Data Portal @ linkeddatafragments.org

Matches in DBpedia 2014 for { <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Science_of_morality> ?p ?o. }

• Science_of_morality abstract "Science of morality can refer to a number of ethically naturalistic views. In meta-ethics, ethical naturalism bases morality on rational and empirical consideration of the natural world. This position has become increasingly popular among philosophers in the last three decades.The idea of a science of morality has been explored by writers like Joseph Daleiden in The Science of Morality: The Individual, Community, and Future Generations or more recently by neuroscientist Sam Harris in the 2010 book The Moral Landscape. Harris' science of morality suggests that scientists using empirical knowledge, especially neuropsychology and metaphysical naturalism, in combination with axiomatic values as “first principles”, would be able to outline a universal basis for morality. Harris and Daleiden chiefly argue that society should consider normative ethics to be a domain of science whose purpose amounts to the pursuit of flourishing (well-being). They add that "science" should not be so narrowly defined as to exclude important roles for any academic disciplines which base their conclusions on the weight of empirical evidence. These ideas have not seen widespread acceptance by the scientific community, have been disputed by philosophers, and continue to generate public controversy – although they have also gained some support (e.g. Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, and other proponents).Patricia Churchland sometimes refers to a neuroscience of morality in relation to her book Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us About Morality. The term "science of morality" is also sometimes used for the description of moral systems in different cultures or species. For a collection of the hypotheses of how moral intuitions are thought by some to have evolved and emerged, see moral psychology and the evolution of morality.The idea of a normative science of morality has met with many criticisms. These critics include Sean M. Carroll, who argues that morality cannot be part of science. He and other critics cite the widely held "fact-value distinction", that the scientific method cannot answer "moral" questions, although it can describe the norms of different cultures. In contrast, moral scientists defend the position that such a division between values and scientific facts is arbitrary and illusory.Among other methodological issues that a science of morality would need to address include the is-ought problem (i.e. Can we, in any sense, determine how people morally ought to behave based on physical facts. If so, how?). There are also questions of naturalistic fallacy, where the alleged fallacy is deriving moral claims from natural facts (although the term is sometimes used very differently: to refer to the alleged fallacy of calling behaviours that are natural to humans "moral").".
• Science_of_morality thumbnail Good_Samaritan_Sicard_Tuileries.jpg?width=300.
• Science_of_morality wikiPageExternalLink default.aspx?go=10396.
• Science_of_morality wikiPageID "27657798".
• Science_of_morality wikiPageRevisionID "605705981".
• Science_of_morality align "left".
• Science_of_morality align "right".
• Science_of_morality hasPhotoCollection Science_of_morality.
• Science_of_morality quote "In sum, from the perspective of neuroscience and brain evolution, the routine rejection of scientific approaches to moral behavior based on Hume’s warning against deriving ought from is seems unfortunate, especially as the warning is limited to deductive inferences. The dictum can be set aside for a deeper, albeit programmatic, neurobiological perspective on what reasoning and problem-solving are, how social navigation works, how evaluation is accomplished by nervous systems, and how mammalian brains make decisions.".
• Science_of_morality quote "Language lags behind science, and too frequently refuses its aid to knowledge. The innovations of philosophy upon long-received expressions are slow and difficult. Philology is apt to refuse the contributions of the other sciences. It prides itself on its poverty. And this is the more to be regretted, inasmuch as all languages had their birth in a period when moral and intellectual cultivation could only be in their infancy.".
• Science_of_morality quote "Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.".
• Science_of_morality quote "Without free will, we at first seem diminished, merely the playthings of external forces. But really, determinism hardly makes us the playthings of external forces. Rather we are the forces themselves, concentrated and directed in patterns whose regularities we are just beginning to discern.".
• Science_of_morality quoted "1".
• Science_of_morality source "-Albert Einstein".
• Science_of_morality source "-Jeremy Bentham".
• Science_of_morality source "-Patricia Churchland in her book Braintrust".
• Science_of_morality source "-Thomas W. Clark".
• Science_of_morality width "30.0".
• Science_of_morality width "40.0".
• Science_of_morality subject Category:Morality.
• Science_of_morality subject Category:Philosophy_of_science.
• Science_of_morality comment "Science of morality can refer to a number of ethically naturalistic views. In meta-ethics, ethical naturalism bases morality on rational and empirical consideration of the natural world.".
• Science_of_morality label "Science of morality".
• Science_of_morality sameAs Ciência_da_moralidade.
• Science_of_morality sameAs m.0c3thn7.
• Science_of_morality sameAs Q7433704.
• Science_of_morality sameAs Q7433704.
• Science_of_morality wasDerivedFrom Science_of_morality?oldid=605705981.
• Science_of_morality depiction Good_Samaritan_Sicard_Tuileries.jpg.
• Science_of_morality isPrimaryTopicOf Science_of_morality.