use them... even if we could establish that, I personally think firmware upgrades may well be possible for people in the distant future too. I hasten to point out that this would still be a world where violent criminals need to be locked up in ways that they can never escape. At the same time, society would be doing everything in its power to change their minds, because it would seem only more inhumane to deny criminals any hope of ever leaving a cell (which they cannot, so long as they are a threat to innocents). Today, that means maximum security prisons, 200 year sentences, spent under the best, most painless mind-changing methods we have (e.g. giving them pets, and trying to provoke and improve empathy). The question would become, what role would technological mind changing play?

My point being, I cannot honestly say I felt the urge to panic, or provoke fear in others, when Harris briefly mused about a firmware upgrade for everyone that eliminates the most excessive violent tendencies in us, so that "the entirety of the species is fit to live in a global civilization that is as safe, and as fun, and as interesting, and as filled with love as it can be." Regardless, I did not think the representation of Harris thoughts was appropriate, and so I have put the quote itself into yet another Note, and moved the whole idea outside the government section.- Tesseract2 (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll include another example from the his website and one from his ebook, Lying. Be honest, you just make up excuses on his behalf. I see what you're implying by “provoke fear in others”. If that's how you want it to be…
 * You did not "summarize" what he “briefly mused” about. It wasn't in the context of a psycho, it was in response to “Alice's” rational refusal to accept Harris' core value. You changed a verbatim quote to a “representation of Harris thoughts”. You are not permitted to editorialize about what you think is appropriate for Harris to write and try to hide it in the Notes. No one cares what you claim people are saying on blogs, but obviously you were aware of it and you chose to omit it, because it didn't fit your vision. Don't be disingenuous, “global civilization”, “politics”, “utopia”, “collective”, etc. isn't enough for you? You were the one making up vapid platitudes about Orwell, Huxley, transhumanism and genetic modification in the Government section: “Instead, Harris imagines data about normative moral issues being shared in the same way as in every other science (e.g. peer-reviewed journals).”—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  22:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, any frustrations aside, we are getting good work done. I do appreciate that what at first seems outrageous to us sometimes turns out to be workable, or even important for the sake of the article. You'll have to trust me when I say that I am never intentionally confused by where you are coming from.


 * That having been said, it is bizarre to be criticized for summarizing. This is Wikipedia; we're trying to avoid posting the entirety of all the sources we are citing. I am not about to type up all the lectures I reference, or post all of Bentham's Deontology (which would be easy, because it's all online). We can always disagree over whether I summarized accurately, MachineElf (and I may have failed!). Including links to large Wikipedia policy pages, however, does not make more relevant the criticism that "You changed a verbatim quote to a 'representation of Harris thoughts'". To that, all I can say is... yeah. We're definitely going to summarize that huge quote.


 * If it needs to be included at all. I now want to try and argue that even a summary of those ideas is unnecessary. My writing on the main page fully appreciated the context of the arguments that Harris is making. I believe my summary was accurate because Harris is making redundant arguments about precisely how Alice is wrong. He imagines a fantastic scenario, and later makes reference in that hypothetical to using firmware to curb psychopathic behaviour. To answer your question about the very presence of certain words suggesting opinions on governments: no, that's not good enough.
 * "Consider how we would view a situation in which all of us miraculously began to behave so as to maximize our collective well-being. Imagine that on the basis of remarkable breakthroughs in technology, economics, and politic skill, we create a genuine utopia on earth. Needless to say, this wouldn't be boring, because we will have wisely avoided all the boring utopias. Rather, we will have created a global civilization of astonishing creativity, security, and happiness." Maximizing collective well-being...using politic skill ...creating a utopia of some kind, which is at least some sort of global civilization . I'm sorry, but especially if that's what is driving your interpretation, it remains inappropriate to throw his utopia metaphor in the government section as though he is trying to offer views on governments (e.g. how they should be structured, how much power they should have, or anything like that at all).


 * You have isolated a portion of a hypothetical that was being used to make other arguments, my friend. If you want a real quote about enforcement, use the (mercifully smaller) quote from an interview he gave:

Let's say scientists do end up discovering moral truths. How are they supposed to enforce their findings? Would they become something like policemen or priests?
