Science and the Good: The Tragic Quest for the Foundations of Morality (Foundational Questions in Science) by James Davison Hunter (PDF)

Description

Why efforts to create a scientific basis of morality are neither scientific nor moral In this illuminating book, James Davison Hunter and Paul Nedelisky trace the origins and development of the centuries-long, passionate, but ultimately failed quest to discover a scientific foundation for morality. The “new moral science” led by such figures as E. O. Wilson, Patricia Churchland, Sam Harris, Jonathan Haidt, and Joshua Greene is only the newest manifestation of that quest. Though claims for its accomplishments are often wildly exaggerated, this new iteration has been no more successful than its predecessors. But rather than giving up in the face of this failure, the new moral science has taken a surprising turn. Whereas earlier efforts sought to demonstrate what is right and wrong, the new moral scientists have concluded, ironically, that right and wrong don’t actually exist. Their (perhaps unwitting) moral nihilism turns the science of morality into a social engineering project. If there is nothing moral for science to discover, the science of morality becomes, at best, a feeble program to achieve arbitrary societal goals. Concise and rigorously argued, Science and the Good is a definitive critique of a would-be science that has gained extraordinary influence in public discourse today and an exposé of that project’s darker turn.

User’s Reviews

Editorial Reviews: Review “[This] important and timely book reminds us that ethics at its best challenges rather than justifies the status quo, which is why a purely descriptive science of ethics is never enough.”—Julian Baggini, Wall Street Journal“Full of insightful commentary.”—Scott B. Rae, The Gospel Coalition“They have produced a thoughtful summary and able criticism of the contemporary scientific quest for morality’s foundations, and have brought light to important matters.”—Mark Blitz, Claremont Review“A brilliant and courageous book. . . . gives a methodical, but devastating blow to the notion that naturalism could ever produce a consistent ethic. Highly recommended.” —David Moore, TwoCities.org“Excellent. . . . Hunter and Nedelisky are thorough and scholarly, and . . . nicer than I would have been . . . in representing the various positions in the debate. That is probably why the book is so effective. Rather than plunge into the debate as partisans, they operate more as its witnesses, describing and cataloguing what happened and meticulously exposing the fallacies.”—Ronald W. Dworkin, Law & Liberty”Science and the Good is a compelling critique of half-baked ideas that have acquired pervasive and unwarranted influence in Anglophone public discourse today. One could not ask for a more timely and incisive contribution to contemporary cultural debate.”—Jackson Lears, Board of Governors Distinguished Professor of History, Rutgers University”Science and the Good provides an incisive and timely analysis of the pressing question: can science demonstrate what morality is and how we should live? Hunter and Nedelisky carefully expose the inadequacies and dangers of ‘the new science of morality.’”—Peter Harrison, author of The Territories of Science and Religion About the Author James Davison Hunter is LaBrosse-Levinson Distinguished Professor of Religion, Culture, and Social Theory at the University of Virginia. Paul Nedelisky is a fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture at the University of Virginia.

Reviews from Amazon users which were colected at the time this book was published on the website:

⭐Can science be the foundation of morality?That is the question James Davison Hunter and Paul Nedelisky ask in Science and the Good. Their book traces the history of affirmative responses from the early modern period to the present day, focusing on the “new synthesis” that is comprised of four elements: “(1) a Humean mind-focused sentimentalism, (2) a Darwinian account of why the mind has the traits it does, (3) a human interested-based utilitarianism about morality, all embedded within (4) a strident naturalism committed to empirical study of the world.”Anyone familiar with philosophy knows that sentimentalism, utilitarianism, and naturalism are contested theories. The question facing advocates of the new synthesis, then, is whether science tilts the playing field in favor of those theories. More specifically, does science provide “empirically observable” evidence in their favor? If not, it’s not clear precisely how science contributes to building the foundation of morality.Hunter and Nedelisky point out that science might contribute to morality at three different levels: (1) “demonstrate with empirical confidence what, in fact, is good and bad, right and wrong, or how we should live”: (2) “give evidence for or against some moral claim or theory”; and/or (3) “provide scientifically based descriptions of, say, the origins of morality, or the specific way our capacity for moral judgment is physically embodied in our neural architecture, or whether human beings tend to behave in ways we consider moral.” Surveying the arguments new-synthesis advocates make, Hunter and Nedelisky conclude that “nearly all of the actual science attempting to deal with morality lands at Level Three findings.” This is a far cry from providing a foundation for morality, let alone of disposing of rival moral theories.Worse, advocates of the new synthesis have moved the goal posts. Given its commitment to what Hunter and Nedelisky called “disenchanted naturalism,” the new synthesis no longer thinks of morality in terms of “moral realism,” i.e., that distinctions between right and wrong, good and bad, virtuous and vicious, refer to real, objective distinctions. Instead, those distinctions reflect individual preference or social consensus. The authors elaborate:”The quest [for a scientific foundation of morality] has been fundamentally redirected. The science of morality is no longer about discovering how we ought to live—though it is still often presented as such. Rather, it is now concerned with exploiting scientific and technological know-how in order to achieve practical goals grounded in whatever social consensus we can justify. The science of morality, then has evolved into an engineering project rooted in morally arbitrary goals.”The authors describe this as “moral nihilism,” which seems like an accurate description.Science and the Good is a deeply researched, well-written book, and I have only scratched the surface of its argument against the new synthesis, which is detailed and complex. So, if science cannot provide a foundation of morality, what can? The authors eschew theological and natural-law arguments. Historically speaking, they argue, it was the failure of those types of arguments to prevent the European Wars of Religion in the post-Reformation Era that catalyzed the search for scientific arguments in the first place.(I would like to register a demurral at this point. I think theological and natural-law arguments are stronger than Hunter and Nedelisky do. So, I’m not as convinced as the authors are that appeals to such arguments represents a dead end. Moreover, it’s not clear to me that the Wars of Religion were religious failures as much as they were a political failures. They resulted not so much from differences in religion but from desires for sovereignty. But those are arguments for another day.)Instead of appealing to religion or natural law, Hunter and Nedelisky challenge the premise of the quest to provide a single foundation for morality in the first place—religious or scientific. “In both cases,” they write, “the effort represented different ways of achieving a foundation for a just and humane social order by denying, avoiding, or transcending the knotty, seemingly irreducible problem of difference.” That being the case, the way forward is “to find a common moral understanding through our particularities—through our differences—and not in spite of them. Surely there are goods we can all affirm and corruptions we can all repudiate, despite coming from different perspectives.”Hunter and Nedelisky voice this plaintive cry in the last five pages of the book. It is a hoped-for rather than an argued-for position, so not much can be said against it since not much was said for it in the first place. Regardless, in a pluralistic society, perhaps this plaintive cry is the most practical way forward. After all, we can agree that something is right or wrong even if we cannot agree on why it is so. But we can only find that agreement if we talk to one another across the divides—religious, ideological, partisan, etc.—that separate us.

