At its core,

[CoccoBill]

I think it's fairly clear that there's some things in old folks' cultural wisdom and religious teachings that may be applicable today, just as there's a large amount that absolutely isn't. While our understanding of medicine evolves from blaming demons to blaming microbes, and we go from sacrificing virgins and goats to sacrificing our time and effort, so should every other previous notion be updated to fit our current surroundings and societies. What mechanisms are there, apart from science, to do that?

Flat earthers are a good example of what happens when you discard the science and just go with conventional wisdom and what "feels right". I'd certainly lean towards science being able to answer questions of morality, pretty much the only limitations to that are our knowledge and understanding. It's a simple algorithm really: which option minimizes net suffering (priority 1) and maximizes net happiness (priority 2).

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think it's fairly clear that there's some things in old folks' cultural wisdom and religious teachings that may be applicable today, just as there's a large amount that absolutely isn't.

Agreed.

I'd argue that whatever is applicable today is only applicable through interpretation. I.e. the actual facts in the story aren't a moral guide. Rather, the way we interpret and react to those facts is the moral guide. Which means that the specifics are not what's useful to us, but our modern, contemporary reaction is.

The genius is in the fact that, like wuf hinted at, these stories have managed to encode something meaningful to us, despite large separations in culture and time.

I'd certainly lean towards science being able to answer questions of morality, pretty much the only limitations to that are our knowledge and understanding. It's a simple algorithm really: which option minimizes net suffering (priority 1) and maximizes net happiness (priority 2).

Until and unless you can quantify and measure "net suffering" and "net happiness," science has nothing to say on these topics.

Furthermore, you'll need to find a way to demonstrate, via incontrovertible, observable data, that utilitarianism is always the superior moral framework above all other moral frameworks.

[CoccoBill]

Until and unless you can quantify and measure "net suffering" and "net happiness," science has nothing to say on these topics.

How I see it is that science is a tool. With homo sapiens wielding it circa 2020, no, we most likely can not exhaustively and precisely quantify and measure those. Still, I'm sure we could make pretty good qualitative assessments on many issues, far better than what eg. religion does currently. It might take a long time to perfect it, but what scientific endeavor doesn't? Science totally can (=could) answer if not all, at least most moral questions.

Let's try it the other way around, which moral question can not be answered by science?

Furthermore, you'll need to find a way to demonstrate, via incontrovertible, observable data, that utilitarianism is always the superior moral framework above all other moral frameworks.

I believe there's more flavors of utilitarianism than there's of Ben & Jerry's, I'm not at all sure what I'd endorse, most likely some version of consequentialism. I'd be satisfied with just showing whatever we'd decide to go with is better than what we currently have.

[MadMojoMonkey]

How I see it is that science is a tool. With homo sapiens wielding it circa 2020, no, we most likely can not exhaustively and precisely quantify and measure those. Still, I'm sure we could make pretty good qualitative assessments on many issues, far better than what eg. religion does currently. It might take a long time to perfect it, but what scientific endeavor doesn't? Science totally can (=could) answer if not all, at least most moral questions.

Science is a tool to help us avoid being tricked into believing something foolish, even when the person trying to convince us of the foolish is our past self.
As such, science deals in phenomena which can be unequivocally confirmed by any observer, without nuance. The only way to ensure that this is the case is to deal in quantifiable measurements. The application of statistics allows us to compare disparate quantities and determine whether or not those differences are significant.

Without this property, science loses any robustness of predictive power.

Let's try it the other way around, which moral question can not be answered by science?

All of them. Morality and ethics relies on how individuals feel about various potential actions and outcomes. There is no objective right or wrong. Only what it preferred and what it not.

E.g. we like to believe that murder is wrong, and punishable. However, state-sanctioned life-taking (of fellow humans) is OK, so long as enough of us (12 on a jury) agree that it's OK to take the life, or 1 special guy (POTUS) says it's OK to go "over there" and kill a whole bunch of people.

If it wasn't all shades of gray, then there wouldn't be any reason for continued debate after all these millennia of study.