 * They wouldn’t necessarily enforce them any more than they enforce their knowledge about human health. What are scientists doing with the knowledge that smoking causes cancer or obesity is bad for your health, or that the common cold is spread by not washing your hands? We’re not living in some Orwellian world where we have scientists in lab coats at every door. Imagine we discovered that there is a best way to teach your children to be compassionate, or to defer short-term gratification in the service of a long-term goal. What if it turns out to be true that calcium intake in the first two years of life has a significant effect on a child’s emotional life? If we learn that, what parent wouldn’t want that knowledge? The fear of a "Brave New World" component to this argument is unfounded.
 * But again, that is redundant; those claims are mentioned elsewhere in the article.
 * Also, MachineElf, you might consider checking out those interviews because - if the topic of potentially invasive science is what interests you - Harris does make some claims about mind reading technology and stuff. Those were quite explicit, although I would not agree (without persuasion) that those and other of his ideas should be the topic of this page rather than another one: thought identification.
 * - Tesseract2 (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You've made your motives perfectly clear. Another wall of text doesn't change that, and my friends don't stoop to insinuating that my edits were intended to “provoke fear” (lame). I never said (lamer), or that it should be the topic of this article (lamest).
 * Well, as per multiple sources, he's wrong and philosophically naïve. Congratulations on your devout faith and your achievement of 2+2=5. Undoubtedly, there's no reasoning with you.
 * I didn't ask you to do either, (but it was like pulling teeth trying to get you to remove the enormous swath of Bentham). You've cited a 1 hour 45 minute youtube video that doesn't qualify as an WP:RS in 6 different places, some for things that Daleiden and Harris supposedly agree on. What I've asked you to do, is to source those to Harris' written material. The video just seemed to be his standard spiel. If you're refusing, I'll remove the WP:OR. Re:, that is how one notes which policies and guidelines have informed one's actions.
 * Nawh, if WP:SPAs show up, now we'll know why. His rhetoric is too convoluted to summarize without contention, and besides, it's not that big and you've also said it's brief. If anything, some of Blackford's response should be added so that “[someone's]” doesn't need to stand in for “Alice's”, assuming the article's salvageable, or we find somewhere to merge that content to. It's “definitely” not going to ethical naturalism or The Moral Landscape. I believe this article has an albatross tied around its neck in the form of your demagogue. There's no reason Churchland's work should have to be a stowaway and I hardly think summarizing her too is any kind of priority at this time (a point from one the numerous sections you've added in this unprecedented frenzy).
 * I'll tell you what's “bizarre”, your “(and I may have failed! [not!!])” way of failing to own up to the fact that you were not “summarizing”:
 * 
 * Harris often points out that there are implications for the fact that morality depends on objective facts about people's desires, which in turn depend on their brains. He believes that these issues will become more salient as science's understanding of human brains progresses. Harris offers the thought experiment of psychopathic behaviours (e.g. an urge to torture) being cured by delivering "firmware upgrades to everyone." He explores these ideas to emphasize how a science of morality, founded on a pursuit of well-being, may cogently engage the facts that people want different things when the structure of their brains change, but also that certain desires - left unchanged (e.g. the desire to be a totalitarian ruler) - are clear obstacles to society's flourishing.
 * , not on a science, that's for sure. Harris isn't posing a “thought experiment”, he is explicitly responding to Blackford's Alice, (the persuasion problem), it is emphatically not about a psychopath and there's nothing cogent about his response. Alice does not desire to be a “totalitarian ruler” and she poses no “obstacle to society's flourishing”. She merely won't concede to sharing the same intellectually naïve value. That's not even remotely psychotic.
 * Harris whimsically tosses in Kim Jong Il, but it's pure rhetoric, he wishes he were talking about Kim Jong Ill… and even then, why hose everyone's brains? You're grasping at straws, and synthesizing vis-à-vis other arguments from elsewhere. Pretend you don't know what you're doing if you want, but you're not that incompetent. As I said, you've made your motives perfectly clear.
 * '''Harris imagines discusses how a science of morality nevertheless operates the same as every other science does: with simply more relevant scientific publications accessible to the public.&#x3C;ref&#x3E;The Moral Landscape, Notes, page 202&#x3C;/ref&#x3E;
 * “Utopia” is reason enough for the current placement. Your 1984 and Brave New World references came from an end note, but those talking points also come up in the salon.com interview, which you've now replaced the original reference with. But neither has anything to do with the above psycho-synthesis.
 * In the interview, he basically said scientists wouldn't necessarily enforce anything. Then he blathers on, as you've now added to the article, quoted at length.
