My answer to this question is 'No'. Sam Harris tries to argue that it is possible in a video here. However, all he does is state that not causing harm is a value and then says science can provide data as to whether an organism feels pain or not. I think that science can provide data, but not an ethical framework.
He then goes on to provide examples:
- Would it be good to put Cholera in the water? - Probably not
- Would it be good to believe in the evil eye? - Probably not
- Is it good to subject pain and humiliation to children in school? - Probably not
- Is it good to force women to wear sacks to cover their bodies? - Probably not
- Is it good to have p*rn*graphic images of women on the news stand? - Probably not
Jonathan Haidt in the video here describes five principles that human beings use for ethics:
- Not causing harm
- Fairness/reciprocity (Golden Rule)
- In group loyalty (Cooperation)
- Authority/respect (Order)
- Purity/sanctity (Virtue by healthy lifestyle)
I do think Harris asked some really interesting questions, though, I'll explore this in a different post.
27 comments:
I think you are absolutely right. Science elucidates the physical reality of things - it is not interested in matters of ethics. I guess there are some people who would prefer that not to be true, since they would then have to admit there are other areas where Science doesn't apply, such as the question of God.
Charlie:
'It is not interested in matters of ethics.'
I don't think Science can be divorced from those who do it (scientists) and since scientists are human beings they are interested in ethics. And everything they do has an ethical dimension: from the questions they choose to try to answer (atomic energy v solar energy, mustard gas v oxygen) to the way they try to answer their questions (animal experiments v experiments using tissue culture).
So science cannot be divorced from scientific activities (and the data and more importantly the conclusions they generate). These conclusions have a huge bearing on ethical questions. Who can deny that discoveries in evolutionary biology have not had (and still do have) a bearing on ethical questions such as ’Is it right to be racist?’. That medical science has nothing to say about inequalities in health status in society and what to do about them?
I agree with Harris that Science can [help] answer moral questions. I do not agree (as I think he is saying) that it can answer moral questions by itself. It has to work within a framework of values imported from somewhere else. As Harris himself demonstrates when he strays into voluntarism v compulsion in the wearing of burkas: his views on this clearly come from liberalism not from science.
Some scientists pretend that ‘science’ is and should be neutral. I cannot how it can be and do not think it should be. Harris is right, together with Dawkins and Grayling, (is that right you who know more about the NA’s views?) that scientists have a lot to teach ethicists. He is just terribly boring in his conclusions as Lesley rightly points out.
It is in my view wrong to think that the magisteria of science and religion are non-overlapping: That science and religion deal with different questions. Is: 'Hhow did life begin?' a religious or a scientific question? Is: 'What does it mean to live a good life?' a religious or a scientific question? There are lots of overlaps.
I've made a first introductory blog post on Sam Harris trying to get science to magically decide ethics, and linked back in it to your own blog post here. Hopefully Ron Murphy will also blog on it, and others, and I will link to their blog posts too then later.
I wonder. Science believes in things that is can see, touch, theorise about and test.
How does science test morality? It must take basic assumptions from somewhere, whether humanist, secular or religious understanding and belief.
It would be useful for them to tell us what tests were used, against what criteria and the actual outcome of the tests.
Perhaps if the took an ordinary human being with all of their faults and hangups, they might get some surprising results.
I attended a lecture by a Scientist who also happened to be a Christian who clearly made the point that science is not divorced from life and particularly right and wrong, but individuals who have no faith adopt the Dawkins approach to things - anything goes as long as it does no harm.
The reality is that science despite all of its advances has still to produce a credible theory to explain peoples irrational belief in a greater thing than themselves namely, God.
Thank you again for tackling this subject, Lesley. There seem to be so many non sequiturs or plain unsupported assertions in Harris's argument. I can't quite decide whether he is aware of this or not. And from the applause he receives at various points in his talk his audience seem oblivious to this and are hearing what they want to hear.
Gurdur: I read the post on your blog and found myself in agreement with most of what you wrote there. I look forward to reading more from your perspective.
Thanks, Revsimmy.
On the "do no harm" Thang; the difficulty is in defining harm.
After all, a fair few Inquisitors sincerely believed they were doing their victims a favour, morally.
That's why I find that principle not enough; one must have more. Human life is very very complex, and morality/ethics also has to be complex -- and is often a matter of actually striking balances between good ethics that nonetheless come into collision in cases.
