Science of Morality, Anyone?

[coberst]

Science of Morality, Anyone?/

Where, in American culture, is the domain of knowledge that we would identify as morality studied and taught?

I suspect that if we do not quickly develop a science of morality that will make it possible for us to live together on this planet in a more harmonious manner our technology will help us to destroy the species and perhaps the planet soon.

It seems to me that we have given the subject matter of morality primarily over to religion. It also seems to me that if we ask the question ‘why do humans treat one another so terribly?’ we will find the answer in this moral aspect of human culture.

The ‘man of maxims’ “is the popular representative of the minds that are guided in their moral judgment solely by general rules, thinking that these will lead them to justice by a ready-made patent method, without the trouble of exerting patience, discrimination, impartiality—without any care to assure themselves whether they have the insight that comes from a hardly-earned estimate of temptation, or from a life vivid and intense enough to have created a wide fellow-feeling with all that is human.” George Eliot The Mill on the Floss

We can no longer leave this important matter in the hands of the Sunday-school. Morality must become a top priority for scientific study.

[Patheya]

coberst!
what do you get from sending these posts? Why do you do it? Its a personal question, but I'm really interested.

[coberst]

I am convinced that we (citizens of the USA) must become more intellectually sophisticated quickly if we wish to save the species from self destruction.

We have developed a technology that places in our hands far more power than we have the sophistication to manage safely; the present economic crisis is an example.

I am a self-actualizing self-learner and I am confident that only if many more citizens become such self-learners will we have any chance of saving our species and perhaps even the planet.

I read lots of stuff and write as an aid to learning. I post many of my writings in the hope that my readers will become engaged with the idea of the post and with the idea to become self-learners.

[Patheya]

I am convinced that we (citizens of the USA) must become more intellectually sophisticated quickly if we wish to save the species from self destruction.

We have developed a technology that places in our hands far more power than we have the sophistication to manage safely; the present economic crisis is an example.

I am a self-actualizing self-learner and I am confident that only if many more citizens become such self-learners will we have any chance of saving our species and perhaps even the planet.

I read lots of stuff and write as an aid to learning. I post many of my writings in the hope that my readers will become engaged with the idea of the post and with the idea to become self-learners.

I understand. Thank you for caring.

[Thomas Knierim]

In Europe, ethics is part of the philosophy curriculum, which is taught in high schools. I am not sure if one could call it "science of morality"; it's more an investigation of historical ideas that surround morality. Isn't philosophy taught as a high school subject in the US?

Cheers, Thomas

[Akamu]

In Europe, ethics is part of the philosophy curriculum, which is taught in high schools. I am not sure if one could call it "science of morality"; it's more an investigation of historical ideas that surround morality. Isn't philosophy taught as a high school subject in the US?

Cheers, Thomas

Philosophy was not even offered in my highschool, nor am I aware of it being taught at any other highschool in my city. If you ask the average teenager here, they wouldn't be able to tell you what philosophy is.

[the_aphid]

In Europe, ethics is part of the philosophy curriculum, which is taught in high schools. I am not sure if one could call it "science of morality"; it's more an investigation of historical ideas that surround morality. Isn't philosophy taught as a high school subject in the US?

Cheers, ThomasI haven't heard of philosophy being offered in any Canadian high schools either. Once I took my first philosophy course in University (as an elective) I couldn't help by wonder why such a course wasn't mandatory in high school alongside mathematics, chemistry, biology, english, etc.

[coberst]

We have inherited certain moral instincts from our non human animal ancestors. These moral impulses are essential for our social harmony and for our survival as a species. We have allowed religion to take command of these matters and have failed to focus our rational abilities on these matters. A study of our history shows the disaster that has resulted. We have developed a technology that places great power in our hands and we lack the sophistication, especially in matters of morality, to control such great power.

We have the ability to perform a systematic and disciplined study (science) of any domain of knowledge. I am aiming for a science of morality and thereby to remove the impression that this is a responsibility only for theologians and priests. If we do not get a handle on this matter we will surly self-destruct before long.

[coberst]

I haven't heard of philosophy being offered in any Canadian high schools either. Once I took my first philosophy course in University (as an elective) I couldn't help by wonder why such a course wasn't mandatory in high school alongside mathematics, chemistry, biology, english, etc.

