Announcing a new science - its name is ETHICS

Check this out. Let me know your views after you have done the research by looking the document over: … 83948953&s

It helps to keep your mind open to new possibilities… Maybe - as this paper so well argues - Ethics can be a science after all.

Review it?



If this book doesn’t have animal rights or sexual frustration relief I want no part of it. Let me know this before I spend my time on this.

I do not believe this book will relieve one’s sexual frustration.

It does not discuss animal ethics, but the principles in it can easily be extended to include animals. The author thinks it would be plenty of an achievement to get humans to the point where they understood the priorities that are in their best self-interest - as the scientific findings indicate. The science shows how the human species can continue to exist, can even flourish. It will do this by - among other things - finding a balance, becoming aware of the web of the universe, seeing how everything fits.
This awareness, though, is an advanced stage of development which will be attained after everyone (or at least a critical mass) comprehend the ideas in the book …and a tipping point is then reached. Early education will play a large role - and, what the author refers to as “ethical technologies,” will also help bring an ethical world.

At he very least, it is highly-probable that anyone who takes the content of this book seriously will have a more-harmonious life, a happier life, and thus, in this sense, have a more-successful life. The reader will be pursuing his own personal optimal self-interest - and we will all be winners to that extent.

Those who, as a result of what they learned from this document, devote themselves to live an ethical life will be aware that the best way to teach ethics is by setting an example, in contrast to merely discussing concepts … The latter is what philosophers, and philosophy students, are likely to do - and what I have just done.

Yet, as we know, actions speak louder than words.

Still, it is true that “The pen is mightier than the sword.” [Cliches …or wisdom?]


Your thoughts?

My thoughts? Since when did society ever care about my thoughts? They are always looking out for #1- themselves.

“Society” is a fiction, a conceptual abstraction. Approach a living, conscious human being; ask him/her what he thinks about some current event or current policy. Listen. Then share your analysis of the topic with him/her. Gain concurrence on what the Ethical applications to this would be. Find some common ground. Agree on a plan of action to improve the policy or situation.

There is nothing wrong with an individual thinking of #1 (one’s own enhancement) as long as s/he is aware that s/he is a member of a species that needs to cooperate on shared worthwhile goals, and s/he is willing and ready to do so - for the mutual benefit that will result. The science of Ethics teaches the precise value to be gained in our engaging in win-win interactions. So let’s seek out noble goals and cooperate on achieving them efficiently and effectively.

The book cited in the first post above explains the difference between those two concepts: “efficiency” and “effectiveness.” It reports on many of the findings of the new science of Ethics, a discipline which one day will take its place of equal status alongside the science of Physics.

Comments? Book reviews? Questions?

It’s interesting that no one here is shocked by the notion that ethics can be ushered into science; that it can make the transition from Moral Philosophy into an empirical science.

When this topic was raised I anticipated more controversy. Now I am pleasantly surprised that the notion is noncontroversial.

The paper ETHICS; A College Course had a section defining what a science is. The document BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach
in its introduction explained what is fundamentally the main business of philosophy. The paper Living Well discussed the history: how Philosophy is the “Mother of the sciences.” Philosophy of Mind became the Science of Psychology; Astrology became Astronomy and Cosmology; Natural Philosophy became Physics; the philosophical ideas named “Politics” became Political Science. Cultural philosophy became Anthropology which later became part of the discipline Sociology. The philosophy of curing became the Science of Medicine today with its various branches: Anatomy; Physiology; Ophthalmology; Neurology; etc. So we see that before there was science there was philosophy as its precursor. The sciences were generated by Philosophy.

Now, with your help in defining moral terminology with a degree of precision, it is Ethics’ turn to make the transition.

Do you want to be a part of the adventure? What can you contribute? Now that a frame-of-reference, a framework, has been offered - as revealed in that little book … 000&sr=1-1

  • can you remain within that framework and help devise a more-rigorous network of concepts and ideas?

What do you say?

Controlled experimental evidence.