Hi Gurdur,
I think that comes down to respecting boundaries, something I recognise that religious people sometimes fail at.. so in my opinion people have the right to:
- not be physically hurt
- not to be verbally attacked
- their own opinion
Hi Mike,
"I don't think Science can be divorced from those who do it" - Of course not. Science is something humans do, it's a human construction. I don't think that's in question.
"I do not agree (as I think he is saying) that it can answer moral questions by itself." - Well your statement above says why. science doesn't actually do anything by itself. Science does what we do with it.
"It has to work within a framework of values imported from somewhere else." - What is that somewhere else? How do we get these values? When we have these values how do we verify they are values worth having? In other words, how to we value our values? God is a handy convenience for some; or the objective absolute pre-determined moral nature of th universe. But then you have the problem of evaluating those sources to determine if they have, well, value.
"Some scientists pretend that 'science' is and should be neutral." - It is. Scientists doing science need not be, as you point out above. Science is a methodology. It doesn't mean we always do it right. You and I have this discussion going on in the comments here.
"It is in my view wrong to think that the magisteria of science and religion are non-overlapping." - Yes. Just wanted Lesley to know you and I agree on some things :)
Yes. Just wanted Lesley to know you and I agree on some things :)
That is kind, thank-you. I'll sleep soundly tonight believing all is well in the world
Hi UKViewer,
"How does science test morality?" - My cheap shot response is, "How does religion?" I'll let you presuppose God, for the sake of argument. When you've finished convincing me that he sort of exists or he sort of doesn't, depending on your flavour of Christianity, and when you've convinced me that you've convinced yourself of that, maybe next we could go on to all the other conclusions religion reaches from that one resupposition. Somewhere along the way you could include morality.
"It must take basic assumptions from somewhere, whether humanist, secular or religious understanding and belief." - yes it does. And we all have our different views on what those assumptions can be. And we need to cover them in a discussion like this. But let's be honest here. Who the hell starts from there really? This is very much an after-the-fact process we use to think about our morals - the justification of the value of our values. That's the tricky bit, but no matter how tricky it is, I'm not prepared to hand off that responsibility to God.
"Perhaps if the took an ordinary human being with all of their faults and hang ups, they might get some surprising results." - many scientists are engaged in this very process. It too is hard work, figuring out the crazy human brain. Some of the results are a surprise to scientists, and theists.
"anything goes as long as it does no harm." - Can you tell me what's wrong with that?
"The reality is that science despite all of its advances has still to produce a credible theory to explain peoples irrational belief in a greater thing than themselves namely, God." - Science has some ideas; but yes, no theory as such. But theists have less data than scientists on this issue. Two thousand years belief by billions of people does not constitute good data - they could all be wrong.
Hi Rev Simmy,
"There seem to be so many non sequiturs or plain unsupported assertions in Harris's argument." - As I said to Mike elsewhere, theists really do have some balls coming out with statements like that. But, two wrongs don't make a right (do they? always?). Maybe the TED talk didn't encompass the whole of his views on the matter - it was only about 20 minutes. And, yes, maybe he is mistaken on some points.
"his audience seem oblivious to this and are hearing what they want to hear" - TED is a fairly mixed audience. There are talks by theists that are also warmly received when good points are made.
My post on this.
Presupposing God doesn't get me out of the problem of ethical thinking. You see I believe in a rational God and so saying 'we should do x because God says' isn't good enough. Even God must have his reasons - unless he is a moral despot. If God has his reasons then I can try and work out what they are - and since I believe God is good then the reasons must be good as well as rational.
Shades of Euthyphro, I think.
Personally I think that this means that a good Christian ethicist should do his work as a good Christian scientist should - leaving God out of the argument...
Hi Drew Mac
I am with you almost completely. I think the good Christian ethicist should leave God out of the argument when discussing ethics, and certainly pointing to a scripture is pure laziness, however, I think a Christian ethicist is influenced by God and the Bible...
Hi Ron
Some of your comments here seem to presuppose that just because Harris is an atheist that theists would be against him, and also seem to put science in one corner and religion in the other. I imagine many people who comment on this blog could be very happy to learn from Harris and very comfortable with science and all its findings, I don't think there is a need to fight each other when it comes to ethics?
Hi Drew Mac,
"Presupposing God doesn't get me out of the problem of ethical thinking." - OK. I agree.