 * Of course, his polemics aren't really analogous to health, and these diseased psychos, who would they be? They're analogous to the “1.5 billion Muslims and 2 billion Christians” in the part about taking over the world (down near the bottom). Now, you could have used a different response from that interview, the one regarding “transhumanistic ideas”. But you didn't, so apparently Harris' transhumanism, e.g. current “psychotropic drug use”, still needs to be given equal weight? (or any weight, rather?) To the transhumanism question, he responded that the guiding principle of the science of morality is “do no harm”.
 * Harris' capricious rhetoric makes it difficult to take his “science” seriously (never mind the megalomania and thinly veiled ++ungood speak). Our job is neither to sanitize a plausible synthesis of all that, nor to drop it down the chute to the incinerators (however, Bentham would be pleased, Big Brother is watching you).
 * Your original cite, was to an end note that was referenced from p.36, so the context was: “I am arguing that everyone also has an intuitive "morality," but much of our intuititive morality is clearly wrong (with respect to the goal of maximizing personal and collective well-being). And only genuine moral experts would have a deep understanding of the causes and conditions of human and animal well-being.” and end note #17 on p.202: “Many people find the idea of "moral experts" abhorrent. Indeed, this ramification of my argument has been called "positively Orwellian" and a "recipe for fascism." Again, these concerns seem to arise from an uncanny reluctance to think about what the concept of "well-being" actually entails or how science might shed light on its causes and conditions. [He then rehearses the tired analogy with health and yes, for example Burbank, is totally fascist about non-smoking but mercy me, I too digress, he continues] Many people's reflexive response to the notion of moral expertise is to say, "I don't want anyone telling me how to live my life."  To which I can only respond, "If there were a way for you and those you care about to be much happier than you are now, would you want to know about it?"”
 * A science-thumping buffoon comes to mind, not the thought police, but it was a better fit to Alice before your recent edits.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  06:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Harris' capricious rhetoric makes it difficult to take his “science” seriously (never mind the megalomania and thinly veiled ++ungood speak). Our job is neither to sanitize a plausible synthesis of all that, nor to drop it down the chute to the incinerators (however, Bentham would be pleased, Big Brother is watching you).
 * Your original cite, was to an end note that was referenced from p.36, so the context was: “I am arguing that everyone also has an intuitive "morality," but much of our intuititive morality is clearly wrong (with respect to the goal of maximizing personal and collective well-being). And only genuine moral experts would have a deep understanding of the causes and conditions of human and animal well-being.” and end note #17 on p.202: “Many people find the idea of "moral experts" abhorrent. Indeed, this ramification of my argument has been called "positively Orwellian" and a "recipe for fascism." Again, these concerns seem to arise from an uncanny reluctance to think about what the concept of "well-being" actually entails or how science might shed light on its causes and conditions. [He then rehearses the tired analogy with health and yes, for example Burbank, is totally fascist about non-smoking but mercy me, I too digress, he continues] Many people's reflexive response to the notion of moral expertise is to say, "I don't want anyone telling me how to live my life."  To which I can only respond, "If there were a way for you and those you care about to be much happier than you are now, would you want to know about it?"”
 * A science-thumping buffoon comes to mind, not the thought police, but it was a better fit to Alice before your recent edits.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  06:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

"The"
Please explain why the page is now missing "The" at every turn, in front of the science of morality, and whether or why any instance of "a science of morality" is at risk of losing its "a"..?- Tesseract2 (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Merging to Ethical naturalism
I really do want us to make sure we are following Wikipedia's philosophy. That should be our priority. As far as merging this article with the ethical naturalism page, I think there are a two main arguments against that idea.
 * The idea of a "science of morality" is qualitatively different than ethical naturalism. Mind you, any discussion of science can become necessarily "philosophical", and the science itself would be considered a type of ethical naturalism. This Science of Morality page nevertheless mentions various ways one might approach normative morality as a science, and it is a discussion that is, I find, unique enough not to belong on any other page.
 * The Ethical Naturalism page only looks like it has room for this information because the ethical naturalism page does not look the way it should. The myriad philosophical arguments that likely exist for and against ethical naturalism should make that page a massive collection of history and thinkers. It is certainly unfortunate that not much attention has been given to it, but cannibalizing this page is no substitute for good work on that one. Especially not if the first argument holds at all, and the information taken there would be slowly deleted because it is not the main focus of the "Ethical Naturalism" page (as, my first argument suggests, it is not).

