Ethics and Evolution
by Mike GodeskyScience and society have a habit of crossing paths every so often. And when they do, the result is rarely good for either. Such is the case when scientific theories such as evolution are used as the basis for moral philosophies. Not only is the theory of evolution unsuited for the development of normative statements, but to do so seems to run counter to the very idea of ethical systems.
Philosopher David Hume first touched on this issue even before Darwin’s time with the is-ought problem. He writes,
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark’d, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surpriz’d to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence.
The point Hume is making is that one cannot make a case for what ought to be based solely on what is. Scientific theories such as the theory of evolution concern themselves merely with what is.
We can see this clearly if we take any other scientific theory and apply the same reasoning that social Darwinists and others who use Darwin’s theory as a basis for morality apply to the theory of evolution. Take, for instance, the law of gravity. According to this, there is a force called gravity that pulls us toward the Earth. Can we assume from this that people ought to be at the Earth’s center? Or on the Earth’s surface? Are pilots and astronauts wrong for attempting to overcome this force? When a plane crashes, do we merely chalk it up as the cost of attempting to defy the gods? Of course not. Because to do so would be absurd. The law of gravity does not tell us what we ought to do any more than any other law, theory, or hypothesis. It merely describes a scientific phenomenon.
Part of the problem seems to stem from a confusion over the use of the term “good.” “Good” is about value, but how that value is measured depends very much on the subject in question. If I say that I had a good day, it means something very different from when I say that I had a good idea. Which is different from saying, “This is good cake.” Which is different from saying, “That feels good.” All of which are different from saying that something is a good thing to do.
Evolution is concerned with a biological process through which new traits arise and are passed on to future generations. Morality is concerned with human behavior and interactions. Evolution is “good” for establishing ecological diversity. Morality is “good” for maintaining peaceful interactions among members of society. Thus, what is good from an evolutionary perspective may not be the same as what is good from a moral perspective.
In fact, the overlap tends more often than not to be very small, assuming there is any at all. The process of evolution is a brutal one in which innocents who are less fit fall victim to “the fittest.” It has been compared to Thomas Hobbes’ state of nature in which life becomes a “war of every man against every man.” In the science fiction television show Babylon 5, the evil race known as the Shadows are seen as helping evolution along by starting conflicts. As they describe it, “It’s really simple. You bring two sides together. They fight. A lot of them die. But those who survive are stronger, smarter and better.” Indeed, some of the most notorious villains of the 20th Century have been people like Adolf Hitler, who was motivated by a misguided attempt to create a genetically superior race.
The first and most glaring problem with such philosophies is that evolution is not about linear progression. There is no end point that all species are trying to get to. It is simply about producing species that are most fit for the environment in which they currently live.
But more importantly, the very idea of basing one’s ethics on selfishly protecting one’s own genes goes against the formation of new social bonds that is such an important part of moral behavior. Ethical systems tend to be about serving more than simply one’s basic biological needs, such as the desire for genetic survival. They are about creating codes of proper conduct that make human interactions possible. This is a distinction that Jesus touches on in Luke 6:32-35.
If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even “sinners” love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even “sinners” do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even “sinners” lend to “sinners,” expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked.
What certain people seem to forget is that the short-run is not less important than the long-run. Evolutionary processes are good in the long-run but can be less so in the short-run. Global collapse may turn out to be good in the long-run, but it will be very bad in the short-run. And when it comes down to it, simply passing on one’s genes is a shallow reason for existence. It is living merely for the sake of living, without having anything worth living for. But there are fates in this world that are worse than death and things in life that are more important than the survival of the fittest.
while using evolution to formulate a morality is tricky at best, for exactly the reasons you’ve discussed here, i think there is more overlap between the two than might be ordinarily supposed.
for example, it can be interesting to see what moralities survive and flourish, compared to the ones they compete with which die out. in this way, it might be possible to learn which ethical systems are the best for certain goals. for instance, if the goal of an ethical system is survival, then those systems which adapt and survive could be said to at least give a contingent “ought”. i.e., you can see what practices tend to promote survival, and then say you “ought” to do certain things *if* you want to survive.
or suppose that evolutionary theory tells us that the optimal group size of a human society with respect to psychological or economic well-being is around 100 people. then it follows *if* you want a happy, efficient society, you “ought” to have a group that size.
so while it’s hard to argue against the naturalistic fallacy (we can’t say that evolution teaches us we “ought” to survive), things like evolutionary theory (taking into account group selection and memetics) can have a practical use in informing our choice of ethics. even if it can’t ultimately tell us what’s good or bad.
Comment by Dale — 14 April 2006 @ 1:30 PM
“using evolution to formulate a morality is tricky at best,”
Seems to work just fine for the GOP:
People are poor because they are lazy and stupid. People are gay because they are evil. People get sick because they have sinned. They deserve everything bad that happens to them.
The eternal Republican platform.
Comment by Peter — 14 April 2006 @ 4:57 PM
War is a rotten way to cull the weak. Too much luck.
Too many weak stay home instead of fighting. Too many rapes.
Comment by _Gi — 14 April 2006 @ 5:29 PM
You forgot John Nash.
