Louis wrote:
> Jim, good morning. Still a bit dark by you at this time. Still have a
> question for you. Understand, that I am not taking sides. If science, as
> you say, does offer a "reasonable basis for a moral system," could you
> present both the nature of that basis as well as the dictums of that moral
> system which is built upon it.
I can make a good start at that, Louis.
Given the following postulates which can be supported by reference to the
history of modern science (i.e., the period beginning at the time the
influence of the Church was effectively removed from the regulation of
scientific inquiry), an entire system of morals amenable to a successful
society can be developed:
1. Science represents a legitimate search for truth, using tools based on
the so-called scientific method (in a group of this nature, it would seem
redundant to itemize that method--most of us teach it to our students).
2. Logic (as a structured form of analysis) forms the basis for science
(i.e., all scientific theories and postulates must, at some level, be
demonstrable to be logically consistent).
3. The objective of science is to further human knowledge and capability.
4. All laws, theories, postulates, and principles of any legitimate science
are, by definition, subject to change if new evidence is discovered which
refutes them.
5. The preservation and perpetuation of human life is essential to maximize
the potential to further human knowledge and capability (as given in
postulate 3 above).
6. Human life can be preserved and human potential maximized most
efficiently by including the emotional well being of the individual in any
projected scientific research.
From these it follows that the goals of science, ultimately, focus on the
preservation and enhancement of life, regard for the best interests of the
individual, and maximization of human potential. From a philosophical
perspective this clearly indicates that science, in its own best interests,
is served by enhancing the quality of human life. Because such a goal
necessitates the implementation of a system of philosophy which values the
individual while simultaneously focusing on the needs of the group (both the
"forest and the trees" are equally important--thus science demonstrates the
same behaviors at both the macro and micro levels, consistent with the
principles above), by necessity that philosophy cannot be one which
knowingly harms or limits the intellectual or emotional range of human
experience, nor can it limit the opportunity for the maximization of
individual potential.
Religion, on the other hand, while supporting the same goal with respect to
preserving human life, does not take the individual into account with
respect to maximizing human potential when that maximization may come into
conflict with principles the individual is required to "accept on faith."
Thus, unlike science, the postulates and laws of which are subject to
challange and revision, the postulates and laws of religion are static and
not subject to change. As a result in an evolving society the fundamental
core principles are rigid and inflexible and must be accepted as "fact"
regardless of any potential conflict with scientific evidence. In addition,
the emotional and intellectual range of human experience are, by definition,
limited to those experiences consistent with these inflexible laws and thus
human potential cannot be maximized.
Given a choice between a system in which human potential is maximized,
human well being is a central goal, and the advancement of knowledge is the
focus and a system in which all of these principles are limited by the
necessity to adhere to laws based not on logic or scientific research, but
on faith in the words of others alone, it is clear that the former system
demonstrates a far higher level of "morality" in any meaningful sense than
does the latter.
A logician could, of course, do a far better job of "proving" these
statements, I used very casual forms of presentation which, given the
educational level of the audience, should be sufficient to demonstrate the
consistency of the conclusions.
To add just a touch of "psychology" to this message, if we apply the
"morality" of both religion (using modern Christianity as our example) and
science (using psychology--absent the limitations on publication set by the
APA as a result of religious pressure in society) to examine the recent
article on child sexual abuse discussed in this group:
1. Christianity takes the position that in any and all instances sexual
interactions between adults and non-adults ("children" is misleading--in
some states a "child" is under 14, in other s/he is under "18" and there is
a great deal of difference between consensual sex between an 18 year old and
a 17 year old and between a 10 year old and a 40 year old) are "evil" and
harmful to the "innocence" of the non-adult. Religion does not permit
exceptions to be made to this rule, it is set by their "laws" and not
subject to examination (other than to alter the age of "non-adulthood"
according to the society). Thus any research examining such relationship
must, by necessity, demonstrate the above results or it is unacceptable and
may not be published (or conducted).
2. Science takes the position that current evidence indicates strongly that
sexual interactions between adults and non-adults are, under most
circumstances, harmful. Unlike religion, science does not define such "age
of consent" related situations a given above (between the 17 year old and
the 18 year old) as necessarily harmful or even undesirable, but it would
agree with religion (based on evidence) that the interaction between the 40
year old and the 10 year old was, under nearly any circumstances,
undesirable and harmful to the 10 year old. Thus science, unlike religion,
is willing to examine the issue in relative, versus absolute, terms and
seeks to learn the truth (through non-exploitative research) so that it can
more accurately portray a model of the nature of the actual results likely
to occur from such interactions. Also, unlike religion, it is willing to
modify its rules at any time the evidence demonstrates them to be in error
(which can occur if the standards of behavior of a society change). Thus,
unlike religion which limits the publication of factual information that
could be used to determine reasonable societal responses to various
behaviors, science itself would encourage such publication (in a peer
reviewed manner, designed to insure scientific integrity, of course).
The former limits intellectual freedom and the evolution of society, the
latter enhances it. From a moral perspective which would you, personally,
see as the more moral?
Louis, you are an historian. As such, you are well aware that the concept
of adolescence is an artificial construct based on the need for longer
periods of education which resulted from the industrial revolution. It is
very likely that your great grandmother was married and giving birth well
before the age now considered legal to engage in sexual activities (i.e.,
the defined age of "adulthood"). Would you define your great grandmother as
being a victim of child sexual abuse by her husband? Or would you view the
situation in the context of the era and state that at that time her sexual
activities were both normal and healthy? If the latter is closer to your
view, then by necessity you support the scientific concept of evolutionary
societal values, and thus acknowledge the validity of scientific morality
yourself.
Just something to think about,
Rick
--
Rick Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College, Jackson, MI
"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds
will be the love you leave behind when you're gone."
Michael Callen, the Flirtations, "Everything Possible"
