Sam Harris, famous atheist and neuroscientist, wrote a book on how morality can stand on its own without being propped up by God. In his book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, Harris grounds morality in the "well-being" of conscious creatures [including some animals] and "depends entirely on events in the world and on states of the human brain" into which science can speak. Harris defines good as anything that "supports well-being" and bad as that which causes harm: "It seems uncontroversial to say that a change that leaves everyone worse off, by an rational standard, can be reasonably called 'bad,' if this word is to have any meaning at all." Later he writes, "A rational approach to ethics becomes possible once we realize that questions of right and wrong are really questions about the happiness and suffering of sentient creatures." This view is similar to 19th utilitarianism which held that morality is what promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people."
This is a worthwhile theory to consider, but there are some issues with it; for example, can we always know the greatest good? How do individuals experience the "greatest good" or collective happiness? If morality is determined by a state of the brain ("well-being"), how can we experience a brain state other than our own? As Stokes writes: "The maximum pleasure ever experienced by anyone is still that of a sole individual's brain state. A collective or additive happiness or well-being is something that no one experiences. It doesn't exist." And when this state of well-being is expanded beyond the human species to certain animals, determining the collective well-being becomes even more difficult. According to ethicist Peter Singer, our moral actions, in some cases, have to consider the well-being of animals: "[In considering pain] the principle of equal consideration of interests demand that we give equal weight to the interests of the human and the mouse." If a true, moral system is to tell us what we ought to do in any given situation, the task become more difficult when we have to consider not only the greater good of the humans involved, but animals, too. And since animals cannot communicate as clearly as humans, in many cases, humans would have to guess about the well-being of the animals and impart our values on them; thereby, risking protests of speciesism.
The other potential problem to consider is, how subjective are Harris' morals? Harris' morality seems to focus on "prudential goods"; that is, those that are good for the subject or the person. Prudential values appear to be conditional rather than absolute. There's always an "if"; for example, if you don't want painful cavities, you should go to the dentist. The lack of cavities is certainly a state of well-being, but not going to the dentist and avoiding the anxiety and discomfort of drilling is also a state of well-being. It's hard to declare from a state of well-being perspective that a person "ought" to go to the dentist. Harris' morality seems to be prudential...conditional. Non-prudential, moral values don't seem to be conditional in this way; for example, you ought to love your neighbor no matter what, regardless of what you or anyone else thinks; regardless of your goals, desires, or needs.
I guess the question is, can Harris' state of well-being morality tell us what we must do - what we ought to do? Does it have the authority and clarity?
I ran across someone parroting Harris' definition of morals as that which promotes well-being. So I asked, why should I do something that promotes the well-being of mankind if it's bad for me?
ReplyDeleteHe postured, fluffed out his plumage, and then announced he had given me the answer. He did not. Harrumph!
That's what it boils down to, doesn't it? Some ideal is so valuable that we will lay down our lives for it. I have a hard time seeing that anything is worth dying for, if there is no transcendent moral code.
The pagan Greeks believed in self-sacrifice, even so. Somehow, the fact that your family and friends might remember you more reverently...? Is that the ticket?
Well, what about when they're all dead?
The history books? They'll all probably be lost to history eventually, anyway. Maybe that's already happened. Do they even teach history anymore? Or has history become just another venue for social justice propaganda?
The rubber meets the road when talking about relationships. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself." Notice Jesus said "neighbor" instead of friend. I have failed that test many times!
To me, the classic question of whether to put the good of all ahead of my own good is this: imagine you're a good student, perhaps in the top 2% or at the bottom of the top 1%, and you want desperately to be accepted into med school. Let's also say you were not blessed to be born the child of a doctor, and that you aren't in the right demographic group to get a special set-aside for your enrollment. No: you will only make it into med school if your grades are in the very top of applicants and your educational pedigree is perfection itself.
Let's say you're realistic enough to know this.
Let's also say an upper classman you know has the key to the final exams.
What do you do?
There is only one answer, morally. By cheating, you would be bearing false witness and (only slightly but still) degrading the process of med school selection and perhaps depriving the field (because you harmed someone, let us not forget) who may have been a better doctor.
But if you're careful, nobody will ever find out.
Do you do it?
You might not, and still be an atheist, I grant. But other than fear of being caught, an atheist still couldn't give a rational answer.
Naturalism makes sociopathy rational.