Comment by James Cape — 14 April 2006 @ 6:17 PM
Dale - Sounds to me like you’re talking about using evolution to explain where ethics come from. That’s a lot different from the kinds of people who base their system of ethics on “helping evolution” or on “the survival of the fittest.”
Comment by Mike Godesky — 15 April 2006 @ 9:16 AM
Personally I don’t believe Evolution as an explanation for the huge diversity on the planet (which has since been reduced by several large periods of extinctions already). It is fine as an explanation for selection of the fittest - but the genetic code was already there. As in the example of moths in England to become darker in color. What is the percentage, like 85%, is not active genetic code, but just waiting around to be selectively bred like the various horses breeds. (Anyway, just the conclusion I’ve come to.)
So, to the point of the blog, world rulers who have acted with this as their premise have done a huge disservice. By acting like Hitler, or perhaps to some degree Hitler-like, instead of responsibly ruling they have bled their populations.
And what is your take on Mark 10:17: And a certain man ran up and fell upon his knees before him and put the question to him: “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?â€? Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is good, except one, God.”. Could it be that we don’t have enough wisdom to effect ‘good’ in the crisis-of-the-week, thus limiting human ability to solve the complicated problems of this plantet? I’ve begun to pity the child-like efforts of sincere world rulers to solve problems.
Comment by Rob — 15 April 2006 @ 7:17 PM
One point that should be taken into account in any discussion of biological evolution & morality is that the average persons understanding of evolution has been colored by social and economic factors. Throughout the history of science the ruling classes have taken scientific principles and twisted them to support their actions. e.g. the idea of “social darwinism” arose partially to justify the excesses of industrial states and modern capitalism. The “mutual aid” theories of Kroptkin etc. were, and in many ways continue to be, suppressed because they do not serve the needs of any ruling pary.
In my view ethics are an evolutionary adaptation, albiet one that has been used - like science - to excuse and justify the actions of whichever ruling class is in power at the time.
Comment by Michael — 17 April 2006 @ 3:13 PM
Another thing…
quote, “‘Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High’”
I’m probably reading to much into your post, but for the sake of argument I’m going to take a moment to state my view that the Christian worldview with its emphasis on the afterlife, and heaven as the perfect counterpart to the “fallen” world arose out of the dislocation and alienation from the natural world that was experienced by agriculturalist/pastoralist societies.
The popularity of christianity can also be attributed to this “otherworldly” aspect as it offers the believer a (false) promise of joy & peace after a lifetime of civilized dull stuggle. It’s no coincidence that this faith in heaven also justifies the destruction of the “fallen” world.
Comment by Michael — 17 April 2006 @ 3:27 PM
God point Micheal. Did I say “God?”
The buddhist viewpoint is that enlightenment comes when one merely exists within the reality uncolored by our many veils of “socialization.”
One side effect of striving to be in the moment is that convoluted philosophical justifications for behaviour seem more and more like cloud castles — earnest cloud castles, but clouds nonetheless.
My feeling is that we live in a delusion unfettered by reality, and when we finally see that reality, that pure natural moment, most will not recognize their true face.
There it is.
One is two is one.
Comment by Cherenkov — 17 April 2006 @ 7:20 PM
What makes you say that? It’s been pretty thoroughly proven at this point.
No doubt there’s a lot we don’t understand when it comes to good and bad. I don’t think that means we shouldn’t try, though, if that’s what you were getting at. It’s easy to say that so-and-so doesn’t have the right to tell other people what’s right and what isn’t. But simply by living among other people, we’re opening our actions up for judgment. And that’s judgment that any person has a right to make, whether they’re wise, foolish, or anywhere in between.
Okay, for the non-Christians among us, just read “you will be sons of the Most High,” as “good stuff will happen.”
I think even if you remove all of the religious wording, Jesus was still a brilliant thinker. The point here is not so much the salvation aspect as much as it is the beginning of that passage where he makes the point that simply looking after your own interests is just a basic thing that you expect anybody to do. If you want to do something good, you then have to go beyond that.
As far as your point about the Christian worldview, the afterlife salvation angle certainly gave it a lot of appeal during a time in which many people didn’t receive a whole lot of rewards in this life. So you’re probably right that that has a lot to do with its popularity. However, belief in an afterlife in itself is not necessarily a result of being detached from “the natural world.” It’s something that predates agriculture by several thousand years.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 17 April 2006 @ 8:25 PM
Ahhh…
What is one’s true face?
Surely a Zen Koan to enlighten us all, or perhaps to befuddle the masses?
But what is true?
Our true face before our parents were born?
Enlightenment is a bottle of water. It is nothing until consumed by the thirsty human.
TonyZ
Comment by TonyZ — 18 April 2006 @ 5:31 PM
Back to your Is-Ought point, Mike.
This is a good point that I have struggled with myself. I have been caught, by Dayna, for example, of saying many things in the “should” frame when I was talking about a matter of opinion. For example, I have caught myself saying “people should recycle” but should they? Or would it just make my life better?
These shoulds and oughts are tough to let go as we go through our journey and decide what is right and wrong for us.
It’s hard to forget what is opinion and what is fact. When it comes to culture, all things are opinion, which gives them a sort of objectivity, doesn’t it?
