Is there a science that deals objectively with law, morals and

[math]\bf Abstract:[/math] No.

>>9158369
No. Can you even begin to imagine how one could empirically test law, morals, or politics using the scientific method?

>>9158369
what does that even mean?
there's moral psychology, which uses experiments, statistical methods, and neuroscientific information. does that count as "using the scientific method" to "deal with morals"?
there are of course several sciences that investigate different areas of law and politics.
but if by "using the scientific method to deal with morals" you mean using some stereotypical experimental-quantitative method to settle basic questions about the nature of moral entities such as right/wrong, good/evil, virtue/vice, then no, probably nobody thinks that's possible.
but equally, there exists no science like that when it comes to physics or chemistry or biology either, because they can't use experiments and quantification to determine basic facts about their subject areas such as whether the physical world exists, what the essential nature of the physical is, what an object or a property or an event is, what it is for something to be extended in space or exist over time, what it is for something to be a whole composed of various parts, what life essentially is, what different categories of beings are and how they relate to individuals, etc.
all of the neo-positivist's favorite sciences either ignore basic questions like that or take certain answers for granted in order to get on to the questions that their favorite methods might be able to answer.

so what do you mean by your question? because depending on what you mean, the answer is either "yes" or "no, just like there's no such science that deals with the physical world or anything else either"

>>9158417
We first must develop a computer simulation system that can accurately represent human motivations, and only then can we run empirical tests.

>>9158422
This a different thing. Modeling human behavior on a macro level is one thing, trying to scientifically determine an optimal legal system is not possible because what makes a system "good" depends on value judgements. How do you quantify liberty, justice, human suffering, peace/order, etc? You can't so you couldn't use the scientific method.

yes, but everyone in power keeps it to themselves and shirks the moral side of things

Science doesn't work on subjective shit. So no, it can't be used to find objective qualities in any of the topics you listed. You can use it to optimize for some goal in those branches (if being moral means acquiring as much money as possible, for example, you could use science to determine what the best way to acquire money is), but you can't use science to determine what is or isn't moral, in the same way that you can't climb a sense of humour.

>>9158456
>Science doesn't work on subjective shit
how the fuck do people still regurgitate these retarded memes?

>>9158498
Not an argument.

Please tell me about how a system used to measure objectivity can measure subjectivity. Go ahead, I'll wait.

>>9158512
>Please tell me about how a system used to measure objectivity can measure subjectivity.
what a complete and utter nonsensical sentence
>sir, we need to measure how much objectivity there is in this thing!
>bring out the objectivity-measuring system!
>but sir, this has subjectivity in it!
>dear god, how much?!
>we don't know, sir! a system used to measure objectivity can't measure subjectivity!

>>9158498
A better thing to say is that science doesn't work on unquantifiable things. Talking about government could be scientific if it weren't for the fact that how we decide what is "good" or "bad" policy is based on qualifiers that cannot be measured or assigned actual values. We cannot quantify "fairness" for example, which would probably be one of the most important things to measure if we were to actually compare political models empirically. Scientifically concluding on what kind of government is more "fair" or "just" or "moral" is in fact impossible to do.

>>9158522
Nice argument, brainlet.
Here, I'll ask an easier question so you can still save face: please explain a.some objective morals, as determined by science b. how these morals are determined

>>9158560
>Nice argument
thanks, i know
>please explain a.some objective morals, as determined by science
read this >>9158421

>>9158544
this is still really naive and misleading
it's not like all or even most scientific statements are quantitative (just for one small example think of most biological classification)
but also, anything gradable is in principle quantifiable, which includes an adjective like "fair": you just assign value 1 to "most fair", 0 to "least fair", 0.5 to "no more fair than unfair", etc.
quantification is neither necessary nor sufficient for science

>>9158589
How about you stop dodging my question and answer it, you dumb faggot? Just answer the question, in your own words.

>>9158369
I hate that pic. it's oversimplifying and wishy washy.

>>9158620
if what you want is just any example of a piece of morals settled scientifically, you could just pick any highly specific question within a utilitarian framework, such as whether a punch to the face or a kick in the balls is a worse crime under the definitions of a hedonic calculus
if what you want is a scientific answer for a much more basic moral question like whether egoism or altruism is a better way of living life, you could do a scientific survey of people whose lives are considered well-lived, and given certain assumptions (which of course can't themselves be tested scientifically) you'll find out whether the preponderance of successful lives have been altruistic or egoistic

>>9158369
We can prove with laboratory experiments that mice and rats experience pain and psychological distress when they are exposed to cat urine or picked up by the tail.

The argument is that in order for there to be a "guinea pig" to test new hair care products and cancer drugs that we firs need to use them on a mammal with a physiology similar to our own.

When they do an autopsy of scientists I don't know if they measure the size of their heart or not but maybe there is something we can conclude from that kind of data.

>>9158645
>if what you want is just any example of a piece of morals settled scientifically, you could just pick any highly specific question within a utilitarian framework, such as whether a punch to the face or a kick in the balls is a worse crime under the definitions of a hedonic calculus
You still have to arbitrarily assign values to whatever 'utilitarian framework' you're using, and they aren't universal. Science is all about determining the truth of things that are OUTSIDE the realm of individuality - this is the whole idea behind the replication of results, THE driving force behind the effectiveness of science. Sure, you can use utility theory to calculate, for yourself, which action creates more disutility, but nobody can independently verify this fact about your preferences, outside of yourself. Even if they could, they could never establish an inherent preference over whether it's actually worse to get kicked in the balls, or punched in the face. Consider, for example, the stroke patient that suffers from pain asymbolia, or someone diagnosed with congenital insensitivity to pain - your "scientific" utility function will likely not be predictably useful for these people.

Because only you can establish the truth of some preference you have, you have left the realm of science and, instead, have entered the realm of philosophy.

>if what you want is a scientific answer for a much more basic moral question like whether egoism or altruism is a better way of living life, you could do a scientific survey of people whose lives are considered well-lived,
Pause. You ought to have a scientific way of determining how a life is objectively well-lived, because otherwise your science here is meaningless. What is the objective way to live a life well? Another way of asking this question is this: what non-tautological way of life has utility for EVERY possible agent that could exist?

Thanks for actually posting arguments this time, even if you still avoided my question.