> [Platt]
> I don't see how you study morals scientifically.
>
> [Krimel]
> Well here are some examples, for the sake of time I have stolen a bit from
> Wiki:
The studies and examples you cite all presumed a moral stance in advance of
the study. I apologize for phrasing my question incorrectly. I should have
asked: How can science inform us about what is good and bad, right and
wrong?
> In 1954, Muzafer and Carolyn Sherif studied the origin of prejudice in
> social groups in a classic study called the Robbers Cave Experiment. They
> randomly divided groups of 11 year old boys at summer camp into two groups.
> The groups named themselves the Rattlers and the Eagles. The experiment set
> up various kinds of camp activities and competition between the groups. They
> found that individuals in the group quickly identified themselves with their
> group. They saw in group members as "good" and member of the other group as
> "bad". Parts of the experiment were cut short because friction between the
> groups caused problems. Subsequently it has been shown that people will self
> identify with a group for the flimsiest of reasons. For example being
> randomly assign to groups according to preference for representational
> versus modern art.
Moral presumption: Prejudice is wrong.
> In 1955 Solomon Asche's conformity experiments showed that subjects will
> give incorrect answers to questions if other people in a group give a wrong
> answer. In the experiment usually there was one subject and four or five
> confederates. The confederates were instructed to give the wrong answers.
> Test subjects tended to fall into two groups: people who gave wrong answers
> just to stop making waves and people who actually came to believe they were
> wrong since everyone else gave the same "wrong" answer.
Moral presumption: To be liked rather than to be right is wrong.
> Stanley Milgram's 1963 studies on obedience were set up to analyze how the
> Nazi's could have compelled ordinary people to participate in the holocaust.
> He found that if a person in a white coat told experimental subjects to
> increase the level of shock to another subject (a confederate) the majority
> of subjects would do so even when the person they thought they were shocking
> protested screamed in pain and eventually stopped responding.
Moral presumption: To inflict pain on others is wrong.
> Philip Zimbarbo's Stanford Prison Experiment in 1971 showed that when
> college students were randomly assigned to be prisoners or guards in a
> prison simulation, they quickly adopted the attitudes of real prisoners and
> real guards. The experiment was cut short when there was concern about a
> prison riot and Zimbardo came to realize that he was thinking more like a
> "warden" than a researcher.
Moral presumption: To go along to get along is wrong.
> In 1964 the public murder of Kitty Genovese in New York City spawned a host
> of research on the conditions under which bystanders will take active or
> passive roles in the face of emergencies.
Moral presumption: To ignore helping others in need is wrong.
> These are all examples from the field of social psychology. In anthropology
> researchers typically study cultural groups and identify moral systems by
> observing and talking to members of the culture. In sociology researchers
> may study the ups and downs of statistics like high schools drop out rate,
> teen pregnancy, divorce rates and crime statistics. Psychologists often use
> questionnaires and rating scales to access attitudes and beliefs.
Moral presumptions: To drop out of school, become pregnant as a teen, get
divorced or commit a crime are wrong.
> In the 1950's Albert Bandura began a whole field of research on the effects
> of social learning and mimicry on aggressive behavior in children. He showed
> children films of an adult beating on a toy clown. Children who watch the
> film were more likely to play aggressively with the toy when given the
> opportunity. They were also more likely to find novel ways to beat on the
> toy. This research was extended to look at the effects of exposure to
> violent content in films and other media and recently Craig Anderson and
> Karen Dill have looked at the effect of violent video games on aggressive
> behavior.
Moral presumption: Childhood aggression is wrong.
> In 2002 the psychologist Daniel Kahneman received a Nobel Prize in economics
> for work he did with economist Amos Tversky on Prospect Theory. They looked
> as the heuristic devices that people use to access risk and make decisions.
> Their work has led to the development of a whole new field of behavioral
> economics that applies psychological research to economic theory.
Irrelevant to social morality.