Anyway, thanks for the morsel of thought.
TonyZ
Comment by TonyZ — 18 April 2006 @ 5:36 PM
I am in agreement with Cherenkov: Ethics are beautiful Cloud Castles.
The living universe has no nerves, hormones,or a brain, and therefore does not care about several things:
1 - Our fate
2 - It’s own fate
3 - How anything is happening to get to this thing we call fate
I think this is at the heart of Hume’s arguement. That is, when you change “is” to “ought” you run into some trouble because the “is” exists as it is, and the “ought” is made up by us.
(The “is” is also made up by us, but that is another discussion entire)
When we start saying “ought”, and start making “laws”, and “codes” of Ethics, we tend to start to think in the universe’s terms about a certain action.
“This MUST happen!”
And then we say it is because it would be Wrong if it didn’t happen, and Right that it did. Right and Wrong have nothing to do with the reality. We make them up.
The universe, conversely, works in a completely practical way. This works, and so it lives, this does not work, and so it dies. It is not “good” if it survives, nor “bad” if it doesn’t. That is simply what happens. Evolution is a system. When something MUST happen, it is only because it is within the system that we have in this universe - and even then, we as humans can never really be sure.
“Sally stole my pen!” (This would be Wrong?)
“Sally stole my pen to help with an emergency tracheotomy!” (This would be Right?)
“Sally stole my pen, and I don’t know why! (Wrong? Right?)
We could go on and on with possible examples. The essential confusion is only there if we think of stealing as Wrong in an immutable law. We then make things very complicated trying to figure out something that will probably not help us. In this instance we are focused on Sally stealing the pen, and that this is Wrong. Again, we made this up. It exists as Wrong only in our minds.
And so we can come to realize that our ethics are cloud castles - beautifully made up by us, and essentially without substance.
But we are luckier than the universe, as we do have a brain, and nerves, and hormones. We DO care about these things. It is what makes us Human. This is why we feel a need to have a system of ethics. We are not the universe, and we do care. So how do we go about this, when we know it is all made up?
Here is another way to view the problem with Sally:
“My pen is gone, and Sally has it.If I ask for it politely, that will be my best chance of getting it back.”
The focus in the sentence has completely changed. Now we do not have to accuse, fight, or pursue litigation that will take months and several thousand dollors in lawyer’s fees only to just get the pen back. All for the sake of a pen, and proving her Wrong, and us Right.
Instead, we can ask for it back, and she will either give it back or not. If the pen is important to us, we can pursue it further. Perhaps strike a deal. Perhaps in the course of the conversation, you find that Sally is your soulmate. If not, we can just leave it be, find another pen (maybe a better one) and go dancing!
If we rid ourselves of Right and Wrong (since we made all that up anyway), and stick to what IS and what ISN’T, then we have something quite surprising: ethics that work well within a universe that thinks in much the same way.
You could interpret the quote from Jesus not as the Golden Rule (this makes things Wrong, or Right), but as a practical solution to many things. It is very easy to do for someone when they do things for you - not so easy when they don’t, or are your enemy. But hasn’t time shown us that being cruel or vengeful doesn’t work, and make us feel bad? Doesn’t being generous (especally to your enemies!) work in the long run, and make us feel great? Why not choose the latter then? We can have a human interaction simply by existing with one other person. Why not make it one that leads to both people surviving well? Aren’t we then, in a sense, in charge of our own evolution? Wouldn’t that be a great reward?
If we are stuck in Right and Wrong, it makes this choice complicated and difficult. Taking these things away makes the choice obvious.
In this way, we can mirror the universe, and therefore evolution, with our Ethics. They are still insubstantial clouds, but we know that and stick to it anyway because it works.
And then we can go dancing!
Comment by Rkainjil — 19 April 2006 @ 7:09 AM
It is true that our concepts of right and wrong are ones that we ourselves create. But I think that certain people here may be giving that fact a bit too much weight. Something that we make up isn’t exactly the same as something that isn’t real.
Addition is another such abstract concept. It only exists in our minds. Does that mean we can simply decide that 2+2=5?
Culture is an abstract concept. There is no thing called culture that you can touch and observe. It’s something that we made up. Does that mean culture isn’t real?
It’s the same thing with right and wrong. They may be things that only exist in our minds, but they clearly do exist. And it seems like that’s something that people try to ignore when they talk about the objective nature of morality.
With our dancing bears!
Comment by Mike Godesky — 19 April 2006 @ 1:14 PM
I am not sure which base you would use, (I am not a mathamatician) But I know that 2+2 only equals 4 in base ten. In fact, we CAN simply decide this. This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. Einstein used to caution fellow scientists about the dangers of adjusting numbers to fit their theories of what is around them in nature.
I am not sure that is a defensible position. It may not be a comfortable thing to live with at first, but I do not know of a single concept in my mind that actually exists in the universe. I might be able to create an abstraction (such as mathamatics) that can describe nature to my liking, but I would not go as far as to say it actually exists - or is even correct! That’s why we call them theories - not facts.
Comment by Rkainjil — 19 April 2006 @ 2:08 PM
Oy! How do you get the quotes like that?
Dancing bears make great partners.