Yes, evidence.

But so far, not yet controlled.

Can you - i.e., anyone here who loves ethics and also science - aid in speeding up the progress?

[size=89]p.s. to James: by the way, my friend, the author, toward the end of the book, borrows [and rephrases] an idea he got from you, on the issue of transparency, in re its relevance as an ethical policy - consistent with the themes derived in the book’s framework.[/size]

The purpose of Science is to make a subject more indisputable, more ce3rtainly true through empirical evidence. The problem with applying science to ethics (or any social issue) is that one would have to do the following:
1) State a falsifiable principle or theory to be tested
2) State a hypothesis using the principle to predict an outcome
3) Experimentally demonstrate that using the principle caused the predicted outcome and not using it prevented the outcome (aka “falsifiable”).
When dealing with people, such a scientific method would require subjecting the people to specifically altered life styles, most of which must be intentionally less than the preferred. It is like proposing that a certain food is good for everyone and then proving it by denying that food to a large sample group to demonstrate that they die. Such is often done with animals and secretly to people, but consumer science can hardly advertise that it has scientifically proven that any particular set of ethics is superior.

Science must experiment with both the presence and the absence of the proposed ethics principles, strongly affecting people’s lives. And using history does not count and is not science. One can logically and rationally prove ethical principles to those few who can think rationally, but science cannot be used to empirically prove them. Such would be unethical.

I solved ethics and morality definitionally and falsifiably:

When suicide is committed, that is definitionally entailed from the premise that life has no meaning or purpose.

So you make suicide really hard to do, and nobody does it on one planet…

Then on another planet you make suicide easy and humane and nobody does it.

BY DEFINITION!! The culture of the second planet represents more purpose and meaning to live than the first one. Definitional; falsifiable.

People don’t like the factual answers to questions… Especially short ones for the big questions…

It makes them feel like they have nothing to do.

That however is the factual solution to both ethics and morality:

Whatever causes zero suicides when suicide is as easy and humane as possible is perfectly the science and solution to ethics and morality

Science is about matters of “is”, not “ought”. Ethics is about “oughts”. Ethics cannot be a science.

Science is about what works, not what is or what ought.

Newtonian forces never really existed, but the formulae presuming them worked pretty well. Space and Time aren’t really bent or warped, but Einstein’s and Lorentz’ formulae work really well. Particles don’t really appear and disappear in and out of reality but Quantum Mechanics formulae still work well.

Science doesn’t really care what is true, only what can be used … to control.

Yes, I agree that science is about what works.

The author of Living Successfully : … 83948953&s
argues that if one lives by the principles offered in that book, then it not only will work in your own life, but also work to benefit the entire human race, in that it will make an ethical world more probable …by the example you present and represent.

Logically, what works falls under the category of what “is”. “what works” as in, what is the most effective means at accomplishing a goal. The goal itself is based on an ought and subjectively decided.

There is no such thing as a science of ethics in the sense that “oughts” can be scientifically determined in the same way as statements of “is”.

I couldn’t totally agree with that.

Typical science principles are in the form of “Situation A leads to Situation B”, such as the behavior of gravitation and electromagnetic effects. Ethics does presuppose that a particular outcome is preferred rather than merely being concerned with a more neutral, "If we all do X, we can all get Y". But the science part of it is still valid (presuming actual science experimentation has been done).

Is it true that “If we all do X, we all will get Y”? That is a scientifically answerable question as long as abusing people in order to find the answer doesn’t get in the way. Whether anyone wants Y is also a question and requires a rational proof rather than an experimental proof, thus is outside of the scientific method. One could also ask if anyone wants gravity to pull things downward.

So I guess that I would say that the science involved in ethics is more a science of social interaction, Sociology and/or Psychology, with a presupposition that specific outcomes are preferred - not purely science but not void of scientific method.

The act of projecting a goal (what ought to happen), aka which outcome is preferred, is completely subjective. This is why ethics cannot be a science - because even if there is overlap between the preferred outcomes of a group of subjects, the preferred outcomes are still subjective.

