Subject: Re: Objectivity/Sagan in NY ReviewofBooks
From: gcf@panix.com (G*rd*n)
Date: 6 Jan 1997 19:51:54 -0500
Dr. Lewontin goes on:
| > Conscientious and wholly admirable
| > popularizers of science like Carl Sagan
| > use both rhetoric and expertise to form
| > the mind of the masses because they be-
| > lieve, like the Evangelist John, that
| > the truth shall make you free. But
| > they are wrong. It is not the truth that
| > makes you free. It is your possession
| > of the power to discover the truth. Our
| > dilemma is that we do not know how
| > to provide that power.
gcf@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >I recommend the article. It would be especially interesting
| >if anyone supposed they had an answer to his dilemma, which
| >can be fully understood only be reading that article, not
| >this one.
spedders@mognet.u-net.com (I H Spedding):
| I cannot comment on the rest of Dr Lewontin's article since I have not
| read it, but it seems to me that he has offered an answer to the
| dilemma he poses in his citation of Carl Sagan. The power to discover
| truth, whatever that may be, lies in an enquiring, imaginative,
| rational and educated mind.
There four qualities may turn out to be a contradiction in
terms. My education certainly did nothing to enhance my
imagination, and much of it was irrational (learn this or
else!) I suspect many educations are so.
The problem Dr. Lewontin had with Dr. Sagan was similar to
the one I had, but he expressed it better and more fully:
Dr. Sagan, in the end, did _not_ recommend inquiry,
imagination, and reason, but only education, that is,
submission to authority. This will suit some natures, but
not others, who will continue to search the heavens for a
sign, and perhaps see ones not acceptable to the educated.
We do not in fact know how to provide _that_ person with
the power to discover the truth.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{
Subject: Objective morality based on scientific and rational reasoning
From: okhutor@aol.com (OKhutor)
Date: 7 Jan 1997 07:50:54 GMT
I have written an essay located at
http://members.aol.com/OKhutor/essay/morals.html
arguing for the existence of an objective morality. In it, I also
describe a method by which we can approximate what this objective morality
is. I give examples of how this method can be applied to various moral
issues. In this post, I have included the first several paragraphs of the
essay.
-Eugene Khutoryansky
////////////////////
My purpose in writing this is to argue for the existence of an
objective morality based entirely on rational and scientific reasoning.
By "objective morality" I do not simply mean that morality exists in the
sense that various societies consider various actions to be immoral. What
I mean is that certain actions are inherently right or wrong regardless of
what any society thinks about them. In other words, I mean that there is
an "objective morality" which exists independently of human beliefs and
human civilization. There are many people who have the opinion that it is
not possible to believe in such an objective morality without also
believing in concepts such as God or an eternal soul. I believe that they
are wrong. I will attempt to show that an objective morality exists and
that this morality is the same regardless of which religion, if any, is
correct.
Many people believe that without a religious framework, the only
possible conclusion is that all morality is nothing more than a human
construct without any objective existence. In other words, what morality
a person or a culture accepts is like picking a favorite flavor of ice
cream. Some individuals prefer strawberry ice cream, other individuals
prefer chocolate, and no person s preference is "more correct" than
another s. In a similar manner, they argue, different individuals and
different societies have various favorite moral belief systems, and just
as with ice cream, no particular set of moral beliefs is "more correct"
than any other.
A common argument for this type of thinking is the following.
Throughout history, different cultures have had vastly different moral
systems. In fact, on almost any moral issue, it appears that there is
absolutely no agreement or consensus shared by even a majority of the
cultures throughout history. In addition to this, there appears to be no
way to prove the superiority of one moral system over another using logic
alone. So the only way in which one moral system can actually be the
correct one is if religion is the tie breaker. That is, whichever value
system the "correct religion" advocates is the correct value system.
Otherwise, there is no way to decide between them.
I believe that this type of argument is easily refuted. In order to
argue for the existence of an objective morality, I will have to do more
than just point out the flaws in lines of reasoning such as this. I will
have to provide my own arguments that an objective morality does exist. I
will also have to explain a process by which we can attempt to determine
what it is. This is what I intend to do. I would first, though, like to
take some time to point out some of the errors in the reasoning above.
There are two points that the argument above makes. The first regards the
lack of consensus regarding morality. The second involves the inability
to prove the superiority of one moral system over another using logic
alone.
It is true that throughout history, different cultures have held
vastly different beliefs about morality. These cultures have also held
vastly different beliefs regarding natural physical laws. Consider, for
example, the belief in gravity. Currently, it is believed that the
phenomena which we call gravity is the result of the fact that objects
with mass cause a curvature in "space-time". Under this framework, we
believe that a clock located in a high gravitational field will appear to
run slower than an identical clock in region with low gravity. We also
believe, under this framework, that the path of something without mass,
such as a beam of light, is affected by gravity. This was not always the
case. At the beginning of the twentieth century, for example, it was
believed that the phenomena of gravity is the result of the fact that all
objects with mass exert an attractive force on each other. According to
this view, the path of a beam of light should be unaffected by gravity and
identical clocks should run at the same speed everywhere. This had not
always been the case either. At an earlier time it was believed that the
natural place for objects such as rocks was on the ground while the
natural place for things like steam was up in the sky. According to this
perspective, rocks fell to the ground while steam rose because everything
tends to go to its natural place. If we do a more thorough examination,
including all the cultures throughout all of history, we will find an even
larger variety of opinions regarding the law of gravity.
This does not, though, mean that there is no objective law of gravity
which exists independently of human society. The beliefs in gravity which
I described are attempts by human societies to approximate reality.