Comment by Rkainjil — 19 April 2006 @ 2:10 PM
Potentially, we could, but then what you would have is either the words “five” and “four” essentially switching meanings (in which case the only change you’ve made is a linguistic one) OR something that just doesn’t make sense at all (in which case you’re not really talking about addition any more).
But your mind is a part of the universe. If I know nothing else about the universe, I know that the thoughts in my head exist because I’m thinking them right now. Cogito, ergo sum.
Use the blockquote tags - < blockquote > and < / blockquote >. But remove the spaces. I also like to use the < em > and < /em > tags to italicize quotes.
I took the liberty of editing your post to add the tags in the appropriate places for you.
Don’t they? Who doesn’t love dancing bears?
Comment by Mike Godesky — 19 April 2006 @ 2:24 PM
Sorry - one more thing…
I do not believe that there is an “objective nature of morality”. The only thing that every culture on this planet (forget about others) agrees on is the ban on murder - and even then there are MANY different definitions on what exactly murder is.
The very fact that we decide what is Right or Wrong makes it by definition subjective.
Comment by Rkainjil — 19 April 2006 @ 2:27 PM
Oh, yeah. Subjective is what I meant to say. Duh.
Although, I believe that taboos on incest and cannibalism are also pretty much universal. They probably all look down on treachery too, but then you have to get into what constitutes treachery.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 19 April 2006 @ 2:38 PM
He clued you in when he mentioned bases. So, for example, it’s a well known fact that 10 + 10 = 100. In base 2.
But then, since mathematics is an abstract concept, we really could redefine it any way we like, couldn’t we?
Only insofar as “murder” is “killing that is wrong.” So, murder is wrong by definition. Whether or not a given killing qualifies as a murder, or some other type of killing, there you’ll find no consensus whatsoever. So really, do we agree that murder is wrong?
Incest, but not cannibalism or treachery. Incest looks pretty universal, though. Undermines one of the primary functions of marriage: to forge political alliances between families. Many cultures believe that cannibalism grants magical powers. Treachery is sometimes (though rarely) respected.
But incest, there you have a universal taboo. Seems a lot stronger than murder, even. Though, even there, what constitutes “incest” is completely across the board. There are some cultures where marrying your sister doesn’t count as incest, but your third cousin does.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 19 April 2006 @ 2:51 PM
That’s sort of what I was talking about when I mentioned that it would be a linguistic change, though. Base 2 does not suggest that 2+2 does not equal 4. It merely describes the concept differently. It’s just a matter of “2″ being expressed as “10.” But the idea of “twoness” and “fourness” is still there.
So that’s very different from simply deciding that 2+2=5.
Yes, there are a lot of reports of cannibalism. But how often does it actually happen?
Really? I know there are cultures like that in The Forgotten Realms and Star Trek, but I wouldn’t have thought that any real-life society would be able to function like that.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 19 April 2006 @ 3:04 PM
Reports of cannibalism as a major dietary element are all results of (1) extreme stress, or (2) Western imagination, or (3) both. As a ritual or ceremonial thing, it’s quite widespread. Even Christianity has symbolic cannibalism in its main rituals.
It’s rare, but there’s a few.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 19 April 2006 @ 3:11 PM
Incest is not at all taboo in many cultures - especially when it comes to monarchy. In ancient Egypt it was expected that siblings (as well as an occasional parent and son/daughter) marry, and have children with each other.
I think many cultures makes a distinct separation between murder and killing. The only culture I know of that makes no separation is Buddhism. The one cross-cultural taboo that I know of is murder, but only as it is defined by that particular culture. That’s where the whole thing becomes hazy.
But your mind is a part of the universe. If I know nothing else about the universe, I know that the thoughts in my head exist because I’m thinking them right now. Cogito, ergo sum
The thoughts in your head exist as electronic impulses - not as you, and not as the chair you looking at, or even as the abstact concept you can conceive (your thoughts). The only reason you can say (and I say it with great enthusiasm as well mr. frenchman)Cogito Ergo Sum, is because these impulses would not exist if you did not exist. Anything else, I believe is up for grabs.
This actually alludes to the other conversation I hinted at which questions what we see in front of us. Since our eyes take in a certain amount of the world around us (a small amount I might add), transports it through all of our brain filters, and then INTERPRETS what it “sees” in the back end, I would say that we really can not be sure of anything we see either.
Any visual entertainment takes advantage of this hitch in our system. For that matter the government does this as well.
A fly sees multiple (let’s say 12) images because of the facets in it’s eyeballs. One could think then, that if flys could count, they would never have the numers 1-11. If you ever told the fly that there was one thing in front of it, it would say, “Why you are ridiculous sir! There has never been, nor shall there ever be, anything but at least twelve things!”
“Ok,” we say, “let’s just call it one thing and agree to disagree.”
“Fine.” says the fly, and proceeds to annoy you with their constant landing on your left arm, in exactly the same spot every time.
The fact that we can not say if there is one thing or twelve in front of us turns out to be incosequential.The fly and us as a species have both survived under these circumstances. That is the practical side of the universe. We can not, however, say with absolute definitiveness, that we know what is in front of us.
I still like dancing bears, but would prefer Jennifer Aniston.
