Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Shiningc t1_ivrvtj3 wrote

Reply to comment by DrakBalek in Science as a moral system by CartesianClosedCat

Morality is "ought", and science is "is". The famous problem is you can't get an ought from an is.

2

DrakBalek t1_ivsvn8e wrote

And that problem is solved if we can point to a genetic trait that causes feelings and/or behaviors which we typically associate with morality.

Isn't it? I suppose we could continue to argue otherwise but that just . . . I dunno, seems off somehow.

1

Shiningc t1_ivsyyz7 wrote

And the problem is that we can change our "genes". Our brain contains more information than the information stored in our DNA.

2

DrakBalek t1_ivszalq wrote

Which implies we can change the degree to which a person feels compelled to engage in moral behavior.

How is that a problem?

1

Shiningc t1_ivt8ech wrote

The whole point of morality is that we go against our genetic imperatives. Our genes may tell us that we're hungry and we should eat, but morality tells us that say, we should not steal or kill animals or whatever.

It may be possible to pinpoint a part of genes that enable or disable certain moral behavior. But what's to say that the person wouldn't eventually become self-aware of that fact? He becomes aware that a part of his genes is telling him to do something. He starts to think rationally about the fact. He starts to think that the morality that his genes are telling him to have is deplorable. The fact that we have the ability to think rationally means that we can be above our genes.

So genes may tell us to have certain moral behavior. But morality is actually based on rationality. We may or may not listen to our genes. We may actively go against it.

2