But yes, once that goal is projected it is possible to objectively determine the most effective way of achieving the goal, and it is possible to evaluate the probability of that goal being achieved at all, aka how realistic it is.

I suspect that you have been misled into thinking that Science has always been objective. Most scientists probably think they are being objective, but such isn’t the case.

An example is the very notion that the Newtonian “forces” were ever observed to exist. They were not. They never existed. But from a subjective standpoint, they seemed to exist and thus the “Laws of Newton” were established. Later, Einstein proposed a different ontological perspective concerning Relativity. Relativity directly states that ALL measurements are subjective (aka “relative to the observer”). And Relativity is very largely accepted as “Science” merely because experiments were done to substantiate the predictions. Quantum Physics gets very seriously subjective in claiming that reality itself only exists when the observer is conscious of it - shamefully subjective, yet Quantum Physics, an obvious fairy tale mythology, is strongly sold as “Science”.

The experiments themselves MUST be objective, but the proposed truths of the principles involved (e.g. Newtonian forces, Einsteins bending of spacetime, Schrodinger’s half alive cat) have always been subjective. Science can only tell of what is necessarily NOT true. It cannot tell of what IS true. The scientists simply don’t know enough philosophy to realize it (and certainly not the general public).

And that is the “science” part of anything called “Science of Ethics” - the objective measurements and experiments.

It might take a while to realize that gravitational force was accepted as a real entity merely because the resultant effects from experiments subjectively inferred that a force was involved even though there never was any such force. In a similar way, “The Science of Ethics” might presume that an ethical goal is that everyone wants to be happy (the “force”) and then provide the formulae involved. It might turn out that in reality, everyone doesn’t want to be happy (although that would be strictly an issue of definition), but that fact would not prevent it from being a science any more than the subjective presumption of Newtonian forces prevented Newtonian physics from being a science or the proclamation that all measurements and reality itself is subjective prevented Relativity and Quantum Physics from be “Science”.

There is a physics of psychology that might very well lead to a physics of ethics. Personally, I can testify that such really is true, but my personal testimony is not “science”. :sunglasses:

Damn you guys piss me off!

How is suicide defined?

Taking ones own life.

Who do people take their own life?

Because it becomes meaningless to them in that context.

So, if there were no suicides, nobody would find meaninglessness in any context.

Meaning is what ethics and morality are about, an over arching drive for purpose laden life; Adding purpose to life’s equation.

So here’s the deal… That means there’s a lot of work to do!! Life on this earth has zero purpose, because a person commits suicide. Zero. None. Zip. Zilch.

And that’s in a world where people make it as hard to commit suicide as they can (because humans are just property to them and like spoiled brats they don’t want to be accountable or do any work to represent purpose) - imagine how much more work you must do if suicide is as easy and humane as possible…!!!

Now, it’s a no brainer that the premises are logically entailed in this instance, both definitionally and through experience.

That, and nothing else, is the science of ethics.

You are scrambling in your denial, because, to accept this necessary logical entailment, proves this universe has no current purpose, and you have no work to do. Existential work is much more difficult than manual labor.

James sidetracked me.

Science is about logically entailing definitions in a falsifiable manner.

It is not subjective to that regard.

When I am objectively alive, that pebble on the ground get kicked a bit while I’m walking, people notice I’m here. Etc…I am objectively always a subject that is objectively having an impact.

It is objectively true by definition, that if I suicide, I have made the decision in context of anti meaning to ethics and morality of living. If I’m murdered, I have not necessarily made that decision.

Science can’t tell you what goal you “ought” to choose. Only how to accomplish that goal and how probable (realistic) it is given human nature and circumstances.

The name “science of ethics” seems to me like it implies something else entirely, as if there was one ethical system which is superior to all others and which all must follow and abide by.

As if ethical matters of “what ought we do” can be solved by appealing to a standard external to the subject.

I understand and agree to your point, but I suspect that you might have missed mine.