Comment by Rkainjil — 19 April 2006 @ 4:12 PM
Morality only exists within a society. The idea of some universal/objective morality is a product of the idea that there is one right way to live.
It seems to me that statements that something is good or bad are statements of preference. If I want something to happen then it is good, if I don’t want it then it is bad. This gets raised to the level of ‘morality’ when society demands adherence to the preference.
The misuse of science (and to some extent religion) as a basis for morality seems to be more an effort to rationalize a desired result than an honest drawing of conclusions from premises.
JimFive
Comment by JimFive — 19 April 2006 @ 4:13 PM
A common misconception, because of the complexity some cultures build around what constitutes incest. Remember I mentioned the reasons were for political alliances? Well, in ancient Egypt, there was a definite taboo against incest. Part of the marriage ritual for royalty was a ritual whereby the sister was removed from the family, and became eligible for marriage. Incest is taboo in Christianity, but European nobility engaged in it anyway–because it was politically advantageous to do so. So the underlying reason for the incest taboo remains, even if cultures invent very clever ways to get around it.
Quite true–but among other cultures, walking upo behind a complete stranger and slitting his throat for no apparent reason might not constitute murder. That’s more the direction I was thinking. Early Christians believed that any soldier is a murderer; we obviously don’t take that view any more.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 19 April 2006 @ 4:20 PM
Well, in ancient Egypt, there was a definite taboo against incest. Part of the marriage ritual for royalty was a ritual whereby the sister was removed from the family, and became eligible for marriage. Incest is taboo in Christianity, but European nobility engaged in it anyway–because it was politically advantageous to do so. So the underlying reason for the incest taboo remains, even if cultures invent very clever ways to get around it.
Cool, Jason - didn’t know that. Wasn’t there also the idea that the Pharohs and their family were gods, and therefore could only marry each other? I guess that gets rid of the taboo as well, since they were not considered humnan. O well, what the hey…
Comment by Rkainjil — 19 April 2006 @ 4:54 PM
Aye, the living pharoah was Horus. Upon his death, he undertook a voyage to the Underworld, and became Osiris, while his living heir became Horus. Hence the pyramids–Egyptians didn’t have personal redemption, but communal redemption. If your pharoah was able to complete the journey, your entire generation enjoyed eternal life under him. If he failed, your entire generation was damned to oblivion.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 19 April 2006 @ 5:04 PM
It’s interesting. I was just thinking yesterday about the “Royal WE”. I used to think of it as a sign of snobbishness, of looking down on people, but it just occured to me it is actually the opposite. The leader is thinking of themselves as being the people - in effect, taking their own identity out of the equation. Talk about communal redemption in one person! At least this redemption could happen in life, as well as taking out the inconvenient step of having to build those pyramids…
Comment by Rkainjil — 19 April 2006 @ 5:14 PM
Existence doesn’t necessarily have to be a physical existence, though. It is true that the existence of our ideas is dependent on the physical existence of the impulses in our brains. But at the same time, that means that they do exist. The perceptions that we have based on those impulses are a different thing from the impulses themselves. And they may not have anything to do with the “real” world, but they clearly have an existence because otherwise we wouldn’t be able to talk about them. There are plenty of abstract concepts that don’t have any kind of physical form, but no one would suggest that they aren’t real.
Not necessarily. If something is wrong, isn’t it logical to assume that it is wrong no matter where you are or what society you’re in?
The mistake that moral relativists make is that they overreach. The fact that every culture has a different system of ethics does not imply that each of those systems is equally right. It’s just as possible that we have a whole lot of cultures that are simply wrong.
I don’t know about that. I want to be rich, but it would certainly be hard to consider my actions to be good if I were to kill a rich guy and take all his stuff.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 19 April 2006 @ 5:21 PM
I’m a moral agnostic. I don’t know if objective morality exists, and I don’t think anyone can know it–but most importantly, I doubt that humans would be able to know what that objective morality would be, assuming it exists at all.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 19 April 2006 @ 5:26 PM
I’m a moral agnostic. I don’t know if objective morality exists, and I don’t think anyone can know it–but most importantly, I doubt that humans would be able to know what that objective morality would be, assuming it exists at all.
Same here - which is why I wonder we go there at all.
Let’s say I am coveting my neihbors wife on a nightly basis.
Herbie the Love Bug says: You shouldn’t do that!
I say: Why?
HLB: Because it would be wrong!
Me: How do you know?
HLB: um, because everyone else says so!
Me: Well, even if I thought that made an absolute truth, we have just said that there MIGHT be 1 or 2 things that everyone agrees on, and what I am doing is neither murder, or incest.
HLB: Ok, well it’s still wrong!
Me: Why?
HLB: Well, um, ’cause I said so! You are just wrong! Nyah!
So you see this conversation would not really get too far…
Let’s try this again:
HLB: Don’t do that!
Me: Why?
HLB: Because I do not think it will help you in your life.
Me: How is that?
HLB: First off, if your neihbor found out, he would probably rip you a new one. Second, you are probably not helping your lover out at all by doing this, and 3rd, there is probably a part of you that feels pretty guilty about this.
Me: Oh! Well that makes sense. I will stop immediately and make an immediate donation of a million dollors to the save the children foundation…
Practicality works quite well as morality.