Thoughts? I don't want to seem like I am not aware that at least two individuals will likely disagree. For instance, Pfhorrest and MachineElf. I would just add now that, if you (or anyone) does disagree, I think more suggestions would be in order regarding what would be merged, and how, and who would do it. Worst case others can move stuff from this page to the ethical naturalism page. I could be persuaded not to undo any such edits if everyone agrees that I am wrong in my interpretation of Wikipedia's rules and values. Even then I wouldn't be doing it myself, because the later aspects of my second argument (just above) convince me that it would be wasted effort. - Tesseract2 (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I am still not seeing a clear distinction between what is discussed on this page (currently), and arguments about ethical naturalism. The issue is not that any discussion of science can become necessarily philosophical, in the way that, say, discussions about the Big Bang or evolution with a Young Earth Creationist inevitably turn to discussion of the merits of metaphysical naturalism vs belief in divine intervention. The "science of morality" discussion is not at that point yet: there aren't well-established research projects which have been conducted under the assumption of ethical naturalism, and a minor problem convincing some people to accept those results because they have yet to adopt such a position. An article on the Big Bang or evolution is not predominantly an article arguing that we should be conducting cosmological or biological research with scientific methods vs other methods, they're articles about the research which has already been done under that methodology, with comparatively tiny footnotes that some people dispute that methodology. In contrast, this article predominantly discusses arguments about whether we could or should use a methodology, and that is simply an argument about ethical naturalism. It would be like an article about Natural Science together with an article on Metaphysical Naturalism back in the days of the New Organon and its ilk, when all discussion on the subject was about whether metaphysical naturalism was true and thus whether science could or should be done naturalistically, and there was no serious natural science research yet to report on. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Notability
Whether anyone decides to subject this page to yet another AfD discussion is up to them. I will say that I think this idea of a "Science of Morality" was sufficiently notable to have its own page on Wikipedia even before many thinkers were present. The page now illustrates that many others have played with these ideas beyond Harris, and actually there is a Churchland quote in particular that is still too long... - Tesseract2 (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. This article has an excessive emphasis on Sam Harris, as if his book is the principal source.  Even in my limited study of the subject I can think of several other notable authors (including Hume) with something to say.  What the article needs is folks willing to actually study the subject for a while, perhaps assemble a bibliography.  I've seen this topic touched upon in other contexts and issues (hint: Social Darwinism) enough to reckon that the subject is notable, regardless of the failings of the current article. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the neuroscience of morality that Churchland successfully points to, needs to be disentangled from Harris' agenda, and because this article has focused on the latter, regardless of the ongoing issue of what its supposed to be about, it's too optimistic to hope that this time we'll be able to get a viable article sorted out. That's not to say that Churchland sheds no light on the philosophical parts that should go to ethical naturalism, she's amazingly lucid and provides a very accessible treatment. I think the general questions are, where to put the existing science, and where to put the nonscientific-aphilosophical Harrisism that won't fit in the article about his book.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  21:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: see .—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735   21:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Not only is "science of morality" a notable subject, this article is certainly the place to cover it. The problem seems to be the excessive focus on Sam Harris.  As to the "nonscientific-aphilosophical Harrisism that won't fit in the article about his book" -- why should it be here?  Perhaps the real issue here is whether "Harrisism" is notable enough for inclusion.  Even it it warranted a mention, the existing focus is certainly WP:UNDUE.  I think a discussion of content for deletion would be more appropriate than AfD.  If that leaves a mostly empty shell, well, that's a measure of the work needed.