"You see I believe in a rational God and so..." - And so you have just presupposed God. Either God is nothing at all to do with our morals (wether he exists or not), or you think he is, one way or another, in which case the presupposition matters. Then the difficulty is, as I said, where to you get from that presupposition to anything else - including "Even God must have his reasons - unless he is a moral despot.", which is my point: you've postulated a God, how do you now know anything about him, without making that up too?
"Personally I think that this means that a good Christian ethicist should do his work as a good Christian scientist should - leaving God out of the argument..." - yes, I agree. So what use God?
Hi Lesley,
I'm fine with us all agreeing that science can help. I don't think science is in one corner and religion in another. Everything as I understand it tells me that we are all in the same boat, we all need and use science, and that Harris has some good points. As Gurder said, he's probably given Harris a harder time than any theists here. I'm only disagreeing with theists to thee extent that I need to, and that is really our disagreement of what it is about Harris we are each disagreeing with.
"I think a Christian ethicist is influenced by God and the Bible..." - Which in turn is influenced by what theist think God is, and by the thoughts of the authors of the Bible, and in turn by the earlier humans from which they got their ideas. All human. No evidence of actual God influence.
I used a post of Alonzo's in my blog on Harris. Here's another good one from Alonzo.
I really should be packing to go on holiday.
Ron:
' "It has to work within a framework of values imported from somewhere else." - What is that somewhere else? How do we get these values? When we have these values how do we verify they are values worth having? In other words, how to we value our values? God is a handy convenience for some; or the objective absolute pre-determined moral nature of the universe. But then you have the problem of evaluating those sources to determine if they have, well, value"
All good questions I agree. You know what I’d say to the first two questions. The answer to the second two is that we cannot. A good definition of a value (Stephen Pattison I think) is a value is something that is valued. But belief in God is just a tiny starting point – more like a fragile thread (isn’t that your phrase) - hardly a handy convenience!
But Lesley:
You can’t really think that 'the good Christian ethicist should leave God out of the argument when discussing ethics.' A belief in God is at least somewhere to start. Otherwise you are left floundering for somewhere to start like Ron is his blog.
Ron:
'With a bit of tweaking and clarification I think Harris's project is worthwhile.'
I take Harris’s project to be the attempt to use science (empiricism and rationalism) to help answer moral questions. A perfectly reasonable project. I really don’t see how anyone could disagree with that. I know he doesn’t use the word help but surely he doesn’t think science can sort out all moral questions tomorrow so in the meantime all it can do is help.
I also cannot see him getting anywhere without acknowledging the need to import values from elsewhere. By values I mean things like compassion, empathy, autonomy, freedom. But I think he’s right that values are ‘a certain kind of fact’ and that ‘They are facts about the wellbeing of conscious creatures’ i.e. what it is that conscious creatures truly need for their wellbeing. (And I don’t think, Ron that they become facts in their own right, once we decide what they are because how are we to tell what we truly need as you rightly point out in your blog).
His project is also worthwhile because hopefully he’ll discover that values being facts they can be used as the basis of other facts (using rational methods) and even demonstrated (using empirical methods) to be useful for other things like the survival of the species.
MikeR: "You can’t really think that 'the good Christian ethicist should leave God out of the argument when discussing ethics.
That was me not Lesley - and yes I do! Even to a believer God must have his reasons. So rather than just hide behind DC ethics it is better to come up with an attempt at those reasons. After all, if something is only good because 'God said' then what happens if God decides to decree the opposite?
Of course, as a Christian, I also believe that God gave us rationality and a moral sense so its not really leaving God out any more than a Christian biologist who accepts the theory of evolution. In both cases you are looking a bit deeper than just saying 'and God said' whilst not ultimately denying it.
And again, ultimately and theologically, God is both "the ground of our being" and of our ethics. Love is a good because God is love. God commands love because he cannot deny his essential nature. Since humankind is "made in the image of God" there is indeed something divine about essential human values. I don't expect Ron to agree with me about this, and it doesn't really matter because it is why I might end up agreeing with him about our resulting ethics even if we don't agree about their ultimate source. He may believe that they are purely human values. My theology suggests that human values can have a spark of divinity about them.
Hi Mike,
I think my belief in a Loving God and is the starting point for my ethics. However, most of the folks we discuss ethics with will not accept this as a starting point, and hence we have to be able to argue our ethics using more universally accepted values, such as least harm..
Drew Mac:
Yes it was you who said Christians should leave God out of ethics first (sorry).