Comment by Rkainjil — 19 April 2006 @ 5:56 PM
But isn’t saying that it’s “wrong” pretty much just a shorthand way of saying all that?
Comment by Mike Godesky — 19 April 2006 @ 6:14 PM
Not at all.
Saying something is wrong is making a judgement about that thing, and parenthetically, about that person. It is a term that needs no practicality or proof. Someone can be wrong, well, because they are just wrong.
None of the things that HLB said are judgements in any way. They are simply consequences. Possible ones at that. In the same way, if you hold your breath long enough, you will faint as a consequence. There is nothing wrong or right about it, it is simply what happens.
I believe this is what the Buddah referred to when he talked about being a mirror to the universe. If you can see your universe honestly, without any delusions (things that we make up - like wrong or right), then our decisions become much easier.
Comment by Rkainjil — 19 April 2006 @ 7:47 PM
But HLB is making judgments. He’s making judgments about the probability of potential outcomes. This is a lot like what we do when we make moral judgments. We look at a particular action and weigh whether or not it is a good idea based on potential outcomes.
Now with certain actions, such as adultery, we’ve been trained through teaching and conditioning to recognize them as potentially damaging decisions automatically. So we don’t have to go through all of the reasons why it’s a bad idea as HLB did in your example. We can just shorten it to, “That’s wrong.”
But then which things that we make up are delusions and which aren’t? Are they all delusions? Culture, math, language, time, logic, emotion? None of these things really exist?
And if we’re ruling out everything that only exists in our minds, how can we ever see the universe since what we know of the universe comes entirely from perceptions that are only in our heads?
Comment by Mike Godesky — 19 April 2006 @ 11:29 PM
No, it isn’t logical at all.
Who or what is the arbiter of that wrongness? It is extremely ethnocentric to impose your view of what is right onto a different culture and then declare them to be wrong. If you attempt to look from ‘outside’ then your view is no more likely to be valid than other cultures’ views. So, it isn’t so much that each is equally right as that each is equally likely to be right. The only way to judge between them is through the lens of personal bias.
In fact, from a cultural materialism point of view, right equates with what works. If the killing of sorcerers works for the Gebusi then that is right for them.
I will amend: Statements that something is good or bad are statements of preference about society.
You would not consider that action good because you do not want to live in a society where people are killed for their stuff (especially after you take the rich guys stuff).
And everyone shouts “Ambiguity”.
Moral judgments, legal judgments, and evaluatory judgments are not the same thing.
At the end of the play HLB is not making judgments about the person he is evaluating the outcomes.
JimFive
Comment by JimFive — 20 April 2006 @ 8:42 AM
Mike didn’t say anything about what’s right or what’s wrong, or how to determine it … he said that if something is truly “wrong,” whatever that means or however it’s determined, it would be wrong everywhere.
In 400 BCE, the speed of light in North America was still the speed of light in Europe, but nobody knew what it was in either place. That it was unknown did not make it any less real, or any less universal. It is possible that morality is the same way–that there is such a thing as an objective “right” and “wrong.” If that’s true, then it would be the same everywhere, regardless of where you are.
You’re addressing arguments Mike never made–a straw man. The question of whether an objective morality exists is a completely seperate question from whether or not we know what it is. This is where my agnosticism comes in. Objective morality may, or may not, exist. I don’t know. I am fairly certain that none of us knows what it is, and I am very skeptical of the notion that we’re even capable of knowing what it is. However, our inability to know it does not necessarily have any impact on its reality (or lack thereof). Many things may exist without our knowing about them.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 April 2006 @ 9:25 AM
But HLB is making judgments. He’s making judgments about the probability of potential outcomes. This is a lot like what we do when we make moral judgments. We look at a particular action and weigh whether or not it is a good idea based on potential outcomes.
HLB is making a prediction about the consequences of an action. He is appealing to self-interest, not a higher code of morality.
Comment by Anonymous — 20 April 2006 @ 10:44 AM
woops… that third paragraph should also be included in the quote…
And that was me.
-Mike
Comment by Wackymorningdj — 20 April 2006 @ 10:45 AM
Hey –
I dunno Jason, it sure sounded like Mike had something in mind when he suggested that some cultures may be wrong, etc…
And, of course, he has championed some very specific ideas of what is right and wrong in other threads…
So… Mike? thoughts?
Janene
Comment by Janene — 20 April 2006 @ 10:46 AM
Well, it seems we are not done with this one yet - cool!
I just wrote a paragraph agreeing with Jason about the possibility of an objective morality, when I realized something very important. In order to “have” a morality - any kind of morality - you must first care. Even more basic than that, you have to have a nervous system with hormones (as I explained above). Without these things, a morality is useless, and redundant. Any life form that has feelings and thoughts of some kind can need a morality, but certainly nothing else does in this universe. Therefore a morality is by definition SUBjective. You can not have an objective morality unless everyone, and everything, is involved. Morality is a thought process, and therefore can not be objective.
As Neo said, “the problem is choice”. The cool thing about letting go of Right and Wrong is choice. Instead of subscribing to what others have told you, and doing things according to a subjective morality, you can simply make the best choice given each circumstance. How many times have you sighed and said,” I have no choice”, and then done something you really didn’t want to do? The fact is that there are always possibilities, and you always have a choice.