 * _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Unnecessary capitalization
I fixed a number of cases of unnecessary capitalization including a number of cases where an article link was left in sentence capitalization style even though the article topic was a common noun. I also down-cased instances of concepts that were capitalized contrary to the style guide for doctrine and concepts (see WP:DOCTCAPS). I mention this because both a request by an editor as well as the number of instances in the article suggest that some here may not be familiar with the style guide for capitalization (WP:MOSCAPS). Joja lozzo  16:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Science of morality
Hi everyone. I came to this page expecting an article about scientific analysis of morality, i.e. its evolutionary origin, similarities and differences between cultures, its social impacts, its correlates in neuroscience, etc. Shouldn't most of this material be in an article called "Scientifically based morality" or something similar? Arc de Ciel (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ted Bundy=
I'll probably remove the Ted Bundy image unless someone can come up with a really good reason to keep it.. At best is is irrelevant to the article. At worst, it's misleading with the phrase, "According to Sam Harris..." right below the mugshot. At first I thought it was a mugshot of Sam Harris! War (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

moral science and science of morality
What are the differences between science of morality and moral science. Shouldn't they be merged or at least have links to each other? --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It looks like moral science has never been more than a redirect to human science which is a much broader subject than the one this article attempts to discuss. This article is about the attempt to approach moral problems as scientific problems. (And I still think it deserves a merger to ethical naturalism, which is precisely the position that ethical questions can be reduced to the same kind of questions that natural sciences answer). --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe "moral science" — perhaps "morality of science" would be better? — would be the topic of whether science is moral, for some concept of "moral". The science of morality is the scientific study of morality itself.  And that need not link to every topic where there is some question of morality. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

"The idea of a moral science" is the eighth chapter of Roger Scruton's "A Short History of Modern Philosophy" in which he also asserts that it is an equivalent for "ethical naturalism" (p 104). --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That usage seems ambiguous. Does he mean a science of morality? Or a science which is moral? In the parallel term the adjectival form of "ethical" suggests "a study of nature which is ethical", and I would guess that might inform us about the first term. But perhaps Scruton clarifies what he means? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Scruton writes: "...the ideal of a science of human nature from which the percepts of ethics would follow, not as a matter of willing obedience, but as a matter of course." (p 104). So it is not a science which is moral. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, it appears that Scruton uses "moral science" in the sense of this article. But that term gets redirected to human science, which is defined much more broadly as "the study of the human sciences attempts to expand and enlighten the human being's knowledge of his or her existence, its interrelationship with other species and systems, and the development of artifacts to perpetuate the human expression and thought. It is the study of human phenomena." The topic here is much narrower in scope, and on that basis the answer to your question is simple: no, these two articles are different, they should not be merged.
 * The problem here is that Hume used the same term to refer to "human science"; Scruton has used it differently. Hume has priority, so unless it can be shown that his definition and usage are entirely replaced by Scruton's definition we stick with the former. If there is sufficient usage of the latter meaning that confusion results than probably the preferred resolution would be a disambiguation page, which would offer redirects to "moral science (traditional)" and "moral science (modern)", or some such. Or perhaps a note at "human science" that "moral science" can also refer more narrowly to the study of morals. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Ayn Rand sentence
I think the one sentence on Ayn Rand needs to be removed ("Ayn Rand also proposed in Objectivism an ethics based on reason and reality."). This has nothing to do with the (natural) science of morality. Just because a morality is based on reason doesn't mean that it entails a science of morality (key case in point: Kant's morality). Nor does the fact that Rand's morality is "based on... reality" (whatever that means), since pretty much any moral realism can claim to be based on moral "reality". The one reference in the Rand article cited to "science" is just in the loose sense of talking about "Ethics, as a science", simply meaning a field of inquiry/systematised knowledge. DM4242 (talk) 13:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. Objectivism (at best) might claim to "scientifically" based, but that doesn't make it a science. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the challenge to my sentence referencing Rand. This is a reasonable objection particularly if one hasn't read Rand's "The Objectivist Ethics" and has perhaps only read Rand secondhand (e.g. Sam Harris's or HuffPo's critiques). I'm not saying that is the case here. I just frequently encounter similar criticisms from folks who haven't read her ideas in her writings. Rand explicitly states her morality is based not merely on reason *but on the requirements of man's life that can be seen in observable reality* if one starts with a question that is different from other thinkers (i.e. what is the purpose of morality?). What could be more scientific than that? Sure, it is a different question than the usual altruist question-beginning of "what does morality command?" or "why must we be altruistic?" How exactly does this reality & observation orientation differ in principle to those of other thinkers on this page? I would hope it is not an exclusion from bad timing. Eliminating a reference because the author didn't use the recent fad three word phrase of "science of morality" seems unfortunate. Aside: comparing Rand's work to Kant's is ironic (see any of her non-fiction for multiple rebukes of Kant's methods). Deleting the one brief sentence about her