A utilitarian/scientific moral theory?
Posted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 7:05 pm
Some of you may be familiar with Sam Harris, in particular his membership in the ranks of the "new atheist" movement, but I'm not going to talk about that. Instead, I want to bring up a moral theory he proposed:
Its a kind of utilitarianism and it works like this:
In order to agree with it, you need to have a scientific attitude toward truth, and agree that the worst possible world is one in which every conscious being suffers as much as possible for as long as possible as intensely as possible. That's all it needs. After that you've already agreed that well-being and the avoidance of suffering for everyone is what is moral, and that knowledge of how the world works (ie science), is how to optimize well-being as much as possible.
Important to notice, its not naive: consider abortion just as a test case:
Does abortion optimize the well-being of everyone when a woman doesn't want the child? Its not simple-minded in stating that "the fetus doesn't suffer therefore abortion is ok," because it considers the global circumstances. What are the social consequences of allowing the government to restrict the freedoms of one gender over their own bodies? What are the psychological consequences of allowing women to end pregnancies (both after AND BEFORE, ie does it change decision-making?) And finally of course, what do we know about the fetus and its ability to suffer or consciously experience?
All of these questions are scientific: they require a blend of statistics, psychology, biology, social science, etc.
I like it, the theory is simple but robust, and whats especially important, it holds even for people who think they aren't utilitarian. thoughts?
Its a kind of utilitarianism and it works like this:
In order to agree with it, you need to have a scientific attitude toward truth, and agree that the worst possible world is one in which every conscious being suffers as much as possible for as long as possible as intensely as possible. That's all it needs. After that you've already agreed that well-being and the avoidance of suffering for everyone is what is moral, and that knowledge of how the world works (ie science), is how to optimize well-being as much as possible.
Important to notice, its not naive: consider abortion just as a test case:
Does abortion optimize the well-being of everyone when a woman doesn't want the child? Its not simple-minded in stating that "the fetus doesn't suffer therefore abortion is ok," because it considers the global circumstances. What are the social consequences of allowing the government to restrict the freedoms of one gender over their own bodies? What are the psychological consequences of allowing women to end pregnancies (both after AND BEFORE, ie does it change decision-making?) And finally of course, what do we know about the fetus and its ability to suffer or consciously experience?
All of these questions are scientific: they require a blend of statistics, psychology, biology, social science, etc.
I like it, the theory is simple but robust, and whats especially important, it holds even for people who think they aren't utilitarian. thoughts?