Mike said:
But then which things that we make up are delusions and which aren’t? Are they all delusions? Culture, math, language, time, logic, emotion? None of these things really exist?
And if we’re ruling out everything that only exists in our minds, how can we ever see the universe since what we know of the universe comes entirely from perceptions that are only in our heads?
Exactly! The universe comes to us as perceptions,except we do not rule it out, we recreate it for ourselves! That is what a choice really is. Without truly accepting that we do not know what is happening, we are always telling ourselves we do not have choice. This way, we are constantly making choices.
Thank you Jim, for clearing up my ambiguity. I should have defined the difference in judgements in my earlier post. Sorry, Mike.
Comment by Rkainjil — 20 April 2006 @ 10:47 AM
And someday I will learn how to spell. Right now I cnt spll wrth a dam.
Comment by Rkainjil — 20 April 2006 @ 10:50 AM
He doesn’t. That’s a bit of projection, understandable insofar as the words Mike’s using are very often the weasel words employed by cultural imperialists and ethnocentrist apologists of our own culture. But just because they’re used that way by the dishonest routinely doesn’t mean that the question can’t be asked honestly, or that it’s any less worth thinking about.
Sure–like any of us, he has his opinions of what he thinks is right and wrong. And he argues for them, like any of us would. But he’s not one to pretend that his opinions of morality constitute some kind of knowledge of (1) whether an objective morality exists, or (2) whether his own take on morality has any relationship with said hypothetical possibility.
I think you’re conflating two different things: the possibility of an objective “rule,” and our sensation of it. In other words, this strikes me as similar to the statement, “In order to ‘have’ a speed of light–any kind of light–you must first have eyes.” Assuming that we bracket Humean skepticism for a moment and take for granted that there is an external universe that we percieve, then we cannot assume that our perception is necessarily in any way related to existence. I cannot see infrared, but infrared exists. The existence of an objective morality would not have anything to do with what people feel about it, whether they know about it, or whether they care.
Again–I’m not sure such a thing exists. I don’t know that it does, and I don’t know that it doesn’t. I’m skeptical of any proposition that we’re even capable of finding such knowledge. That leaves us with more practical considerations, like you’ve raised before. Or, a consequential ethical system, a la Utilitarianism (though utilitarianism has some obvious problems).
Depends on the definition of morality. Under one definition, you’re absolutely right. But what if there really is some kind of objective morality, and all that changes is our ability to percieve it? Light existed before the first photo-reactive bacteria; all that changed was an organism’s ability to percieve it. If a tree falls in the woods and no one’s there to hear it, does it make it sound? We can never know. The same is true of objective morality, I think–since we can understand our ethical systems either in terms of simply an adaptation to social behavior (the interpretation I prefer), or as perception of some kind of underlying, cosmic Truth (which I doubt), we can never be entirely sure which one is correct. If we take it as our premise that morality is merely an evolutionary adaptation, then you’re quite right–it’s subjective by definition. But then, we’re rather begging the question: our conclusion is nascent in our premises.
I think this gets to the practical conclusion. What do we do with such uncertainty? I’m not sure I can agree entirely with the thought processes that came to this end, but I agree with the conclusion, nonetheless. For me, the question remains unanswered, but it comes out to a conundrum not distantly related to Pascal’s Wager. Either could be right, and I need to choose one or the other–which assumption brings me to a better end? Ultimately, whether we’re fated to believe we have free will, or choose to believe it, it seems better to believe we have a choice and be proven wrong, than to assume we don’t, and miss the possibilities completely.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 April 2006 @ 11:09 AM
Hear, hear, Jason!
Comment by Rkainjil — 20 April 2006 @ 11:20 AM
Basically, what Jason said. But there are a couple more points I want to respond to.
This does not necessarily follow from what we know. For instance, let’s go back to the example of gravity. Say we have two cultures. One believes that we are kept on the ground by a force called gravity. The other believes that we are kept on the ground by thousands of tiny, invisible demons who grab onto our feet and pull us down. Do both of these theories have an equal probability of being correct? Of course not. Even if we don’t know exactly what the probability of each theory being true is, we can still say that they’re not equal. The probability doesn’t change just because we don’t know what it is.
That’s what we have here. All we know is that there is a lot of disagreement over morality. We don’t know what the probabilities of each of those theories being correct are. To do so, we would have to know a lot more about what we’re dealing with than we do. So we can’t say that each culture’s theory of morality is equally likely to be right because we honestly don’t know what any of those probabilities are.
And I’m saying that moral judgments are evaluations of outcomes. HLB starts by saying, “Don’t do that,” to which the other person asks, “Why not?” And then HLB goes into his list of reasons. When he does this, HLB is saying why the other person shouldn’t do something. The “should” is implied, even though Rkainjil avoided saying that word explicitly.
You seem to be basing your argument on the premise that right and wrong are just inherent properties that some person has like “white” or “tall.” But what we’re really talking about is a way of evaluating outcomes and their potential consequences. When we say that something like adultery is “wrong,” it’s because of all of the potential social consequences that HLB described. When we say that a particular person is “bad,” it’s because we’ve observed that he or she engages in potentially damaging behavior with above average frequency. All we’re doing is abbreviating those judgments rather than going through the complete list of all the reasons why a person shouldn’t do something.
