Can our intellectual capacities lead us astray morally?

[tonychanyt]

​

Terence Cuneo said:

Evolution has thrown up all sorts of capacities. … We have the capacity to do theoretical physics, high-level mathematics and so on and so forth. We don't have too many worries in that case. We do a pretty good job in getting out the truth.

Agree.

I think when it comes to morality, it is not clear to me that we have new worries or additional worries that somehow our intellectual capacities are leading us astray in this domain as opposed to these other domains.

Emphasis added.

It is clear to me that the study of theoretical physics and the analysis of morality are fundamentally different.

First, theoretical physics needs tons of numbers derived from observations in experiments. My worry #1: the study of morality so far does not require collecting vast experimental data.

Second, after collecting the data, physicists formulate mathematical equations using these numbers as inputs to predict an outcome (the output of the equation). Worry #2: I have seen not many equations in the study of morality.

Science is driven by data and verification of equations; traditional moral philosophy does not share the same drive. Cuneo failed to see this fundamental distinction.

Consider the Dark Forest Hypothesis: When a superior civilization detects intelligence from another planet, it will automatically, preemptively, and summarily destroy that planet to avoid the potential Thucydides Trap. Don't allow them to evolve to become your enemy and destroy you. Kill them before they kill you. That's their intellectual logic on morality.

See also

• Is morality subjective?

 

[linux.poet]

AMBASSADOR HAT​

This thread has been moved from Bibliology & Hermeneutics to Christian Philosophy and Ethics. This topic is not about how the Bible is being studied or translated; it's about how the nature of morality is derived (or not derived) from physics.

 

[timf]

1Jn 1:8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Rom_2:15b ... and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

The human mind has a great capacity for self[deception.

 

[com7fy8]

Science is driven by data and verification of equations; traditional moral philosophy does not share the same drive.

God's morality is based on what God knows is and is not done in the Holy Spirit.

If God says not to do something, this is because He knows that wrong thing will be in Satan's evil spirit >

"the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience." (in Ephesians 2:2)

I suppose you could do some statistical studies about what happens in and to people who do different things. Ask how the person becomes during a given studied activity, and see if God's word forbids this activity or not.

 

[Jermayn]

​

Terence Cuneo said:

Agree.

Emphasis added.

It is clear to me that the study of theoretical physics and the analysis of morality are fundamentally different.

First, theoretical physics needs tons of numbers derived from observations in experiments. My worry #1: the study of morality so far does not require collecting vast experimental data.

Second, after collecting the data, physicists formulate mathematical equations using these numbers as inputs to predict an outcome (the output of the equation). Worry #2: I have seen not many equations in the study of morality.

Science is driven by data and verification of equations; traditional moral philosophy does not share the same drive. Cuneo failed to see this fundamental distinction.

Consider the Dark Forest Hypothesis: When a superior civilization detects intelligence from another planet, it will automatically, preemptively, and summarily destroy that planet to avoid the potential Thucydides Trap. Don't allow them to evolve to become your enemy and destroy you. Kill them before they kill you. That's their intellectual logic on morality.

See also

• Is morality subjective?

The previous posts pretty much hit the nail on the head, however, I'd like to add and illustration. Imagine if we found a new source of energy that was far superior to anything we have now and would solve all our energy problems. Imagine never having to worry about pollution or radiation and the cost was a fraction of what we have now. You can be certain that someone would turn it into a weapon that would threaten all life on Earth. Our intellect can be the same double-edged sword. Some use it to glorify God, and others use it to try to erase God.

 

[stevevw]

​

Terence Cuneo said:

Agree.

Emphasis added.

It is clear to me that the study of theoretical physics and the analysis of morality are fundamentally different.

First, theoretical physics needs tons of numbers derived from observations in experiments. My worry #1: the study of morality so far does not require collecting vast experimental data.

Second, after collecting the data, physicists formulate mathematical equations using these numbers as inputs to predict an outcome (the output of the equation). Worry #2: I have seen not many equations in the study of morality.

Science is driven by data and verification of equations; traditional moral philosophy does not share the same drive. Cuneo failed to see this fundamental distinction.

Consider the Dark Forest Hypothesis: When a superior civilization detects intelligence from another planet, it will automatically, preemptively, and summarily destroy that planet to avoid the potential Thucydides Trap. Don't allow them to evolve to become your enemy and destroy you. Kill them before they kill you. That's their intellectual logic on morality.

See also

• Is morality subjective?

This is summed up by Hume with his famous quote. You can't get and "ought from an is'. The is–ought problem where what is, what is explains as what is in the sciences and physical world cannot explain an ought, what the 'is' (the natural world) ought to do.

In practical terms logic, mathmatics, scientific naturalism, empiricalism, deterministic processes, feelings and preferences cannot explain or account for morality.

 

[Aaron112]

The previous posts pretty much hit the nail on the head, however, I'd like to add and illustration. Imagine if we found a new source of energy that was far superior to anything we have now and would solve all our energy problems. Imagine never having to worry about pollution or radiation and the cost was a fraction of what we have now. You can be certain that someone would turn it into a weapon that would threaten all life on Earth. Our intellect can be the same double-edged sword. Some use it to glorify God, and others use it to try to erase God.

There is so much posted all through the forum with ideas based on false premises , thus nothing stands testing. All sinks as in quicksand. A mere wind blows 85% of the threads gone, nothing left of them, no substance.\
Far superior was developed and used before 1906.
No worry about pollution or radiation.
The cost was/maybe still is?/ a fraction of what we have now.
Instead of threatening any life on earth, it would have enhanced everyone's life on earth,
IF IT WAS PERMITTED .....
the money mongers forbid it.

 

[Aaron112]

God's morality is based on what God knows is and is not done in the Holy Spirit.
If God says not to do something, this is because He knows that wrong thing will be in Satan's evil spirit >

In God's Word, The Bible, A lot is forbidden that is practiced every day in this dark sinful world.
as noted: in the sons of disobedience (worldwide, everywhere)

"the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience." (in Ephesians 2:2)
I suppose you could do some statistical studies about what happens in and to people who do different things. Ask how the person becomes during a given studied activity, and see if God's word forbids this activity or not.

How the person becomes? (or continues?)
Dead?
Blind?
God's Word remains un-heard, dishonored, disobeyed, unknown.

 

[com7fy8]

How the person becomes? (or continues?)
Dead?
Blind?

If the person becomes dead . . . that would keep the person from answering the question about how the person became in connection with a specific wrong activity.

Depending on the activity studied, there are various ways we can become in connection with a sin.

depressed

frustrated

confused

hurt but blaming somebody else

angry

bitter

unforgiving

emotionally degraded

And this is part of why God says not to do certain things. Why find out the hard way?

Prayer has been studied statistically, and claims have been made that ones getting prayer for a medical thing tended to do better than ones who did not get prayer.

And I am told that one study noted that wives had worsening depression in connection with increased arguing in their marriages.

Of course, God's word says not to argue > Philippians 2:13-16.

So, why find out the hard way?