The problem is that if you leave out God then you have to import something else like rationality. Rationality wiithout God is a human construct. And it's no good saying 'Ah but the God I believe in is rational god'. How do you know that God is (in your view) rational? Presumably from the Bible or somewhere like that. You cannot rationally deduce (induce?) that God is rational from his existence As Ron says: an existent God doesn't automatically mean that that God is rational.
In fact (as a Christian) I do not think God is entirely rational. Look at the stories of Abraham and Isaac for starters. Is it rational to promise Abraham that his son Isaac will be the ancestor of a vast number of people and then get Abraham to take Isaac up a mountain to sacrifice him?
Surely these sorts of stories warn us Christians against idolising rationality?
Now I am not saying that rationality (deduction, induction, etc.) and for that matter empiricism (the evidence of our senses) has not place in ethics (as I have said previously) and is surely not contentious.
But I fail to see that you can have a 'Christian ethics’ without God (and for that matter Christ and the Bible). If you take these things out of the equation you are left with Harris' absolutely feeble attempt to base ethics on science (empiricism + rationality) at one extreme or Ron's [still can't do that linking thing on the other but see his Ramblings] which is infinitely better but sill desperately in need of a place to stand on which to come to some conclusion.
Ron has to resort to rationality, but whose rationality does he trust: his, yours, mine? Clearly he doesn’t trust ours. Can he be sure of his own? And/or he has to trust the evidence of his (or someone else who he trusts) senses. An amazing leap of trust all round t that seems to me equivalent to our belief in God!
Don’t be tempted to agree with Ron too much! He’s right on many things but basically wrong!
Lesley:
‘I think my belief in a Loving God and is the starting point for my ethics. However, most of the folks we discuss ethics with will not accept this as a starting point, and hence we have to be able to argue our ethics using more universally accepted values, such as least harm..’
Yes I agree with this. Though I think love is a better starting point than ‘least harm’. And either are a much, much better starting point than rationality. But what is love (least harm)?
Hi Mike, I have visions of you logging in at a motorway services, or at the airport, desperate for your blog fix. You're as addicted as the rest of us.
Get going! And have a good time.
Hi Mike,
I've posted a more detailed version of my view here.
"Otherwise you are left floundering for somewhere to start like Ron is his blog. " - That floundering was intentional, just to emphasise the position we are in. All of us. That's why I keep banging on about the contingency of our knowledge and why science is the best we can do.
From our every day perspective we do import values and use them in order to make decisions. The question in this context then is how did we come by these values and what worth agree they? How can we be sure they are the right values. That's what my latest post is about. And it turns out, I think, that they are arbitrary on the grand scale, but particular to us as evolved humans, and then built upon by our cultural influences. There's nothing magical here. It all fits in fine with materialism. No contradictions, and the only unknowns remain unknowns for as long as we can't answer them with our evolved and developed abilities - our most reliable ability being to do science.
This is the extent to which our values are facts.
"what it is that conscious creatures truly need for their wellbeing" - Wellbeing isn't limited to conscious creatures. But conscious creatures, or at least the self-aware ones with language that can express these issues, have managed to identify wellbeing, or have labelled some of our basic evolved imperatives as wellbeing and similar.
So, from the everyday common cultural language point of view we have these 'morals', these values, which we use to guide our behaviour, and they are pretty unfathomable, or so we feel. Philosophy has a hard time pinning them down - just read any metaethics source. But put them into the context of our biological and cultural evolution and they lose their mystery. They become facts.
Drew Mac
"I also believe that God gave us rationality and a moral sense" - presupp.
"God is both "the ground of our being" and of our ethics." - presupp.
"Love is a good" - invalid conclusion, from - "God is love. " - presupp.
"God commands love because" - invalid conclusion, from - "he cannot deny his essential nature." - presupp.
"Since humankind is "made in the image of God"" - presupp.
"there is indeed something divine about essential human values." - invalid conclusion, or presupp.
You are making these statements without either a sound argument for them, or any evidence to back them up. And at the bottom of it all is the main presupposition that there is a God.
Note the difference in what I'm offering. As contingent as it is, and is inconclusive as it is, there is all this evidence that just keeps on piling up that fits very nicely, with no contradictions or paradoxes.
"I don't expect Ron to agree with me about this, and it doesn't really matter" - It matters when we make unsubstantiated claims about the source of our morals, because when we pick an unsupported source for our morals we can use it to justify anything. Now, thankfully, most people here are pretty much agreed on our morals. But it can soon gets out of hand. When conservative Christians think their theological grounds for not having or homosexuals women bishops trumps fairness; or when Catholics think the name of the church trumps the full exposure and investigation of abuse; or when Islamic nations think their theological requirement for stoning to death female adulterers trumps sexual freedom and right to life; then it matters very much where we think our morals come from.
