Ought-ology? Science & Ethics

[Philosophy Now]

by Rick Lewis

https://philosophynow.org/issues/109/Ou ... and_Ethics

[Impenitent]

Hume was correct of course

then again, one ought to waddle in a tuxedo...

-Imp

[markus7]

Rick, you ask if “any argument which apparently derives conclusions about what we ought to do from premises which state only what is the case” can be true. I agree that such an argument would include a category error, mistaking what ‘is’ for what ‘ought’ to be.

But moral principles, and hence moral codes, could be based on science based ‘is’ claims about moral universals. For example, “Do to others as you would have them do to you” appears to be a heuristic for a moral universal.

From the science of the last forty years or so, it appears we can identify a universally morally subset of behaviors, and a universally moral principle underlying those behaviors, hidden amongst the diversity, contradictions and bizarreness of descriptively moral behaviors. (Descriptively moral behaviors here referring to the behaviors science studies when it studies morality - all behaviors motivated by our moral sense and advocated by past and present moral codes.) That is, science can answer the ‘is’ question “What is universally moral amongst all the behaviors that are descriptively moral?”.

Assume there is such a universal moral principle. Then, if asked to propose a universal moral principle, all well-informed, rational people would (in the absence of any other justified universal moral principle) necessarily have to put forward this universal moral principle from science.

All rational disagreements about moral norms would have to accept this moral principle as true if it is the principle put forward by all well-informed, rational people.

Moral philosophers could object “Science may be able to uncover what is universally moral based on empirical and theoretical evidence but science cannot show that this morality is what we ‘ought’ to do regardless of human needs and preferences – the true definition of normative!”

Well, the moral code (or its underlying principle) put forward by all rational people, independent of bindingness, actually is one definition of normative – see Bernard Gert’s definition in the SEP’s “Morality” entry. However, regardless of how normativity is or is not defined, such a universal moral principle would be culturally useful in resolving moral disputes and in designing moral codes that fit human psychology.

My candidate for such a universal moral principle is “Behaviors that increase the benefits of cooperation without exploitation are universally moral”. As I alluded to initially, a well-known heuristic (a usually reliable, but fallible, rule of thumb) for this universal moral principle is “Do to others as you would have them do to you” – which advocates for the core of indirect reciprocity, one of the universally moral cooperation strategies.

[Dalek Prime]

The Golden Rule should be the basis of morality. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

[Impenitent]

The Golden Rule should be the basis of morality. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

he who has the gold makes the rules

-Imp

[markus7]

Dalek, the Golden Rule is only a heuristic (a usually reliable, but fallible, rule of thumb) for a cooperation strategy. For example, is it moral to always follow the Golden Rule in war time or, if you are a judge sentencing or a policman pursuing a criminal? No, it is not - the Golden Rule fails. It is not moral to follow the Golden Rule, as in these cases, when doing so would decrease the benefits of cooperation in the society.

Further, the Golden Rule is not sufficient on its own because it does not mention the moral obligation to punish free-loaders and others who exploit people’s efforts at cooperation. Without such punishment, cooperation by means of the Golden Rule is not sustainable. Advocating the Golden Rule without mentioning the need to punish bad behavior normally works fine though because we carry around as part of our biology a moral sense that is more than ready to motivate us to punish bad behavior.

[marjoram_blues]

From the editorial:

...A problem arises though when scientists go one step further and claim that some feature of the natural world means we should act in some particular way towards each other; in other words when they step over the line from making descriptive accounts of ethics to making actual prescriptions for how we should behave.

Amy Cools in her article explores why this is a perilous move. Responding to yet another science-based ethic, that of Michael Shermer, she agrees with Shermer that ethics should be informed by science, but argues that it can’t easily be derived from science. Cools explains in depth the difficulty first pointed out by David Hume in his Treatise of Human Nature; that you can’t just hop straight from statements of fact to statements about what should be done. Cools says that little journey is so tricky that only science and philosophy together in partnership have a hope of making it.

I don't get why this journey from an 'is' to an 'ought' is so tricky that the only hope in making it is with a combo of science and philosophy.

Isn't it natural to assess a situation as 'bad', unfair or misguided; and then to desire to change it into something that is better?
The actual 'prescription' for treating the 'ill' is to find the cause. The type of 'cure' might be found in science, philosophy, politics - art or science.

There are so many moral issues e.g. racism, environmental - all concerning judgement. Of course we can jump to a 'what is' to a 'what should be done'. Easy-peasy. In terms of producing ethical principles, it's been done already. What's the problem?

[Dalek Prime]

Dalek, the Golden Rule is only a heuristic (a usually reliable, but fallible, rule of thumb) for a cooperation strategy. For example, is it moral to always follow the Golden Rule in war time or, if you are a judge sentencing or a policman pursuing a criminal? No, it is not - the Golden Rule fails. It is not moral to follow the Golden Rule, as in these cases, when doing so would decrease the benefits of cooperation in the society.

Further, the Golden Rule is not sufficient on its own because it does not mention the moral obligation to punish free-loaders and others who exploit people’s efforts at cooperation. Without such punishment, cooperation by means of the Golden Rule is not sustainable. Advocating the Golden Rule without mentioning the need to punish bad behavior normally works fine though because we carry around as part of our biology a moral sense that is more than ready to motivate us to punish bad behavior.

Markus, I'm speaking from a completely ideal point of view, where everyone follows the rule, in which case the deviations you mention don't exist. Where not everyone follows it, there will be a breakdown. But it's not because the Golden Rule is flawed. It's because humans are, in not following it.

Don't blame the rule; blame the rule breaker.

[markus7]

Dalek, my goal is to understand what moral norms will be most effective in meeting the needs of fallible, and flawed, human beings. What use are norms that do not do that? Moral norms serve a society, the society does not serve the moral norms.

[spike]

The cover of the magazine can explain a lot. I consider it part of the editorial. This one shows the two themes of issue 109, the globe in hand representing ethics and the robotic hand representing science. Perhaps it is also saying that the world is falling and relinquishing itself to the hand of science.

I think it is significant that a robotic hand is included because more and more jobs of all kinds are being automated and robotized, especially in manufacturing and menial jobs. Thus, unemployment of humans will increase in the future.

What is to become of all the unemployed people in the future? No doubt it will increase. That certainly will be a huge ethical/moral question to deal with. Maybe it will solve itself, with the unemployed someday going out and colonize space, as desperate people once did in colonizing the New World.

[Dalek Prime]

Dalek, my goal is to understand what moral norms will be most effective in meeting the needs of fallible, and flawed, human beings. What use are norms that do not do that? Moral norms serve a society, the society does not serve the moral norms.

Well, flawed and fallible humans have already broken all moral norms set before them. So why not aim for the ideal?

[spike]

Democracy is a pretty moral system. I don't think Science could be held to moral accountability if it wasn't for Democracy.