The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

The Science of Right and Wrong

The Science of Right and Wrong

Ever since the rise of modern science, an almost impregnable wall separating it from religion, morality and human values has been raised to the heights. The “naturalistic fallacy,” sometimes rendered as the “is-ought problem”—the way something “is” does not mean that is the way it “ought” to be—has for centuries been piously parroted from its leading proponents, philosophers David Hume and G. E. Moore, as if pronouncing it closes the door to further scientific inquiry.

We should be skeptical of this divide. If morals and values should not be based on the way things are—reality—then on what should they be based? All moral values must ultimately be grounded in human nature, and in my book The Science of Good and Evil (Times Books, 2004), I build a scientific case for the evolutionary origins of the moral sentiments and for the ways in which science can inform moral decisions. As a species of social primates, we have evolved a deep sense of right and wrong to accentuate and reward reciprocity and cooperation and to attenuate and punish excessive selfishness and free riding. On the constitution of human nature are built the constitutions of human societies.

Grafted onto this evolutionary ethics is a new field called neuroethics, whose latest champion is the steely-eyed skeptic and cogent writer Sam Harris, a neuroscientist who in his book The Moral Landscape (Free Press, 2010) wields a sledgehammer to the is-ought wall. Harris’s is a first-principle argument, backed by copious empirical evidence woven through a tightly reasoned narrative. The first principle is the well-being of conscious creatures, from which we can build a science-based system of moral values by quantifying whether or not X increases or decreases well-being. For instance, Harris asks, Is it right or wrong to force women to dress in cloth bags and to douse their faces in acid for committing adultery? It doesn’t take rocket science— or religion, Harris astringently opines—to conclude that such “cultural values” decrease the well-being of the women so affected and thus are morally wrong.

Read the rest of this short blog post on MichaelShermer.com.

Tags: Michael Shermer, Sam Harris, ethics, morality, right, science, wrong

0 members like this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jennifer Hancock on February 24, 2011 at 11:42am

I agree - but I also think that there is value in the is/ought framework. Mostly when making the case that we ought to try to make things better rather then accepting the status quo. That we evolved emotions that lead us to make moral decisions is pretty clear and yes, our emotional response to things is sufficient enough to label them good or bad. But when making the case that we ought to change what is, I don't see how you do that without getting into the is/ought framework.

In short, I think both approaches are useful depending on context.

Permalink Reply by Dallas Gaytheist on February 24, 2011 at 11:49am

that we ought to try to make things better rather then accepting the status quo.

I don't think that that is what the is/ought conundrum tries to imply (or prevent). It is not saying "well, sickness IS, therefore we OUGHT NOT to do anything about it." I think the way it is used, and misapplied via the Naturalistic Fallacy, is as a justification of things such as 150 years ago with "blacks are slaves (the IS), so they are inferior being and ought to be treated as such." I could be wrong, and that may not be the best example, but I think the is/ought problem is, as I said, usually used to justify an actual injustice.

our emotional response to things is sufficient enough to label them good or bad.

I would have to disagree with that. Many fundies have an emotional reaction of disgust to me because I am gay. Is that sufficient enough to label me as bad? I don't think so. Though yes, emotions can and do inform our moral decisions.

Permalink Reply by Tonya Wynn on April 12, 2011 at 1:23pm

Reading Contact by Sagan...there's a quote in there about thinking comes BEFORE emotions or helps form emotions. I agree. Look at how our emotional reactions can change when we learn to think differently.

RSS

Welcome to
Atheist Nexus

Sign Up
or Sign In

Or sign in with: