Delving into ethics

In 2010 Sam Harris exposed the world to his claim that science can play a role in determining what is ethical and what is not. What this comes down to is a claim that there is objectivity in the ethics… that it is not completely subjective. What I found out when trying to discuss this with others is the same thing that Sam Harris found out. It is very controversial… even amongst self-proclaimed Humanists who claim that behaviors that are “good” are measurable by their consequences to human beings.

Sam Harris’s unveiling of this position first occurred in a “TED talk”… a free on-line video on a site devoted to providing talks on important new ideas from notable people. The aftermath of that talk was an on-line series of critiques and rebuttals which Sam Harris loved because he was finishing up a book on this subject and this gave him a preview of the critique, hence an ability to incorporate some of his response in the book. The book was published in October, 2010 and I received a copy of it as a Christmas gift. I’ve started reading it, but at this point have not yet finished.

Basically, what Sam Harris is saying is that, 1) what is ethical is what promotes well-being, 2) well-being comes down to states of human consciousness, 3) states of consciousness are the consequence of physical processes of the human brain and are themselves physical…hence measurable. Once ethics can be measured, it can be studied scientifically.

His motivation for this book is aligned with his motivation for his other books. While the purely cynical will say “yes…to make money”, I would say that a component of that motivation relates to his concern with the impact of extremist religion in the world, most importantly its role in Islamic terrorism. He is frustrated by the tendency of many intelligent people to avoid criticism of other cultures (and religions) and the behaviors that result from them. Generally, this is called “moral relativism”… the belief that ethics are entirely subjective and that what is “good” or “bad” is entirely a function of one’s “frame of reference”. Some intelligent people will stick to this general view of ethics even to the point of defending female genital mutilation, murder as punishment for daughters who are raped, etc. Harris is uncomfortable with that. So am I.

In fact, Bertrand Russell, a humanist and one of the greatest intellectuals of the 20^th century, was also uncomfortable with the purely subjective treatment of ethics. I know this because I just finished a book that I would highly recommend, “Bertrand Russell’s Ethics”, by Michael K. Potter. This book describes the evolution of Russell’s ethics through his life…ethics that recognized the role of subjectivity, but, in the end, included objective components. From the book… “Late in life, Russell admitted that he was dissatisfied with his moral philosophy. 'I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values, ' he lamented, 'but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it. '”

Russell’s ethics evolved from the forms of “Emotivism” described by A.J. Ayers and C.L. Stevenson. These early theories of ethics posited that ethical statements were expression of only attitudes and could not be used to argue ethical positions. Potter points out many flaws in these early theories, most notably that they did not provide any means of resolving ethical dilemmas; they were not practical. Russell excelled at addressing ethical dilemmas and Potter, while in the end still finding faults with Russell’s form of ethics (as did Russell!), found his theory to be far superior to the early theories and worthy of continued consideration and development.

Russell delved deeper into ethical theory than the early emotivists. Instead of referring to “attitudes”, he looked at ethical statements as statements of desire. In Potter’s words “His theory can also account for the difference between moral and non-moral values - the first concern universalizable and maximally compossible desires; the second do not.” In other words, moral values relate to desires held generally by everyone and are compatible with one another. His answer to the question “Is this good?” is, 'Yes, if it is compatible with the general collective desires of humanity. ' The collective desires of humanity seem objective/measurable… perhaps even more so today as neuroscience starts understanding in what ways our brains have common structure and functions.

Potter states that Russell’s early works on the theory of “impulses and desires” is fundamental to understanding his ethics, though Russell never referred to them when discussing ethics. Russell tried to delve deeper into how the mind works in order to understand ethics. I wonder what revisions he would make his theories if he possessed our current understanding of the human mind.

Though I haven’t finished his book, it is clear Harris is not trying to define a complete theory of ethics. He is expressing the concerns that Russell expressed with a completely subjective approach and is suggesting a way out that, to me, may have a lot in common with the direction that Russell was trying to go. It is also frightening in its implications and that fear makes a lot of people want to immediately dismiss it. What if morals have a significant objective component and there can be ‘experts in a science of morality’? What if they tell me that I am immoral or have acted unethically? What if the science of morality is far beyond the capability of the common man to understand, such that we are reliant upon experts to explain it to us? Can we trust them? Taken to an extreme, the idea of objectified ethics can be terrifying... but does that mean it is not the right direction? Is it better for people to throw their hands up and be afraid to judge anyone else? Is it better to leave ethics/morality in the hands of the many religions of the world that favor an absolutist form of ethics with a subjective basis? In these times when we have problems we face as a species, isn’t it better to find common objective values that can lead us to unity?