I believe there's more flavors of utilitarianism than there's of Ben & Jerry's, I'm not at all sure what I'd endorse, most likely some version of consequentialism. I'd be satisfied with just showing whatever we'd decide to go with is better than what we currently have.

You're kind of making my point. There is no objectively "right" moral framework which can be incontrovertibly demonstrated to be superior to others.

The whole point of ethics is that it is a muddy affair where no single decision is going to increase happiness and/or reduce misery for all parties involved. (Not that we've yet demonstrated that this is a morally upright goal of our decisions.)

[CoccoBill]

All of them. Morality and ethics relies on how individuals feel about various potential actions and outcomes. There is no objective right or wrong. Only what it preferred and what it not.

I agree that there are grey areas, but I'd argue that in majority of cases there are quite clear objective verifiable rights and wrongs.

E.g. we like to believe that murder is wrong, and punishable. However, state-sanctioned life-taking (of fellow humans) is OK, so long as enough of us (12 on a jury) agree that it's OK to take the life, or 1 special guy (POTUS) says it's OK to go "over there" and kill a whole bunch of people.

Ok let's try. First, a crime has taken place and we need to decide what to do with the offender. Does killing the suspect 1) produce less suffering and 2) produce more happiness than not killing him? Killing him may give some small sense of justice and resolution for the loved ones of the victim (if there is one), but produce incredible suffering for the suspect. I would say this is a great example where morals of some people are completely out of whack, and it would be somewhat trivial to demonstrate it.

In the war scenario, again, will starting a war minimize suffering (of humans, or life on the planet, not just some arbitrary bunch of people) and maximize happiness? I can't think of many scenarios where this would be the case. Another great example where a more accurate moral compass would be needed.
If it wasn't all shades of gray, then there wouldn't be any reason for continued debate after all these millennia of study.

You're kind of making my point. There is no objectively "right" moral framework which can be incontrovertibly demonstrated to be superior to others.

The whole point of ethics is that it is a muddy affair where no single decision is going to increase happiness and/or reduce misery for all parties involved. (Not that we've yet demonstrated that this is a morally upright goal of our decisions.)

You're giving me way too much credit. Just because I can't come up with one on the spot doesn't mean it can't be done.

[Poopadoop]

How do you quantify this happiness? You need some objective measure if science is going to provide an answer. Say you adopt a utilitarian approach - Do you ask people 'rate your happiness on a scale of 0-10 for options A and B, and the add up the scores? That's pretty subjective - how do you know my '8 happiness' is the same as your '8 happiness'? Also, the statistics would rely on their being some linear relationship between the values - iow, '8 happiness' needs to be four times as much as '2 happiness'. This seems like a difficult assumption to defend.

Reason can be useful in pointing out the grey areas. For example, if someone is in constant pain with terminal cancer, applying a universal 'thou shalt not kill' moral code seems questionable (to be fair, the code is really 'thou shalt not kill humans', since no-one would think twice about putting an animal out of their suffering). In that case, one could argue that the universal code makes no sense, since the person's quality of life is going to be awful, and no life is almost certainly better than a life of constant suffering with no hope of improvement.

But pointing out the grey areas is about as far as reason can go. It can't quantify things like happiness or well-being or justice, as these are subjective qualities.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I agree that there are grey areas, but I'd argue that in majority of cases there are quite clear objective verifiable rights and wrongs.

Are they so clear that you'd expect widespread consensus agreement from all people?
Or is tyranny of the majority enough?
Is tyranny of the majority moral?
If so, by what argument? (Recall: majorities have decided that slavery is moral, genocide is moral, etc.)

I.e. that guy thinks murdering humans is a fundamental human right, and necessary to the growth of human cultures. Is it morally OK to disregard his position on this? Is it morally OK for a majority to assert moral dominance on others simply because they outnumber them?

Ok let's try. First, a crime has taken place and we need to decide what to do with the offender. Does killing the suspect 1) produce less suffering and 2) produce more happiness than not killing him? Killing him may give some small sense of justice and resolution for the loved ones of the victim (if there is one), but produce incredible suffering for the suspect. I would say this is a great example where morals of some people are completely out of whack, and it would be somewhat trivial to demonstrate it.

