Do you think science will solve moral issues?

[GarrotTheThief]

Straight forward question: Do you think science will solve moral issues like starvation, war, genocide, pollution, etc.

Speaking statistically thus far it has not, in fact it has amplified in the opposite direction, but do you think that eventually we will reach a threshold where the trend will reverse such as the minimum point on an S curve?

 

[Beorn]

No. Because what you're really talking about is a reliance on technology to solve human moral problems and that's impossible since technology has it's own morality independent of humanity.

"A principal characteristic of technique … is its refusal to tolerate moral judgments. It is absolutely independent of them and eliminates them from its domain. Technique never observes the distinction between moral and immoral use. It tends on the contrary, to create a completely independent technical morality.

Here, then, is one of the elements of weakness of this point of view. It does not perceive technique's rigorous autonomy with respect to morals; it does not see that the infusion of some more or less vague sentiment of human welfare cannot alter it. Not even the moral conversion of the technicians could make a difference. At best, they would cease to be good technicians. This attitude supposes further that technique evolves with some end in view, and that this end is human good. Technique is totally irrelevant to this notion and pursues no end, professed or unprofessed." - Jaques Ellul

A hammer is doing what it "should" be doing whether it's hitting a nail or bashing in someone's head.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

No. Because what you're really talking about is a reliance on technology to solve human moral problems and that's impossible since technology has it's own morality independent of humanity.

"A principal characteristic of technique … is its refusal to tolerate moral judgments. It is absolutely independent of them and eliminates them from its domain. Technique never observes the distinction between moral and immoral use. It tends on the contrary, to create a completely independent technical morality.

Here, then, is one of the elements of weakness of this point of view. It does not perceive technique's rigorous autonomy with respect to morals; it does not see that the infusion of some more or less vague sentiment of human welfare cannot alter it. Not even the moral conversion of the technicians could make a difference. At best, they would cease to be good technicians. This attitude supposes further that technique evolves with some end in view, and that this end is human good. Technique is totally irrelevant to this notion and pursues no end, professed or unprofessed." - Jaques Ellul

A hammer is doing what it "should" be doing whether it's hitting a nail or bashing in someone's head.

It's interesting to abstract science as a tool. I agree with you. But let's also remember that the analogy of science as a tool is limited. A tool is a tangible thing. We can call belief systems a tool in so far as they are useful as one but they themselves are not actual hammers and nails. They are belief systems at the core.

 

[Beorn]

It's interesting to abstract science as a tool. I agree with you. But let's also remember that the analogy of science as a tool is limited. A tool is a tangible thing. We can call belief systems a tool in so far as they are useful as one but they themselves are not actual hammers and nails. They are belief systems at the core.

Well if we're talking about science in the strictest sense then it isn't a belief system. It's just observations. Observations on their own tell us nothing about the future and thus are morally useless.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

Well if we're talking about science in the strictest sense then it isn't a belief system. It's just observations. Observations on their own tell us nothing about the future and thus are morally useless.

Observations are subjective. We may all see a bird flying but the way we see it is still rooted and limited by our ability to perceive.

It's the same trap the indigenous person falls into. The entire tribe believes a dance causes rain because they dance and it rains. Same goes for us. Science is an extension of human thought. It will always be subjective in absolute form. It is only objective relative to more subjective sentiments.

 

[Habba]

Straight forward question: Do you think science will solve moral issues like starvation, war, genocide, pollution, etc.

Speaking statistically thus far it has not, in fact it has amplified in the opposite direction

I believe only pollution has gone for the worse, althought age of industrialism was very polluted too.

Also, what are the moral issues with starvation?

 

[á´…eparted]

Straight forward question: Do you think science will solve moral issues like:

starvation

It has the potential to solve the logical problems of starvation, but not beyond that and beyond that is really where the problem is, so I lean rather towards no.

war

No. This is a sociopolitical problem that science doesn't have a solution to.

genocide

Same as above. This is a sociopolitical problem.

pollution

The potential is there, so yes maybe.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

It has the potential to solve the logical problems of starvation, but not beyond that and beyond that is really where the problem is, so I lean rather towards no.



No. This is a sociopolitical problem that science doesn't have a solution to.



Same as above. This is a sociopolitical problem.



The potential is there, so yes maybe.

Deep!. Concise. Deep. Thank you.

 

[Coriolis]

Observations are subjective. We may all see a bird flying but the way we see it is still rooted and limited by our ability to perceive.

It's the same trap the indigenous person falls into. The entire tribe believes a dance causes rain because they dance and it rains. Same goes for us. Science is an extension of human thought. It will always be subjective in absolute form. It is only objective relative to more subjective sentiments.

Some observations are subjective. Science focuses on making objective observations. Science is a method of learning about the world around us. As such, it is limited to the physical world and unable to decide questions of morality or spirituality. Though not a single tangible item like a hammer, it is indeed a tool, and can be used for good or for ill. Science can thus be used to solve the problems you mention, or to exacerbate them. It all depends on the intentions of the humans using it.

 

[Mole]

The scientific method is way of avoiding delusion.

