What Moral Theory Do Most Scientists Believe In?

I put this here instead of the philosophy sections of the boards because I am posing it as a science question.

But,they say most of what we once called philosophy has been taken up by other sciences. Like psychology and linguistics, for example. But most scientists are, or at least try, to be moral. And I know philosophically most scientists are moral realists. They believe moral rules exist outside of human minds and they would exist even if humans didn't exist. Just like the law of gravity would exist without humans being around. They also believe these rules can't be found in any other science or reduced down to something like pleasure, or even the science of physics. The also think that these rules are not yet discovered and will never be.

I disagree. I agree they haven't been discovered yet. And I think we all know what those rules are. All humans have the right to a good quality of life, consistent with his fellow man having the same. (Lower animals also have this same right, if they are capable of having any quality of life. It just isn't practical now to give animals full human rights. Humans control the world, and frankly animals can't be given the same moral responsibility as humans. We all agree for example all humans have the right to decide when and how to be parents. But if dogs and cats had that right, there would be a very serious problem with animal overpopulation. They would all starve. And where I live there already is a serious problem with homeless animals because people don't spay and neuter their pets like they should.)

My question is, is there a moral system or list of rules that all scientists agree on? I know things like human rights are a human convention. And some of them were only important in the past. And many aren't even universal, really. Like the right to a jury. That probably started with the Magna Carta, and the right of a person to have the group of people who witnessed the crime vote on his guilt or innocence. It was also based on the fact that people really couldn't trust the state back then to be impartial. We can trust the state now, most of the time at least, to be impartial. And as I already said, instead of determining if someone did a crime by jury, a better idea would be simple. Just send the case to a laboratory to determine exactly what happened. Also, some rights just came about thru the state abusing people's rights. The right to freedom and speech came about because the state was suppressing that right. The same thing for the right against unreasonable search and seizure.

I was just wondering though if there was an agreed-on list that philosophers and scientists now agree on, or one moral system. Also, some systems work better depending on what the problem is and who is using them. The English common law system works best in most English-speaking countries because they are used to using it. And I've heard some people say that utilitarianism still works best for things like helping the poor and solving problems, because it's based on how to help the greatest number of people.

Also, what do most scientists and philosophers call themselves morally now? I was reading just now online that most don't call themselves utilitarians. Though some do. I know some call themselves secular humanists. But what do most of them call themselves?

 

A true scientist observed a natural event that cannot be explained. He or she then gathers all evidence associated with the event and develops a theorem to prove that results in a theory. A Philosopher imagines an explanation of the event and gathers evidence to prove his explanation, failing ti include contrary evidence..

 

To answer your question imo nah............scientist and philosophers are humans too.......

Religion served some purpose on morals(history).........hopefully using your brain/spiritualty takes over..............

Mzzls

 

Most scientists don't have a moral theory, unless they're religious.

If you are referring to Social Scientists, such as myself, I point you to Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development which does a good job explaining how moral values are acquired and can develop through different stages.

Trump is a perfect example of Kohlberg's Stage 2. About the level of a 3-5 year old child. In fact most shrinks agree with that assessment.