morality / ethics as "scientific endeavour to learn about maximizing well-being"
morality-as-fact, ie well-being-as-fact
what we believe to be moral is independent of what is moral - maximizing well-being
given materialism, then, states of better- or worse- well-being are material facts
and generally similar across most humans (due to our shared biology)
our moral intuition
is maybe biologically, definitely culturally influenced
mostly intuitive and post-hoc-rationalized
not-self consistent
prone to "moral calculus failures"
ex. care more about an individual, than 2 individuals, than 10...
what is "well-being"?
it's not that science currently has the answers to all moral questions, it's that it could provide input, if only allowed
notably, neuroscience, pain and suffering
sam's hope
use science to understand well-being
my thoughts
we shouldn't expect "population ethics" to make intuitive moral sense, because our individual intuitive morals are memetic and detached from pursuit of well-being
the existing process of democratic morality (democracy + political process that determines laws) is prone to tyranny of the majority, capture by interest groups, corruption
solution to pop ethics / utilitarianism?
max the well being of the one worst off
we have no free will, but our choices still matter
in that they shape the world to our preference, for us, for others, and for future others
both science and religion operate in the realm of "belief"
(note: this is more nuanced than the typical statement of "science is about knowledge; religion about belief")
science offers a process of discerning degrees of belief