claim that her ideas are a possible science of morality could be interpreted by readers to mean, "experts have concluded that Rand's ideas cannot constitute a science of morality since they were deemed to have no place in this article." It is not self evident that "The Objectivist Ethics" cannot be a science of morality. It is a point of view. I would hope that Rand's ideas will not be disqualified as a possible science of morality because Sam Harris (or anyone else) disagrees with them. I argue her ideas are more scientific and observation-based than most of the ideas in this article. Her exclusion from the topic in which she made arguably her greatest contribution seems odd. I will not belabor the point if Rand is excluded. Critical-interval (talk) 05:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I will reiterate what I said above: just because Objectivism (or Rand, or you) claims to be a science (or to be a scientifically based study of a topic) does not make it a science. For sure, it is not self-evident that it cannot be such (i.e, there is not evident proof of impossibility), but it does seem evident that Objectivism is not a science.  (Item: where are the studies?) At best it seems to amount to only philosophy (and even that has been questioned). Whether it might qualify as a possible science is beside the point, as this article is not about possible sciences. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * To prevent a lengthy post, I respectfully offer some references for potential future discussion by other authors that may help produce an unbiased article. "No human being has ever experienced an objective world, or even a world at all." Do you call this scientific or not? In addition to that line from Sam Harris's The End of Faith (p41), his multiple references to *moral knowledge* from "innate knowledge," "intuition," and "irreducible leaps" are indistinguishable from faith in concept. Do you call this scientific or not? Creating experiments & performing studies on humans that self-fulfill the biased premises of altruism are entirely possible if one considers only those premises when formulating interpretations. I admit Rand's ideas are different & provocative. Do they deserve exclusion forever from a discussion of the "science of morality" while Harris's irreducible leaps are included? In sum, many of the premises of the "scientists of morality" are of dubious scientific merit since they ultimately reference skepticism and/or mystical "just knowing--the end." Rand's premises are *at least* as scientific. They are certainly less skeptical and not at all mystical. That is my judgement. It may be another person's judgment that the authors quoted on the page are scientific whereas Rand's ideas represent a "possible" or "claimed" science. The exclusion of such ideas could be honestly interpreted by future readers as intellectually suspect. I respectfully invite you to make your own judgements by reading & thinking for yourself: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-fall/mystical-ethics-new-atheists.asp http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_the_objectivist_ethics Critical-interval (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * So your argument is: Harris is a bad scientist, and Harris is in, ergo, all bad scientists may be included? Sorry, no. Whether Harris remains, or not, should be decided on his merits, and Rand/Objectivism on her/its merits.  You also fail to understand that the essence of a science (and of scientific theories) is testable hypotheses.  Which (the last time I looked) Objectivism lacked.  I point out that you are not approaching this as a question (e.g., "should Rand be included?") regarding which you have collected and evaluated evidence for and against. Rather, you have already decided that she should be in, and so are arguing the matter. That violates WP:NPOV.  ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur with the previous Randian. I searched google for "morality of science" and was surprised to see zero mention of Rand and, worse, outright suppression of her work. If you distilled Rand's contribution to one essential idea, it would be that she solved the "is-ought dichotomy." As an analogy, experiments did not lead to the law of demand in economics. No experiments will refute it. Regardless of the specific exclusion "laws" you choose, interpreting the laws to forbid the mere mention of someone who solved the "is-ought dichotomy" would seem to follow the letter of such laws but not their intent. It just smells of blacklisting. In contrast, Harris ultimately argues for "intuition" and "irreducible leaps" as the source of moral knolwedge--not reason and reality. Hitchens ultimately argues for "innate conscience." Rand showed that, sure, altruism (or mysticism or a feelings-based ethics) can't be derived from reality--but morality can be. Rand didn't do experiments. OK. Harris et al presume an ultimately feelings-based source of morality and do/interpret experiments in a quest to justify said mystical morality. It's transparently arbitrary--regardless of legalistic justifications--to include Harris and Hitchens while excluding Rand. I "just know" that it's wrong. :) Sojournertooth (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So your bottom line is that if Harris and Hitchens are included Rand should also be included? On what basis? I refer you to my previous comment, that just because Harris is (say) a bad scientist (though more relevantly, he's a poor philosopher) does not give any other bad scientist (philosopher) any "right" of inclusion. Rand gets judged on her merits, not anyone else's. If this results in a disparity, well, frankly, I think Harris ought to be removed. (I am not familiar enough with Hitchens to comment.) I don't have time for that, but please make some suggestions if you are so inclined. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Is the "is-ought problem" an important problem in the science of morality? 2) Should an article that includes this problem include a noteworthy potential solution--no matter who wrote it? I fail to see why the answer to #2 would be, "absolutely not; experiments and popularity are required." Sojournertooth (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, the "is-ought" problem is important in the science of morality. However, I don't believe the major philosophical sources accept that Rand in any way solved that probem ("potentially" or otherwise); I believe her views are generally considered fringe. As to failing to see why "the answer to #2" should be "experiments and popularity are required" — well, of course you fail to see that, because that is not the answer. The answer (for non-inclusion) is that Rand's solution is not considered noteworthy. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)