Well, that little bit of existentialism if profound and all, but I’m not sure it really helps us in this particular debate. I could also choose not to believe in the “delusion” of empirical evidence, since I can only understand empirical evidence through the use of senses that may or may not be faulty. But that doesn’t really help me if I want to have a discussion about chemistry.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 20 April 2006 @ 11:23 AM
Of course, there’s the question of idiom. Jesus said many of the same things preached by anarchists today, but whereas modern anarchists speak in a secular idiom, and Jesus spoke in the religious idiom of his day and age, anarchists are prone to view Jesus as one of their arch-enemies, rather than an ally. Likewise, I have often heard a great deal of shamanic belief dismissed by Westerners as silly superstition, merely because it reasoned in a different idiom. I’ve heard some physicists speculate on the possibility of gravity particles, or gravitons. If we’re dealing with a society that holds anthropomorphosis as a viable way of reasoning, then “a force called gravity” may be exactly the same thing as “thousands of tiny, invisible demons who grab onto our feet and pull us down,” merely stated in a different idiom.
Of course, that’s a bit of a sidetrack and hardly your main point–I suppose you just picked a bad example.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 April 2006 @ 11:30 AM
Mike said:
Well, that little bit of existentialism if profound and all, but I’m not sure it really helps us in this particular debate. I could also choose not to believe in the “delusion” of empirical evidence, since I can only understand empirical evidence through the use of senses that may or may not be faulty. But that doesn’t really help me if I want to have a discussion about chemistry.
Actually, any science, including chemistry, does understand that empirical evidence is a delusion - that is why everything is talked about in terms of theories, and percents. We just talk about it in those terms, because it does help move the discussion along. The real movers and shakers understand this, and help us move beyond what we know right now.
I am not sure we can equate a thought process with gravity. While they do have our uncertainty as a common denominator, it seems absurd to me that if gravity exists, then so can a moral judgement.
Comment by Rkainjil — 20 April 2006 @ 12:09 PM
Hey –
Fair Enough. I guess now that I’m looking for it, I see it quite clearly
Janene
Comment by Janene — 20 April 2006 @ 12:12 PM
Well, I’m not sure that that’s quite accurate. They talk about things in terms of percents because nothing has a probability of 1 and they recognize that their measurements are imperfect. It’s not because they’re doubting their own senses. The idea that our perceptions are real and that we can observe the universe around us is a fundamental premise of empirical science.
That’s because that would be absurd. But that’s not what I’m saying. The point I’m making is that just because there’s disagreement over what to believe does not mean that each person’s theory is equally likely to be correct.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 20 April 2006 @ 12:34 PM
Indeed, Mike. Fair enough.
Comment by Rkainjil — 20 April 2006 @ 1:09 PM
Then he is assuming his conclusion.
Morality is a (set of) value judgment made about human actions. Without humans there is no morality, just as without light there is no speed of light.
For there to be an objective morality there must be a something (a universal arbiter) to make that judgment. In the original article, Mike is saying (I think correctly) that positing evolution as that arbiter leads to an ethical positions that we find untenable. Mike is also saying that is an incorrect use of science.
If there is an arbiter and that arbiter is universal then that arbiter is equivalent to a god. Therefore the question of whether there is a objective morality is the same as the question of whether there is one god(Pantheon) AND that god cares about Morality. That is to say that it is possible for there to be one god that does not care about morality in which case there would not be an objective morality even though there is a god.
That being said. An objective morality that has a conscious/willful entity as its arbiter is subjective with respect to that arbiter. This seems to imply that morality MUST be relative at some level.
JimFive
Comment by JimFive — 20 April 2006 @ 4:37 PM
No, he stated it as a conditional. If there is an objective morality, then “wrong” would be universal. A conditional can never be begging the question, since it’s conditional.
Again, it comes back to your definition. Specifying “human actions” presupposes your conclusion. Ironically, while Mike posed a conditional, you actually are begging the question here.
This one’s a non sequitur. An objective morality could be set by any number of mechanisms; the existence of some entity “deciding” them is only one possibility. Consider this possibility: what if “right” and “wrong” are actually fundamental features of the universe itself, like the laws of physics? If that is the case, then objective morality both exists, and was no more “decided” by any universal arbiter than the laws of physics. Or, put another way, laws would continue to exist in theory, even if there were no judges to arbitrate them. Likewise, an objective morality could exist, without any universal arbiter to make such a judgment.
I know where you’re trying to go, and I agree with you in spirit, but the path you’re taking to it is paved with sloppy thinking–mostly because you’re not really listening to what Mike’s arguing. You’re probably very used to having this argument with Christians, am I right? So when you hear Mike raising a possibility that contradicts your own relativism, you assume he must be coming from that context. You’re countering arguments–like a universal arbiter–that were neither made, nor implied, nor even required.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 20 April 2006 @ 5:04 PM
I’m not sure it’s not even a case of that, though. This line of discussion began when Jim suggested that the idea of a universal morality is purely the product of civilized ethnocentrism. And obvious