In the war scenario, again, will starting a war minimize suffering (of humans, or life on the planet, not just some arbitrary bunch of people) and maximize happiness? I can't think of many scenarios where this would be the case. Another great example where a more accurate moral compass would be needed.

For the criminal, see above. Is tyranny of the majority an acceptable way to determine which moral argument is "really moral."

For the war, similar problem. The problem is that the people you're warring with have congruent arguments about why it is YOU who is the morally corrupt aggressor, while they are the righteous defenders of their cultural and traditional way of life.

You're giving me way too much credit. Just because I can't come up with one on the spot doesn't mean it can't be done.

That's fair, but not at the same time. You assert this should be possible, but you have no idea how to make it happen.
This is certainly worth exploring and noting that you are not the first to posit this idea. It's worth examining how and why other similar suggestions have failed to yet yield any fruit.

I assert that this is a common human feeling / reaction to this topic, and that when you dig past what seems moral in one culture seeming immoral in other cultures, and neither has any convincing reason for their opinions, it becomes less clear. I.e. I assert that it seems simple when you assume that what is moral in your local area is the only working moral framework.

[CoccoBill]

Are they so clear that you'd expect widespread consensus agreement from all people?
Or is tyranny of the majority enough?
Is tyranny of the majority moral?
If so, by what argument? (Recall: majorities have decided that slavery is moral, genocide is moral, etc.)

Absolutely not, I definitely wouldn't ask people or trust their moral compasses. Slavery and genocide are great examples of why not. The whole point is to not ask anyone but base morals on neutral data. I don't mean using statistics to find out which morals are most popular, but find out what's "right", the collective best outcome for everyone and everything.

I.e. that guy thinks murdering humans is a fundamental human right, and necessary to the growth of human cultures. Is it morally OK to disregard his position on this?

If it can be proven that murdering creates less suffering and more happiness than not murdering, no.

Is it morally OK for a majority to assert moral dominance on others simply because they outnumber them?

For the criminal, see above. Is tyranny of the majority an acceptable way to determine which moral argument is "really moral."

Not automatically. If option a creates x amount of suffering for 1 person and option b x amount of suffering for 5 people, option a should be taken every time. Not because more people are affected, but because of less total suffering created.

For the war, similar problem. The problem is that the people you're warring with have congruent arguments about why it is YOU who is the morally corrupt aggressor, while they are the righteous defenders of their cultural and traditional way of life.

If you're starting a war, it's only moral to do so if starting it will minimize suffering and maximize happiness (ms&mh from now on) for everyone, also the people you're warring with, or more generally everyone involved. Morals should have absolutely nothing to do with race, religion, geography or other arbitrary and irrelevant things. If someone else is starting a war against you, it probably wouldn't and shouldn't be morally acceptable to start fighting back, unless it would ms&mh compared to surrendering.

That's fair, but not at the same time. You assert this should be possible, but you have no idea how to make it happen.
This is certainly worth exploring and noting that you are not the first to posit this idea. It's worth examining how and why other similar suggestions have failed to yet yield any fruit.

Oh I absolutely am not, I just happened to watch Sam Harris's Ted talk on the subject a few years back and it resonated.

https://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris...w_what_s_right
https://www.edge.org/event/the-new-science-of-morality

I assert that this is a common human feeling / reaction to this topic, and that when you dig past what seems moral in one culture seeming immoral in other cultures, and neither has any convincing reason for their opinions, it becomes less clear. I.e. I assert that it seems simple when you assume that what is moral in your local area is the only working moral framework.

I by no means think my local or even my own moral framework is right. Rather, I would posit no one's is, that's exactly why we'd need an impartial neutral judge. Morals are just about what's right and wrong, they should not at their core be up for debate but objective clear facts. The only reason it gets murky is that our personal experiences vary, feelings are subjective. Still, I see that just as a challenge (maybe in some cases a limitation), not as an immovable barrier. Or, I guess, maybe there could be some things in this that could be solved by statistical surveys, such as metrics for perceived suffering and happiness.