"My theology suggests that human values can have a spark of divinity about them." - And that's a pretty tame view. Some people think that human values are dictated entirely by whatever their current interpretation of their holy book says. Not always a good result.
Mike,
"Rationality without God is a human construct." - God is a human construct. The evidence we have, viewed rationally, implies this is the case.
"In fact (as a Christian) I do not think God is entirely rational." - Presupposition - in this case a God that is not rational.
"Look at the stories of Abraham and Isaac for starters." and "As Ron says: an existent God doesn't automatically mean that God is rational." - Then nor does it automatically mean that Biblical stories are anything at all about God, should your presupposition there is a God be true.
"Surely these sorts of stories warn us Christians against idolizing rationality?" - I remain mystified by the fact that Christians can idolise Jesus and at the same time denounce idolatry. Except of course the Trinity is a neat attempt to escape from that charge.
"If you take these things out of the equation you are left with Harris' absolutely feeble attempt to base ethics on science (empiricism + rationality)"
As much as you don't like it that's all we do anyway - all of us. You and every Christian alive today apply only (empiricism + rationality) to your presupposition that there is a God. You empirically read the Bible, particularly the NT, you use your rationality to interpret it. You accept what it says about Jesus without due scepticism. For those that have what they think is a religious experience of God, you make this experience fit your understanding of God. You use rationality to build your Christianity on the presupposition of God and the stories in the Bible, and then use your reason to winnow out the real nonsense, so that you are left with something that you find convincing and acceptable, using lots of affirmation on the way. But note that had you been born to a Muslim family you would have followed the same route, using the Koran, and your religious experience would have been of Allah.
"or Ron's which is infinitely better but sill desperately in need of a place to stand on which to come to some conclusion. "
Why desperate? This seems a view that many theists attribute to materialism or atheism. There's an unbounded (by God) freedom, an excitement for what we will discover, or what we will evolve to become. Why the need for a conclusion? Everything we do is a work in progress.
Mike,
"Ron has to resort to rationality" - Resort? No, relish. Don't you find it appealing when we figure something out using our own basic rational capabilities? Doesn't it satisfy you that this animal, barely out of pre-conscious, has stormed onto the scene on this planet and figured so much out so far, in such a short time? Unless of course you're thinking parochial Biblical time.
"whose rationality does he trust: his, yours, mine?" - I trust our collective rationality to eventually get it right - I'm an optimist. No, I don't trust yours. I wouldn't trust mine, alone. My current opinions are influences to such a great extent by those that have gone before and those I interact with now that I shouldn't expect anything other than the tiniest of miniscule of roles for my rationality, left to its own devices. I happen to have found a rational explanation that, though not being conclusive, is pretty persuasive, at least to me.
"he has to trust the evidence of his (or someone else who he trusts) senses. An amazing leap of trust all round t that seems to me equivalent to our belief in God!"
A leap of trust, yes, but not such a great leap. And not a leap of faith. Trust is far more contingent that faith. I have put my trust in science sometimes and found later that trust wasn't justified. We do what we can with what we have. But let's be honest, we put our trust in science all the time, and plenty of times our lives depend on our trust in science. If the science is wrong we die. Mostly when we do die and it's not a direct human act of natural death, then the fault is usually the technology, the implementation of science, such as when an aircraft crashes. Sometimes the science is flawed or incomplete, as with Thalidomide.
Putting your trust in God isn't such a risky business usually, because people don't risk their lives in the same way. They don't jump off buildings and pray that God will save them. Or if they do they're not usually around to broadcast that failure in the trust relationship. This makes God sound pretty benign. In that sense it is - you don't usually have to put your faith in God when you sit in church the same way you put it in science when you sit in a plane. But this lack of risk is actually pretty damning of God. He's so ineffectual, so inconsequential, that no matter what you believe about him, no matter how you abuse him, nothing's going to happen.
Except of course when people put their trust in God to the extent that they think he's backing them when they go into war, of fly planes into buildings. But to be fair, it's not God that at fault here, it's the humans who mistakenly believe this stuff.
" And either are a much, much better starting point than rationality." - rationality isn't a starting point, it's a process. This is why I think we need to consider more what our starting point really is, hence my post.
Post a Comment