Category — Ethics

The difficulty of arguing for an objective morality is not necessarily an argument against the validity of such a pursuit, since moral anti-realism, in its different forms, is also difficult to argue for. Furthermore, there is a sense in which we feel quite strongly, more so than we do for our taste in music, say, that morality is objective, and that one can be wrong about it. This feeling is almost as strong as the conviction that the chair exists, despite there being no inarguable philosophical argument in its favour.

But it must be confessed that the nature of moral objectivity, if it is not just an illusion, is very different from the fact of Newton’s laws or of 2 and 2 equalling 4. I would instead argue for what I call an evolutionary moral pragmatism, which aims to render the metaethical question of objectivity and subjectivity irrelevant, and strives rather to find the objectively best morality under certain conditions and based on certain premisses which are taken to be reasonable and easily agreed upon, in the same way that the objectively best medical operation is one which most effectively cures the given ailment, regardless of one’s eccentric taste for a different kind of success.  There is nothing in medicine that can impel a doctor to undertake an operation correctly other than the possibility of losing his job, an outcome which medicine itself cannot render undesirable. [Read more →]

If the place of indiscriminate killing in the evolutionary realm was comparatively clear, and the place of theft was a little more muddied, then the place of rape is considerably more complicated. Once again, since we are trying to understand it in evolutionary terms, we must try to work out the nature of the motivation in the first place, and only then try to work out whether this amounts to a benefit or otherwise for the species.

There is much controversy in the psychological and legal communities regarding the extent to which rape is sexually motivated and the extent to which it is power-driven. We can surely say without reams of evidence that neither in isolation is anything like a satisfactory solution. Sexual desire exists in virtually everyone, and hardly ever manifests itself as rape; the desire for power exists in many people and doesn’t usually result in such extreme harm. There is also the question, in the latter case, of exactly what sort of power rape confers on the rapist. If it does confer power, it is only of the most worthless kind (as opposed to, say, owning a multinational company or being the President of France), and we therefore must conclude that the person who desires this sort of power is suffering some kind of mental imbalance. But neither are the two in combination quite a satisfactory solution, for the problems that attend them individually exist in combination, too. [Read more →]

Is theft really so bad? Perhaps, but only if ownership is so good.

In the last discussion, it did not appear to take too long, or require too much marshalling of evidence, to conclude that no moral system can sustain the instinct to murder: either the species dies out, or the instinct does. However, it turns out that this instinct may be the only one that can be dealt with so summarily, since it is the only one that deals directly with survival. When dealing with theft, we are instantly confronted with a problem of definition. The connotations of the word “theft” are too strong to use without question. It would perhaps be more accurate to think of theft as one kind of taking, and specifically one which implies the existence of, and tacit social agreement to, the idea of ownership. [Read more →]

If we are to work towards an objective understanding of morality, and more specifically a scientific understanding that justifies thinking of moral codes as being good or bad, then the best way to start is to perceive morality through an evolutionary lens. Let’s assume for the sake of argument—as surely we must—that there is nothing about our human morality (taking certain precepts, like “thou shalt do no murder”, and so on, as being broadly representative of this) that is superior or inferior to the morality of other species, real or imagined. We only really need one assumption to compare different moral systems in a way that affords no room for subjectivity: they all evolve, and those that are unsuccessful will not last very long. [Read more →]

I just took a look at Sam Harris’s now-slightly-infamous TED talk (above), and had a little flick through a subsequent piece in the Huffington Post, and was rather interested in what he had to say. Interested, because I had thought it was the cast-iron consensus among educated peoples to speak of morality in relative terms, or at the very most to concede that it is such a difficult subject that we can’t reasonably hope to get to the bottom of it. Even if this were the correct view, I have always thought it a somewhat frustrating one—if you cannot prove you are right, on what basis can you assert that you are right? Clearly, relativists must think this too, but opt for a different route at the fork. [Read more →]