Science and Morality Discussion – Description
Scientific research can provide a reliable framework for understanding much of the world around us. However, some argue that science has limitations, particularly in the areas of ethics and morality. For example, science can tell us how atom bombs are made, but it cannot tell us whether atom bombs should be made. Meanwhile, there are others who argue that science can answer moral questions. For example, neuroscientist and philosopher Dr. Sam Harris argues that science should be an authority on moral issues because it can tell us about the conditions that promote human well-being. In fact, Dr. Harris believes that science can provide objective moral truths that transcend religion. Just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, Dr. Harris argues, there can be no Christian or Muslim morality.
Dr. Harris defines morality as that which is shown by science to promote human well-being. Do you see any potential challenges with this definition? Explain.
How can science be a valuable tool in guiding our ethical and moral decision-making? Can you think of any examples or situations where science could provide a better roadmap for morality than religion?
Consider what you have learned so far about the strengths and limitations of behavioral science research. Even if we accept Dr. Harris’ arguments, what questions or limitations remain?
The post Science and Morality Discussion first appeared on .