We are meaning creating animals and we prefer any meaning to no meaning. But recently in our history we invented the scientific method to test any meaning to see if it is delusional or an illusion.

So science is not going to do anything. It is technology that does things.

 

[Riva]

Straight forward question: Do you think science will solve moral issues like starvation, war, genocide, pollution, etc.

Speaking statistically thus far it has not, in fact it has amplified in the opposite direction, but do you think that eventually we will reach a threshold where the trend will reverse such as the minimum point on an S curve?

Amplified, Are you fucking kidding me? Pollution has increased yes but the rest have decreased significanly. Due to science and technology people can't even fight dirty wars and genocides as eaily as they used to. Yes the power of the bomb has increased but the legitimacy of the use of it and the ability cause harm unfairly onto others and get away with it has reduced remarkably due to science.

Even polluiltion will be dealt with if science develop further.

Also, pollution began with mass scale agriculture - could we call it agricultural revolution? - and it existed way before science. Science is not only dealing with most issuss the world is facing it is also acting as a watchdog.

No not all human issues will be dealt by science. That should be something internal.

 

[Riva]

Is there anything science can't do that god can?

With the exception of bringing dead people to life that is. Lolz.

 

[devaf]

Straight forward question: Do you think science will solve moral issues like starvation, war, genocide, pollution, etc.

Speaking statistically thus far it has not, in fact it has amplified in the opposite direction, but do you think that eventually we will reach a threshold where the trend will reverse such as the minimum point on an S curve?

Straightforward answer: Yes, I do think it will. Everything is within the range of science, there is no area outside of it. Why should it not solve all of our problems?

Not so straightforward stuff, lol : Who says these are all moral issues? I do not agree with that. Counter question: If you posit an ideal universal morality, do you think these problems will cease to exist?

Another counter question: Do you think science is capable of destroying human life as we know it if we eventually reach a threshold where the trend will tip towards that pralaya? (I answer "yes" to that also)

 

[GarrotTheThief]

Good quotation in response to some of the above since I don't have time to comment all. Don't ask me how it relates. Trust me that it does. Read it and consider it. I can't promise anymore replies to this thread from me though. I've received enough answers to satisfy my inquery. Thank you very much if you does and do!

"
People who are passive toward their projected material contribute to the danger of nuclear war, because every bit of energy that we don’t actively engage with language or art is floating somewhere in the air above the United States, and Reagan can use it. He has a big energy sweeper that pulls it in. No one should make you feel guilty for not keeping a journal, or creating art, but such activity helps the whole world"
Robert Bly

A bit outdated but the sollution to moral issues is clear and in fact the scientific method seems to now be confirming it and science is a part of it.

 

[devaf]

Good quotation in response to some of the above since I don't have time to comment all. Don't ask me how it relates. Trust me that it does. Read it and consider it. Thank you very much if you does and do!

No one has enough time to write anything comprehensive on all the major issues of human life. I can see the moral factors that can go towards escalating or defusing these issues. I just do not think that is sufficient to classify these as moral issue. Whatever be the nomenclature, it does not affect the question and the answers.

I can't promise anymore replies to this thread from me though. I've received enough answers to satisfy my inquiry.

Sure, NP. Is this part of a homework assignment or something, by any chance, lol? (j/k)

 

[Arctic Hysteria]

Straight forward question: Do you think science will solve moral issues like starvation, war, genocide, pollution, etc.

Most of the problems in the world are by-products of modern science.

 

[AOA]

Straight forward question: Do you think science will solve moral issues like starvation, war, genocide, pollution, etc.

Is this even a question???

Science is dead..

OF COURSE NOT!

 

[Qlip]

What people don't realize is that religion and science aren't at odds at their very core. Science finds truth, religion is just a form of ideology that directs people. Without religion, there will be another ideology to fill the vacuum. The most prevalent on this forum is progressive Western ideology.

Science informs, helps provide to create tools (technology). Tools also inform our solutions to our problems, they make solutions more effective. But how they are best resolved cannot be decided by Science, that's a subjective matter, not an objective matter. In a world without a God, there can be no objective moral good. The morals themselves are usually formed by the need of a people with a shared ideology, a tribal unit.

So, no, I don't think inherently science will solve moral problems. But it will make people more effective at coming to imposing their own moral resolutions. I also think that with the increasing population and with the gap that communication technology closes, humans will become more like one tribe with somewhat common goals as time goes on. Making our problems shared problems.

 

[Mole]

Most of the problems in the world are by-products of modern science.

The purpose of the scientific method is to avoid illusion, such as the illusion that the Sun goes round the Earth.

The purpose of the scientific method is not to determine truth but to falsify illusion.

So a scientific hypothesis can be falsified but not verified.

On the other hand religion deals in certain truths.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Straight forward question: Do you think science will solve moral issues like starvation, war, genocide, pollution, etc.

Speaking statistically thus far it has not, in fact it has amplified in the opposite direction, but do you think that eventually we will reach a threshold where the trend will reverse such as the minimum point on an S curve?

No.