Waking up to morality

I have come to the conclusion that a lot of what is said and written about morality is rubbish. So I am pleased to see that, at last, science is opening up to the idea that it can investigate this area of human interest.

Part of that rubbish has been the idea that morality is “off limits to science.” That it is ring-fenced. I think this attitude partly explains the hostility we see expressed towards the scientific study of morality and scientists speaking out on the topic. And this hostility is coming from some scientists, as well as theologians and philosophers.

So I am looking forward to any debate resulting from the recent New Scientist opinion special “Science Wakes up to Morality.” (See October 16 issue No 2782).

This includes short articles by eight scientists, philosophers and journalists. Well worth reading.

Fiery Cushman, a moral psychologist at Harvard University, writes in Don’t be afraid – science can make us better:

“We have long thought of moral laws as fixed points of reality, self-evident truths rooted in divine command or in some Platonic realm of absolute rights and wrongs. But new research is offering an alternative, explaining moral attitudes in the context of evolution, culture and the neural architecture of our brains. This apparent reduction of morality to a scientific specimen can seem threatening, but it needn’t. Rather, by unmasking our minds as the authors of morality, we may be better able to bend its narrative arc towards a happy end.”

Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University, writes in Beyond intuition:

The Enlightenment philosopher David Hume pointed out long ago that no combination of statements about what “is” the case could ever allow one to deduce what “ought” to be. After all, in deductive arguments, the truth of the conclusion is already contained in the premises. But when scientists deal in morality, deducing an “ought” from an “is” is often precisely what they attempt to do.”

And:

“So let’s assume that we have instinctive moral responses to a variety of situations of the kind encountered by our ancestors throughout our history, though modified by our culture and upbringing. What would follow from this about what we ought to do?

It certainly doesn’t follow that we ought to do what our instincts prompt us to do. That might have enhanced our survival and reproductive fitness in an earlier period, but may not do so now; even if it did, it could still be the wrong thing to do. Consider the ethics, for example, of having a large family on an overpopulated planet. Rather, by undermining the authority that some philosophers have given to our intuitive moral responses, the new scientific lines of evidence about the nature of morality open the way for us to think more deeply, and more freely, about what we ought to do.”


Singer’s most recent book is The Life You Can Save: How to Play Your Part in Ending World Poverty.

Paul Bloom, a developmental psychologist at Harvard University, writes in Infant origins of human kindness:

“A theory of human kindness needs two parts. the core of our moral sense is explained by our evolved nature, but its extension to strangers is the product of our culture, our intelligence and our imagination.”

Joshua Knobe, an experimental philosopher at Yale University” writes in Our hidden judgements:

“It seems that our whole way of thinking about phenomena that appear to lie outside the bounds of morality may actually be rooted in hidden moral jusdgements.”

Pat Churchland, a philosopher of neuroscience at the university of California and the Salk institute, says in Brain roots of right and wrong:

“Morality seems to be shaped by four interlocking brain processes: caring, rooted in attachment to and nurture of offspring; r4ecognition of others’ psychological states, bringing the benefit of predicting their behaviour; problem-solving in a social context, such as how to distribute scarce goods or defend the clan; and social-learning, by positive and negative reinforcement, imitation, conditioning and analogy.

These factors result in a conscience: a set of socially sanctioned responses to prototypical circumstances”

And:

“The interplay of our neural and cultural institutions comprises our moral history.”

Martha J. Farah, Director of the Center for Neuroscience and Society at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, argues that we will be required to rethink our sustice system to take into account how morality is linked to brain function (see My brain made me do it).

Sam Harris, author of The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, is interviewed by Amanda Gefter.

I like his comment rejecting religious notions of morality:

“Consider the Catholic church. This is an institution that excommunicates women who attempt to become priests, but does not excommunicate priests who rape children. This church is more concerned about stopping contraception than stopping genocide. It is more worried about gay marriage than about nuclear proliferation. When we realise that morality relates to questions of human and animal well-being, we can see that the Catholic church is as confused about morality as it is about cosmology. It is not offering an alternative moral framework; it is offering a false one.”

Having just started reading his book, I am going to write more about Sam’s ideas later. Some early reviews are in and he is certainly getting some debate going.

Similar articles


Enhanced by Zemanta

9 responses to “Waking up to morality

  1. Good post. Listening to the Moral Maze Radio 4 programme, I am struck by the irreconcilable, binary divisions that the moralists regularly get themselves into. Everything is adversarial, totalistic, and there is no consensus. This is exactly the kind of dysfunction that Cognitive Behaviour Therapy tries to address. We dig down looking for the absolute dichotomies that underly the thinking patterns that are creating emotional and behavioural symptoms, and help the patient to question whether the problems could be re-framed in less stark terms.

    However, this relativistic approach need not undermine effective ethics. Arguably, the universal ethic, found in all religions, is to treat others as you would have them treat you. This reflexive recognition of the Other as a subjective, sentient being is an important part of personal evolution, one that occurs rapidly in childhood, and continues throughout life.

    On a social level, a clear political and economic ethic arises from our emerging recognition of our dependence as a species on a healthy ecosystem. Despite the worst efforts of some free market idealists who are in denial about this fact, an ecological economy will transform the way human beings do business, not just with the environment, but also with each other.

    imho.

    Like

  2. I got that New Scientist issue (the chaos-evolution caught my eye, but I must say, I have some reservations of that piece) and read the article article on morality. I noted that it is largely the same as what Dawkins has discussed in God Delusion and in various presentations.
    I also think it’s a great think that science is now stripping away the ludicrous idea that morality is somehow intertwined with religion. The most important point that I got from the New Scientist article was that by using science to strip away the mystery of morality, we can take ownership of designing morality rather than be victims of the messy moral code we currently have.

    Like

  3. Excellent blog post! Thanks!

    Like

  4. Pingback: Are Some Morals Objectively False? « Café Philos: an internet café

  5. Morality on a particular question has either a positive or negative choice it is a binary system. Morality leaves a great deal of room for science. The comparison of moral failures and the weight we can assign the realities are not yet scientifically determined.
    1. A catholic woman desires to be a priest.
    2. A woman desires an abortion.
    3. A baseball player considers lying to congress about drugs.
    4. A supreme court nominee considers lying about a lifetime of sexual harassing to the Senate.
    5. A jury considers a choice to kill another human.
    6. A catholic priest desiring sex contemplates raping a young boy.
    These 5 moral choices have binary responses but how do we use science to align them accurately.
    Is showing nudity wrong on the Internet?
    We get to see what the Supreme Court thinks tomorrow.
    (10-6240)
    See Petition in HTML

    Like

  6. Pingback: Can science shape human values? | Open Parachute

  7. Pingback: Telling right from wrong? | Open Parachute

  8. Pingback: Dawkins answers questions | Open Parachute

  9. Pingback: Deriving “ought from is” scientifically? | Open Parachute

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s