A fundamental philosophical question for those of us who do not base morality on a deity is what to base it on instead.
One possibility is to try to base ethics on science.
Certainly scientific knowledge, along with other kinds of information, is important to applying our moral values to particular issues. For example, the science of fetal development is relevant to ethical arguments about abortion.
But the real question is whether science alone can tell us right from wrong and good from bad.
Here is a link to an outstanding panel debate about this question held a few years ago at Arizona State University. The panel comprises Steven Pinker, Simon Blackburn, Lawrence Kraus, Peter Singer, Patricia Smith Churchland and Sam Harris. The main Web page divides the remarks by these excellent speakers into portions that make it easier to view and listen. I encourage everyone to spend some time with this if you can, in part because it will enrich the event we have planned for our meeting Sunday, when we will discuss some of the issues I raised in my talk.
http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/the-great-debate
Sam Harris argues that morality can be based on science alone. I think it is important to point out that this runs afoul of the observation of David Hume, the 18th century philosopher of the Scottish Enlightenment, expressed by the slogan that “You can’t get an ought from an is.” This point is made by some on the panel, but I wish it had been made more clear. Here is another way to explain the idea.
Suppose someone makes an argument for a conclusion stating an ethical position, and suppose the argument represents good, logical reasoning. Arguments, as we know, have premises and a conclusion. And in this case, the conclusion is a value judgment. So here is the point of the slogan taken from Hume:
Any good argument with a conclusion that is a value judgment must have at least one premise that is also a value judgment.
In other words, you can’t logically base a value judgment on facts alone. And, since it seems that science is supposed to deal only in facts, Hume’s observation prevents basing morality on science alone. That’s how I see it, anyway.
I am very interested in what others think about whether we need something more than scientific knowledge for ethics. I hope you will reply with comments on this question, whether or not you get a chance to view the online videos from the panel debate.
