Introduction
Most scientists conceive that science’s most fundamental feature deals with facts and not values, making it more objective as opposed to values thus offering comfort in them having the privilege domain of certainty and permanent knowledge. Sociology being the scientific study of society closely analyzes the culture of man and his interactions on a deeper level. With the positivism philosophy, it asserts that knowledge about man and his culture can only be authenticated using empirical observation. In essence the use of scientific methods to obtain the required information. A contrary concept does not believe in science as the required measurement but instead connect personal experience and larger social issues. For example in the industrialized world, US has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy. This method was used from the genesis of sociology but as the sociology as a discipline grew there needed to be other explanation as opposed to the latter method.
Moral science refers to what is considered best in the society and how to facilitate the flourishing of a particular individual or all in the society. It was identified that society can use science methods to give answers to impending questions on morals since they can be defined appropriately from philosophical, secular and empirical discussions. There are different norms advocated by moral scientists including euthanasia, drug liberalization in particular circumstances, the right to abortion, and others. The establishment of these standards differs on grounds of the fluctuating and developing assortment of people’s understanding. To further understand the moral of human beings, investigations on areas in the brain that are continually involved in human reasoning on issues of morals was done. While some scholars appreciate the need for science on moral issues, this idea has also faced lots of criticism from others.
How and Why Sociologist Agree About Value of Science
According to Emile Durkheim social forces are complex and should be studied distinctly from the psychological and biological phenomenon. Durkheim explains social facts as patterns of behavior having the ability to exercise a certain capacity of coercive power upon people (Eberhardt & Nancy, 302). He further explained them as external controls and guides of conducts for an individual in the form of group folkways, norms and mores. Through education and socialization these guidelines become internalized in the consciousness of the person, thus embraced as sentiments. The people uphold the said general guides and constraints as their moral obligations to obey the rules.
Durkheim not only tries to observe moral life carefully, classify and describe them, but he finds a way for it to become objects of scientific study (Eberhardt & Nancy, 315). He explains how it is untenable start a scientific investigation on morality having underlying rules guiding ethical behavior, due to there being disagreements of what those rules ought to be. In the society, moralists have their individual doctrine, and the diversity of this shows the flimsiness of the “objective vale”. Durkheim argues that a conviction cannot be scientifically established when we believe that a particular moral law is the right one. A scholar should begin his/her scientific study of morality by making the starting point for the analysis to be looking at observable behavior, specifically looking at social sanctions (Eberhardt & Nancy, 305). Society exercises sanctions due to the violation of a rule by a specific agent. By beginning with sanctions the investigation can be empirically grounded because it is easy to know the obligation derived from the sanction. The responsibility in this circumstance is open to objectivity, measurement and accessible to an observation which makes it advantageous for preferring it to the thing it represents in the society. Therefore, Durkheim stresses that morality should be scientifically studied by examining the social sanctions applied to the disobediences of recognized moral code of a given setting.
Durkheim scientifically observes morality in terms of religion (Pearce & Frank, 624). He reflects upon the old doctrines held by the people and their way of worship with the present methods of worship. He describes human morality in terms of the changes in religion. He defines religion as a determinant of morality. Religion determined how people handled different issues affecting their lives. Durkheim scientifically studies morality on terms of religion so as to establish a satisfying future in the society.
How and why sociologist disagree about value of science
While some sociologist and scholars believe that science can explain morality, different scholars and authors have a contrary view on the matter. Just like Weber believed that human actions are not subject to the monotonies overriding the world of nature, other scholars assume the same view. Human beings can be understood through behavior and the underlying motivation that determines their actions (Campbell & Bradley, 449). Concepts that are relevant to morality are not empirical and they cannot be tested through experiments. One major author who disagrees with the concept of science explaining morality is Sean M. Carroll, According to Carroll (1), Morality depends on science but it is not a subset of it. Meaning that one can make moral mistakes when they don’t understand how the real world operates. That is science does the work of describing what happens while morality passes the required judgment on what should not happen which is totally different.
Carroll believes that morality will never be reduced to science nor incorporated into the greater scientific venture (Carroll 1). Morality can make use of many scientific discoveries but it is a separate struggle. To get morality off the ground, there would be something of necessity which is not science. He argues that human beings have complex set of preferences in that what we call morality is an interplay of the preference of the world around us which in essence is the preference of a specific few. The moral philosophy project is the endeavor of trying to make the preferences of the selected few consistent and to discover how to effectively fulfill them which is not logical. For example people are brought up differently and what seems morally upright to one may be a totally different sentiment to another.
Carroll claims that the study of the brain cannot be connected to moral values, Science can tell us about the brain state but it cannot tell us what ought to be. Carroll believes that moral value is more inclined to intrinsic values as opposed to science (Carroll 1). Science cannot tell us the correct definition of morality. People in the world think differently, while some may be interested in universal well-being, others may not (Campbell & Bradley, 449). There are different people in the world, where some are sociopaths, serial killers, and racial supremacists and science cannot help out with that. Many people don’t agree on matters of well-being and how to maximize it. In spite of the moral confusion in our society, not everyone wants the same thing in life and therefore it becomes hard to explain morality in terms of science.
According to Carroll, in the real world people have moral feelings in which we try to make sense of them. Science cannot convince an individual’s feelings are wrong by performing an experiment. Additionally just like people disagree about morality so do some about ordinary science. Which will make it had to convince them on a morality sentiment based on science. On the other hand while some agree with science, they still disagree on morality.
Conclusion
There are many explanation on the moral value of science. While some believe in it others criticize it completely. Science defines a lot of things and helps us in handling different issues but on the matter of moral value it becomes and ambiguity. Basing morality on the point of science tends to incline more on the cognitive intentions of the investigator, thus making it questionable, with the explanation of the Holocaust, though social groups can pursue a specific moral goal or goals, it doesn’t mean the members agree to it because they believe in it. Members follow something because the rule ordained in the group determines the survival of their group and it is safe. Hence it is difficult to explain morality in terms of science.
Works cited
Campbell, Bradley. "Anti-Minotaur: The Myth Of A Sociological Morality." Society 51.5 (2014): 443-451. Academic Search Premier. Web. 28 Mar. 2016.
Pearce, Frank. "Challenging The Anthropomorphic Master Narrative In The Elementary Forms And Forging A More Materialist Durkheimianism." Canadian Journal Of Sociology 39.4 (2014): 619-642. Academic Search Premier. Web. 28 Mar. 2016.
Eberhardt, Nancy. "Piaget And Durkheim: Competing Paradigms In The Anthropology Of Morality." Anthropological Theory 14.3 (2014): 301-316. Academic Search Premier. Web. 28 Mar. 2016.
"Sean M. Carroll." Humanist 73.6 (2013): 1. Academic Search Premier. Web. 28 Mar. 2016.