> [Platt]
> As I understand it, science depends on accurate and repeatable
> measurements. How does one measure morals under infinitely variable
> situational and personal circumstances?
>
> [Krimel]
> Some of the experiments above have been repeated and some have not. Some
> resulted in changes in the ethical guidelines for the treatment of human
> subjects. Especially in the case of Milgram and Zimbardo the very study of
> morals caused the research and the research community to evaluated and
> change its own moral code.
. . . because of moral presumptions.
> Morality may be adopted by 'individuals' but it is about group behavior.
> Like physics which studies the behavior of groups of molecules in gases for
> example, the social sciences can look at groups of individuals. Like the
> hard sciences the social sciences use statistical analysis of data to
> construct and test theories.
Yes, I know. Science ignores individuals. That's both its strength and its
weakness. One need only study the history of eugenics to learn of science's
weakness when its conclusions are applied to groups of human beings.
> [Platt]
> Besides, you make the case for the scientific study of morals in a social
> context only. Pirsig has gone beyond that, extending the study of morality
> in physical, biological and intellectual contexts.
>
> [Krimel]
> Much as ZMM Pirsig attempts to show romantics that there is another way of
> understanding technology as an art form, I suspect he is trying to show
> Luddites that the laws of physic and biology "can" be understood in moral
> terms. I supposed this provides a kind of clarity for some and is harmless
> to some extent. However, when this devolves into viewing particles and rocks
> as agents following the still small voice within them, I think the metaphor
> has outlived its usefulness. Pirsig's levels of morality should not be seen
> as and excuse to avoid math.
Agree. But math and science should not be seen as excuse as to avoid
answers such as, "Why survive?"
> [Platt]
> If science can study morals as you claim, why can't it also tell us what we
> ought to do? After all, when it studies physics it can tell us how to land
> on Mars, or when it studies biology it can tell us how to fight disease.
> Seems to me the "soft" sciences leave much to be desired in terms of
> usefulness, compared to "real" science.
>
> [Krimel]
> Science does have a lot to say about what we ought to do. The whole idea of
> "natural rights" should rely heavily of studies in evolutionary biology and
> strategies that different species use for survival.
Care to amplify on "natural rights?"
> Studies of global
> warming and the local impact of pollution and growth on animal habitat and
> quality of life should have moral implications.
But what if the studies are flawed? Also, eugenics was promoted as
improving the quality of life.
> The problem often is that
> people have very deep seated beliefs and no amount of evidence will change
> those beliefs. Despite a lot of whining to the contrary science is not the
> supreme arbitrator of belief that some around here say that it is.
Happy to agree that science is not the supreme arbitrator of belief.
> Never the less there are a wide variety of ways in which studies from the
> social sciences are applied. Advertising and marketing firms use social
> sciences methods to assess and manipulate purchasing behavior. In politics
> pollsters assess people's beliefs and attitudes in order to affect or
> predict changes in public policy. Engineers use research on how subject
> interact with their products to build in design changes that make products
> more usable or appealing. Food companies do blind taste tests to "improve"
> their products. Remember the Pepsi Challenge. Architectural and design firms
> do the same sort of thing to creates structural designs that serve specific
> functions. Why are booths in fast food restaurant hard plastic while in
> sit-down restaurants they are cushy? The insurance industry is built upon
> assessing the probability of people engaging in risky behavior or fall
> victim to bad luck. The legal system often relies of expert testimony to
> determine the fitness of defendants to stand trial or to look at mitigating
> factors that may have influenced moral choices.
>
> There is wide spread and pervasive use of social science "technologies" to
> predict and control our behavior as citizens and as consumers. In fact if
> you are unaware of this manipulation, you may be easier to manipulate.
Don't know what this has to do with morality other than your moral
presumption that its wrong to "manipulate" people. (I'm sure you realize
the studies you mention above were prime cases of manipulation.)
Again, I apologize for asking a bogus question. If I could, I would give
you back the time you took to answer it. Unfortunately, my apology will
have to do.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