⭐I’ve waited a year to offer my perspective on this title being motivated, now, by the misguided views of its critics and by the recent publication of a related title, The Goodness Paradox by Richard Wrangham . Firstly, I want to concur with Geo. P. Wood’s extended review above; I will not try to expand on Mr. Wood’s success. My most fundamental argument is basic to science–and is clearly among Hunter and Nedelisky’s prime intentions: to demonstrate that any good proposition with intentions of being “science”, must pass two tests: theoretical and methodological. To this extent, Hunter and Nedelisky have proved their point: science must be scientific. Few critics, unbiased by politics or religion, have adequately addressed the essential argument and those who are clearly biased do not even understand its importance and argue from left-wing ignorance; sad indeed.My second “scientific” push-back is against the naive arguments for naturalism (recognized or unrecognized) from political critics who also may or not recognize the impetus of their own criticisms.Finally, Wrangham’s inability to reconcile naturalistic (i.e., evolutionary) accounts of the origins or development of morality leaves us smack dab at our beginning. Such “conclusions” can only strengthen Hunter and Nedelisky’s primary arguments and leave naturalism–as an explanation for socio-biological “facts”– in deep water.Thus, anyone seeking a clear, honest, scientific argument for purchasing this book should ignore those critics who appear here and rest assured that the authors have provided a compelling, convincing argument that the-science-of-the-good is indeed a tragic and failed quest.

⭐The book is pretty well done. They argue convincingly that “moral” science has overstepped in the past, that much of the new moral science is merely descriptive (not prescriptive), and that many of today’s moral scientists seem to be implicit moral nihilists.Here are a few critiques:1. They do mention that Harris, author of The Moral Landscape, is an outlier, and I do not think they address his arguments particularly well. For instance, arguing that the basis of morality is well-being is not arbitrary (as the authors claim) but is common sense upon reflection.2. Furthermore, they assert that the scientific quest for morality is totalitarian and universal in contrast to more pluralist, democratic conceptions of the good. They do not recognize that perhaps an empirical study of well-being would find that people report better physical/mental health in more free societies that allow for viewpoint diversity and pursuit of one’s own vision of the good.3. For an example of science showing us what to value, look up self-determination theory. Psychologists Deci and Ryan have compiled a ton of evidence that autonomy, competence, and relatedness are psychological nutrients required for well-being. This is practical and pluralist (but not nihilist).In sum, the authors make many very good points but make some meager points as well, and thus their thesis is not fully convincing.

⭐This is a decent discussion of the various attempts to develop a theory of morality based on the methods of hard science (as opposed to the “soft” science of sociology and related fields). It offers a history of attempts since the Reformation and Enlightenment, showing how, in each case, the attempt failed. It especially brings to light the willingness to ignore very fundamental truths to create an apparently logic-based theory of morality. Of course, deciding to ignore as non-existent those things that cannot be dealt with in a particular model is hardly worth doing and certainly can’t be called “Science”. Not a difficult read – and worthwhile.

⭐Es una profunda y sugerente reflexión sobre los límites de la fundamentación naturalista de la ética

⭐

Keywords

Free Download Science and the Good: The Tragic Quest for the Foundations of Morality (Foundational Questions in Science) in PDF format
Science and the Good: The Tragic Quest for the Foundations of Morality (Foundational Questions in Science) PDF Free Download
Download Science and the Good: The Tragic Quest for the Foundations of Morality (Foundational Questions in Science) 2018 PDF Free
Science and the Good: The Tragic Quest for the Foundations of Morality (Foundational Questions in Science) 2018 PDF Free Download
Download Science and the Good: The Tragic Quest for the Foundations of Morality (Foundational Questions in Science) PDF
Free Download Ebook Science and the Good: The Tragic Quest for the Foundations of Morality (Foundational Questions in Science)