How can one use science to determine what is ethical and what is not?

Question

I mean, people are judging what science says about the world as fact and as the 'way of the universe', so people better understand what they are percieving..

But to those scientists who do not follow a specific religion or philosophy- how can you as near to objectivity as possible determine what constitutes as being ethical, and what does not?

If you simply consider it to be the laws of the land then are you happy with that? Is it enough, is it not enough?

How can one attempt to identify objective moral practices?

I'd love some thoughtful answers to this. =)

As a biologist, I'm curious to know whether there is a 'right'/'wrong' decision making region of the brain, which may be different for people, but nonetheless can be measured & experimented with.

Hello world- You're right and that quote is accutate I think. If you could study what was right and wrong it would vary from location to location, due so social influence I'm sure, so perhaps testing young children would provide examples of individuals less conditioned by society. Then the ideas and thoughts may well be solely with the responcibility of the parent..

Answer 1

AH, the ol' "How can a person have morals if they don't have them predefined by religious dogma" question.

Simply put, one can decide on moral direction the same way one decides to make a lane change in busy traffic. No pre-written rule or bible is going to tell you how to correctly change lanes in every possible situation. You must decide for yourself based on your personal situation, your known abilities, and the potential outcome(s) of your choices. And you make the decision that will most likely lead to a desireable outcome. If someone relied only on the limited text of an instruction book (or bible) to make lane changes, they could fail to do the right thing and possibly not even know it.

In the case of moral decision, it is people who follow "a specific religion or philosophy", not the scientists, that are the ones that are blindly following the "laws of the land". They rely on text and dogma to define their moral features, instead of personal choice. And, like the lane change example, will probably fail to make the proper choices for lack of pre-determined guidance in the face of a unique personal situation.

Answer 2

What you ask is a philosophical question and cannot be answered by science (or scientifically). The question of morality lies within the individual and the individual only. Morality (like philosophy) is self reasoning, self realization, and self reflection. Therefore, the result of that is a self moral code based on your own logic and observations.That is the true essence of morality and truth.

Just because we follow laws established by the government, does that mean we're ethical people? Not necessarily. When you do something because you "have to", it is a duty and a responsibility. It can be an admirable quaility, but what about when you talk of love, religion, or ethics? In America, It would be seen as cowardly if you were to be with someone out of duty and not because you're in love. The bottom line is that we need to stay true to ourselves and act on what we think is right without fear of consequence. Obviously there are exceptions such as emotionally unstable people, but that is understood.

To answer your questions clearly, it is NOT enough to just abide by the laws. You need to understand why you do the things you do (and why you feel the way you do). The law is only there to guide us (just like the ten commandments)...the true test is what we do when no one is watching. It is important that we have a strong sense of identity to have a solid foundation of beliefs. This is not an overnight transformation so one should be open minded and continuously look to improve upon his/her self. Life is about learning and adapting, so your ideals will change and evolve (for the better hopefully) as you experience life.

Answer 3

Scientific Materialists might propose a kind of pragmatism based upon results as a source for ethics. The results in given cases would serve as an objective criteria for judgements. Of course, like so many ethical systems, this might raise more questions and objections, than provide answers and solutions.

Answer 4

you're good bearing directly to the top of the large bang concept. With the creation of the Hubble deep field telescope we've found out a lot extra bearing directly to the universe. working example that's a lot extra suitable than we concept. The extra we seem the extra we hit upon and it supplies each suggestion that it is going on into infinity in all guidelines. There are rivers of galaxies flowing by the universe, all getting in diverse guidelines and at diverse speeds, and a few are dashing up, some are slowing down. the large bang concept ought to no longer probably account for those phenomena and basically relatively ever labored as much as the galactic point. even nevertheless it replaced right into a competent attempt thinking that's Victorian physics. you will no longer locate any secret in physics, you need to bypass to quantum physics to locate actual mysteries. lol in case you have an interest have a study up on the hot Unified field concept, the math are impeccable. The universe is countless and there replaced into no beginning up, and there will be no end. in simple terms countless sequence of smaller cycles interior extra suitable ones. No beginning up, no end, no god. God is a blanket expression to label lack of know-how, no longer a widespread invisible sky fairy to choose for upon. training Shaman... quantum physics rocks.

Answer 5

its a decision one makes as in what to follow or apply and what not to. so one can use science in a way he/she wants to. for some it maybe moral for some it maybe immoral.
i believe its the instinct which decides what is right or not. and to use any knowledge or stream(like science etc) the background of the knowledge gained is important. that is if the knowledge gained from a background where the teachers and situations around which you learn believe in their own moral practices then the pupils tend to follow it.
but behind every knowledge there is one larger knowledge which is instinct and beliefs.

Answer 6

One example, abortion. Abortions are routinely performed up to 24 weeks, babies born as early as 19 weeks are surviving with proper care, medical advances and science have made this possible, so killing a child who could technically survive outside the womb in my opinion is unethical.

Answer 7

I'd like to share with you the viewpoint of

A Nuclear Scientist:
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/2004/1/22a/article_01.htm
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20020608/article_01.htm
http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/2004/12/1/article_01.htm

Answer 8

"Sin is geographical." - Bertrand Russell

What is ethical and acceptable in one society might not be in another, because we follow the rules that have been established before us in our close surroundings.

Social rules are more regional than universal, however, science is only universal.

Answer 9

its "caring" ... the
scary scaring
leaves altered perception
hence altered reaction
hence that middle
ground called ethics ...
amazing what science can do
but is it the humane thing to do
PASSION is
a powerful emotion
as is COMPASSION
make sad but from my shoes its who gets the better lawyer wins ... lets talk about money money ... cant recall who sings it