Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies






The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.


Search the IEET
Subscribe and Contribute to:


Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view




whats new at ieet

America’s best-kept sex secret: lots of us don’t want it

Living Machines 2015

Free Will Does Not Exist - Should it be a Transhumanist Enhancement?

Vita-More, Rothblatt, Hughes @ Juniata H+ Conference

Will Transhumanism Lead to Greater Freedom?

The Yuck Factor — What Planned Parenthood Smears, Homophobia, & Middle School Have in Common


ieet books

Envisioning Politics 2.0
Author
David Wood and Alexander Karran eds.


comments

jayjay on 'Transhumanism – The Final Religion?' (Jul 30, 2015)

Pandora on 'Four political futures: which will you choose?' (Jul 30, 2015)

rms on 'Free Will Does Not Exist - Should it be a Transhumanist Enhancement?' (Jul 30, 2015)

jayjay on 'Free Will Does Not Exist - Should it be a Transhumanist Enhancement?' (Jul 30, 2015)

Kris Notaro on 'Danaher Publishes Human Enhancement, Social Solidarity and the Distribution of Responsibility' (Jul 29, 2015)

Peter Wicks on 'Zoltan Istvan's "Teleological Egocentric Functionalism": An approach to viable politics?' (Jul 29, 2015)

hume on 'Free Will Does Not Exist - Should it be a Transhumanist Enhancement?' (Jul 29, 2015)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



JET

Enframing the Flesh: Heidegger, Transhumanism, and the Body as “Standing Reserve”

Moral Enhancement and Political Realism

Intelligent Technologies and Lost Life

Hottest Articles of the Last Month


If We Can Achieve Gay Marriage and Legal Pot, We Can Fix Climate Change Too
Jul 18, 2015
(24565) Hits
(1) Comments

Transhumanism: there are [at least] ten different philosophical categories; which one(s) are you?
Jul 8, 2015
(9152) Hits
(12) Comments

Robosapiens – merging with machines will improve humanity at an exponential rate
Jul 7, 2015
(8250) Hits
(1) Comments

Transhumanism – The Final Religion?
Jul 16, 2015
(8227) Hits
(6) Comments



Comment on this entry

Toward a Science of Morality


Massimo Pigliucci


rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com

February 19, 2013

An annotated response to Michael Shermer: Michael Shermer and I have been engaged in what I hope has been a productive discussion on the relationship between science and philosophy as it concerns the field of ethics. Roughly speaking, Michael contends that science has a lot to say about ethical questions (though he is not quite as reductive as Sam Harris, who contends that science is pretty much the only game in town when it comes to ethics). I respond that science provides informative background but grossly underdetermines ethical issues, which therefore require philosophical reflection. Michael’s opening salvo was followed by my response, with Shermer recently adding some thoughts, further articulating his position. The notes below are my point-by-point commentary on that third round. (Throughout, italics indicates Michael’s writing, with my comments immediately following.)


...

Complete entry


COMMENTS



Posted by b.  on  02/19  at  11:53 AM

Thank you for posting. While I’m not clear on the continuity (or lack thereof) between morality and ethics, I agree with the author that science as the defacto base of morality is problematic.

I think there is a false separation between cultural values and science. Science is inherently dependent on cultural values that influence what questions are worth asking and what properties are worth measuring. The products of science are communicated through cultural means (language) that is subjective and imprecise. Science can tell us the difference between X and Y, but can’t compare them ethically.

We know there are general differences between make and female humans (lets set aside the fact of many who biologically and socially fit somewhere in between those attractors), and those differences were exploited to “prove” that women are the “weaker sex” and therefore subject to different moral and ethical behaviours. Same goes for skin colour and religion.

We treat non-human animals in a totally non-compatible way (in particular in science) with human animals, yet there is little biological difference between non-human mammals and ourselves. (Why would we study them to understand ourselves if they were not highly biologically similar?)

It seems obvious that any moral position could be supported by empirical evidence simply by controlling the variables to be measured, and the definitions of the terms.

If the aim is only survival and reproduction, then those domesticated animals that many of us consume are being morally tortured. Its quite clear you can increase the survival of a creature at the same time as robbing him/her of any quality of life or dignity. Indeed survival != flourish.






Add your comment here:


Name:

Email:

Location:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | AFRICAN FUTURES PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter |
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
56 Daleville School Rd., Willington CT 06279 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376