I think that one can properly say that CT (Critical Thinking) is philosophy lite. CT should be taught in K-12 but is done so in few if any schools. The core of CT is Logic 101, which is the fundamental course in the art and science of reasoning.

We must make judgments constantly in our life and it is a disgrace that our (USA) educational system fails to teach CT which can be called the art and science of good judgment.

I am convinced that this slight in our educational system is intentional. Those who determine public policy want an uncritical and docile citizenry so that they can more easily gain their selfish goals.

[sonrisa]

I have to agree with you here Coberst. I thought dubya was/is unqualified to be Prez, but this last election cycle takes the cake!! How did we end up with an even more unqualified doofus?!!? Cuz people bought some idiot dog & pony bs about change?!!? What sort of change? Am I gonna like this so-called change? Will it be beneficial to me in the long run? Or even the short run? Did anybody get any straight answers? Then there was all the misogyny going on, but that's another topic. How much you wanna bet this "change" turns out to be same old same old? We're in for a rough 4 years.

[Chan Tiger]

In Europe, ethics is part of the philosophy curriculum, which is taught in high schools. I am not sure if one could call it "science of morality"; it's more an investigation of historical ideas that surround morality. Isn't philosophy taught as a high school subject in the US?


Sadly, no. I even attended a private high school and it was only offered as an elective. The US education system is in need of a serious overhaul and a lot more investment. Much of this has to do with the "No Child Left Behind" Act, but our school system was in pretty poor shape even before that law was passed. I think more emphasis on science, foreign languages, and the development of civic skills are required.

We have the ability to perform a systematic and disciplined study (science) of any domain of knowledge. I am aiming for a science of morality and thereby to remove the impression that this is a responsibility only for theologians and priests. If we do not get a handle on this matter we will surly self-destruct before long.

While religious figures do concern themselves with ethics and morality, I hardly think they have a monopoly on the subject. For as long as I've been alive the opinions of psychologists, cognitive scientists, and professional philosophers have been given far more weight in the public eye than the writings of theologians. Your complaint seems to be ignoring the volumes that have been written on the subject of ethics from a secular, "scientific" standpoint.

I also think you're missing an important fact, namely that the study of "ethics" doesn't necessarily make one behave more ethically. If that were so, then philosophy professors and grad students would be world-renowned humanitarians. As it happens, many of the great figures of compassion in the 20th century were religious people, like Mahatma Gandhi, the Reverend Martin Luther King, and Thich Nhat Hanh.

How much you wanna bet this "change" turns out to be same old same old? We're in for a rough 4 years.

Boy you said it, Sonrisa. Far from being a triumph of American democracy, I'd say the 2008 election is nothing more than a triumph of American advertising. But that's probably far from the original subject of this thread.

[Flux]

No philosophy class was taught in my highschool either. Personally, I think that an ethics course in highschool would be an excellent way to foster morality. Although I don't think that any particular moral code should be taught dogmatically in schools, perhapse it would encourage individuals to not be blatantly contradictory in their moral practices, at the very least.

I'm not sure that ethics can ever be a "scientific" study in quite the way that physics or biology is. It's organized, but it deals with matters of value, which are not physically detectable. It is of course possible to conduct scientific studies on what states of affairs are conducive to happiness, but science itself can never tell justify the claim that Ghandi was more virtuous than Hitler. I do think that ethics

[coberst]

No philosophy class was taught in my highschool either. Personally, I think that an ethics course in highschool would be an excellent way to foster morality. Although I don't think that any particular moral code should be taught dogmatically in schools, perhapse it would encourage individuals to not be blatantly contradictory in their moral practices, at the very least.

I'm not sure that ethics can ever be a "scientific" study in quite the way that physics or biology is. It's organized, but it deals with matters of value, which are not physically detectable. It is of course possible to conduct scientific studies on what states of affairs are conducive to happiness, but science itself can never tell justify the claim that Ghandi was more virtuous than Hitler. I do think that ethics

There seems to much confusion about the meaning of science. I would say that science is the disciplined and systematic study of a domain of knowledge. Science is not just the study of objects that can be measured with calipers and scales. One might say that there are sciences of objects and human sciences.