Hello, randman.
No, I still don't quite get your idea. Well, I think I might, but I am uncertain enough that I don't want to risk putting words into your mouth. But let's try this: let me explain my position on the relationship between science and ethics, and let's see if this touches on your points. If so, then we can continue from there; otherwise, you can try to clarify your position again.
Science does not, and cannot, determine what morality is or should be. Science is completely amoral -- it is, at best, a description of the real world based as much as possible on facts (and the logical inferences to which those facts lead). These facts, though, never have anything to do directly with morality.
On the other hand, the science can (and should)
inform ethics. Let me explain what I mean by this through an example. Let us suppose that my ethics are based on the idea that the general happiness of the great majority of people should be increased as much as possible, and that unhappiness and misery should be decreased -- an ethical theory based on utilitarianism. Let's not worry too much here about what this means in detail, how we determine
happiness and
unhappiness, or the obvious dilemmas that can (and do) arise. Let's just take this as a given for the sake of illustration.
Now let's take one of your examples: pedophilia. Let us suppose that a credible program of scientific research has shown that children (or at least a large enough portion of children) are invariably harmed through sexual encounters with adults. Then, according to the ethical stance I have adopted, science is telling me that I should be against sex with children. However, it is not science that is determining my ethical stand; my ethical stand is determined by my concern for the happiness and well being for children, and science is merely helping me decide how best to provide for the well being of children.
On the other hand, suppose that a credible program of scientific research has shown that children are
not harmed by sexual contact with adults. That does not mean that I am going to automatically condone sex with children. There are still the feelings of the parents, the feelings of the children (even if they are not harmed); moreover, my ethics may not be purely utilitarian-based -- there may be other factors that are influencial, perhaps even notions of traditional morality. All science would have shown, in this case, is that sex with children does not harm children -- it does not determine how I am going to act, nor does it determine how I am going to feel about the idea (although I would, of course, be relieved that the "victims" of pedophilia are not going to irreparably harmed by the experience).
Of course, if it turned out that my feelings against pedophilia were based largely on the fear that children were harmed by the experience, then finding out that there would be no harm would force me to rethink my position. But again, it is not science determining what I feel to be moral or immoral -- that is determined by my chosen utilitarian standards. All science has done in this case is to show me that the reasoning by which I condemned pedophilia is based on incorrect facts.
I don't know if this helps. Does this touch on the points you were trying to make?
"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt
™ Version 4.2
