RE: Science or Moral Values

["Hansen, Linda C" <linda.c.hansen@boeing.com>]

Carlos talked about morals and ethics and human nature in his post.
Ed Baker asked if we should govern ourselves by science or by moral values.
David Kerridge posited that we should gain insight into the way the world
really works.

"Science", as applied to human nature, is nothing more or less than human
nature trying to discover it's own essence and rules of behavior.  Carlos
asked if we should try to behave in ways inconsistent with human nature as
revealed by "science".  Unfortunately, so-called science's "discoveries"
about human nature through the decades prove nothing more or less than that
human nature is not really capable of being "known".  Scientific evidence is
almost always couched in terms of a statement such as "The evidence
suggests...".  All scientific evidence is merely a human's interpretation of
what they have observed.  This human's conclusions about what was observed
may be influenced by his/her own "human nature" to the point that the
interpretation is no more (or less) valid than an opposing interpretation by
another human.  Further, most scientific evidence is gathered in response to

a request by a funder who has a specific outcome in mind and is willing to
pay someone to "prove" it is true.  Hence, the conflicting findings of
separate (and separately funded) researchers who observe human nature and
behavior and attempt to interpret it.


Carlos asks:
<1) MONOGAMY. Couldn't monogamy be a goal higher than than certain people
can provide.>
It seems to me that goals are high in order to stimulate human beings to
behave in ways that are, by definition, greater than they are.  If one
person (or a hundred persons) cannot reach a goal, that does not invalidate
the goal.  Nor does it indicate that human nature is the cause for the
failure.  Or if it is human nature at fault, why is a person willing to
accept it as a limitation?

Human nature as observed in young children indicates that we as a species
are violent, selfish, and cruel.  It is in the process of "civilizing" a
child that we understand that "human nature" is not what makes us human
beings.  That is achieved by being more than our nature suggests we are.
Have you read "Lord of the Flies"?

Carlos also asks "Who makes the rules?"
It is human beings, in interaction with other human beings, trying to become
more (better) than their nature, who make the rules - together.  Without
rules, we have little impetus or influence on the struggle to achieve goals
either individually or collectively.  It is this same collective humanity
that has defined morality.  Different cultures have different definitions of
morality for their collective humanity.  All of these definitions facilitate
the setting of the "rules" of being human, and achieving goals, and become
more than our nature suggests we are.

When I talk about struggle to achieve goals, it is the very essence of
struggle that creates strength.  Strength - moral or ethical or physical -
is necessary in order to achieve goals.  If it was easy, it wouldn't be a
higher or better state or goal - it would be an escape.  Justifying escape
by calling it human nature does not elevate human beings in any way.
Justifying weak behavior by calling it human nature does not make the
collective humanity stronger, better, or even capable of sustaining itself;
even as separate individuals.  

Carlos asks:
<3) VIOLENCE: are we human beings better human beings when we are less
violent?>
I contend that we are better human beings when violence is used only when
physical survival demands it.  Violence against other human beings for any
reason diminishes and demeans the human condition.  When a special cause
(non-civilized person) occurs in a society or collective of humans, it is
often violence that is used as the method to rid the society of the special
cause.  "Science" may reveal more effective and useful methods, but violence
is the escape method often chosen.  Sometimes, the only effective method for
removing a special cause is, by definition, violent.  The collective moral
and ethical rules and goals for a society are designed to eliminate
"natural" behaviors which are largely destructive to the society.  This
standardization to a collective set of (higher) goal behaviors is what sets
us apart from the other animals.

Trying to manage sets of human beings (e.g. a society or a business) cannot
be effective if we don't manage them to a higher goal or standard - one set
by the collective.  Without common definitions of behavioral norms and
behaviors, common goals cannot be achieved.  It would be sub-optimization to
allow human beings operating in a collective to manage their individual
behaviors according to a self-defined, non-standard, and non-collective
definition of acceptability.  Science has shown this to be true :)