Clearly, some approximations are better than others. Perhaps the current
belief in the curvature of space-time is also incorrect and will later be
replaced by an even better approximation. However, most people would have
no problem agreeing that the curvature of space-time explanation of
gravity is a better approximation to reality than the explanations which
came before it.
All that this shows is that even though different cultures hold very
different beliefs about a certain issue, this does necessarily imply that
there is no objective reality behind these beliefs. The claim which I
will be arguing for is that this is the same for morality as it is for
gravity. All the moral beliefs which came before us and all the moral
beliefs today are, in exactly the same way as in the case of gravity,
approximations to the objective reality which exists independently of
human beings. Although probably none of these approximations correspond
to reality exactly, as with gravity, some approximations are better than
others. For example, the value system of a society which condones slavery
but condemns cannibalism is incorrect, but it is a better approximation to
reality than that of a society which condones both slavery and
cannibalism.
The claim that no one has yet been able to prove the correctness of a
particular moral system through logic alone is also correct. However, if
we continue the analogy with gravity, we will realize that no one has also
been able to prove the existence of gravity through logic alone either.
The reason we believe that a rock will fall to the ground is because that
is what we have always observed when we have let go of rocks in the past.
There is a little more to it than that, of course, but not much. Our
current theory of gravity predicts many specific phenomena. These include
rocks falling to the ground, planets orbiting the Sun, the creation of
ocean tides by the moon, and identical clocks running at different speeds.
The only reason why we do believe in our current theory of gravity is
because every time we have observed these phenomena, what we saw
corresponded with what the theory predicted. If we were deprived of these
observations, we would have no reason to believe in gravity at all. There
is no way, using logic alone, that a person can prove the existence of
gravity or the superiority of one theory of gravity to another. It is
only by using logical reasoning in combination with observation that a
person can argue for the existence of gravity. Even then, it is not be
possible to do so with total 100% assurance. The fact that the current
theory of gravity has always made correct predictions in the past does not
guarantee that the theory will give correct predictions tomorrow. What a
person can do, though, is to show, by using logical reasoning in
combination with observations, that our theory of gravity is most likely
true.
This is what I intend to do for morality. There are, of course, some
differences in arguing for an objective moral law and an objective
gravitational law. Perhaps one of the most significant is that it is
possible to construct equipment which quantitatively measure the effects
of gravity. That is, it is possible to construct a speed detector that
tells you that a rock is moving with a velocity of ten meters per second
at a certain moment in time. On the other hand, it is not currently
possible to construct a morality meter which tells you that a certain
action is wrong with an immorality of ten immorality units. Nevertheless,
this is an obstacle which I believe can easily be overcome. I will
explain the way in which I overcome this obstacle a little bit later. For
now, I would just like to point out that the fact that we can not build
such a detector does not automatically imply that an objective morality
does not exist. It was not that long ago that we were unable to detect or
measure the existence of electrons. This, however, does imply that
electrons did not exist in that time period. Electrons (objectively)
existed regardless of whether or not we could build devices which detected
them. The same, I believe, is true for morality.
I have divided my discussion into four parts. The first part is the
introduction. In the second part, I attempt to show that it is
objectively wrong to torture another person for pleasure. In this second
part, I do not deal with something even as mildly complicated as torturing
one person to prevent the suffering of another. Since I am trying to show
that an objective morality exists independently of human beliefs, just
showing that there exists one action which is objectively wrong should be
sufficient to demonstrate my position that some objective morality exists.
However, just believing that an objective morality exists should not
be enough to satisfy anyone s inquiry into the matter. In part three, I
discuss how we can determine what this objective morality says about
controversial moral issues. As in the case of gravity, I only claim to
have a method to find good approximations to this objective moral law, not
to get it exactly right the first time. By spending more time applying
this method to a particular moral issue, we will obtain better
approximations. I give examples of how this method can be applied to
issues such as abortion, war, animal rights, and forcing your morality on
others.. I also discuss if an action which does not harm anyone can be
immoral and if it is ever correct to say that one life is "worth more"
than another. In addition, I give a method for establishing a belief
about if another being possesses consciousness, which is useful in
attempting to determine if we have an obligation to act morally towards
that being.
The fourth part is relatively independent of the rest of my
discussion. In part four, I briefly discuss other alternative views about
the nature and origin of morality. I touch on several topics. I discuss
how a belief in God can be reconciled with the position which I advocate
and why I think that it is not logically consistent to hold the opinion
that a belief in God is necessary in order to believe in an objective
morality. I discuss moral systems based on ideas like karma and perfect
justice which are often associated with reincarnation. I also discuss a
few other views regarding morality and what I think their flaws are. I
talk about what I think is wrong with thinking of morality as just a
social behavior which evolved to help our survival. I also discuss why I
think that it is not possible to successfully base the foundation of a
society on self interest or a social contract. I also mention why
morality is much more than simply attempting to maximize a certain
quantity such as happiness. Nowhere in my presentation do I discuss
whether any particular religion is correct or incorrect. I limit my
presentation to discussing the development of a belief in an objective
morality without appealing to religious teachings. I do, though, show how
my position can be reconciled with various religious beliefs. I also
show how the definition of morality which I am about to give can be
reconciled with the theory of evolution and natural selection. In
addition, I discuss if moral beliefs improve in the long run with the
passage of time.
///////////////
If you are interested in reading the rest, please visit
http://members.aol.com/OKhutor/essay/morals.html
Right now, you have read approximately half of part one.
