TOWARD THE END OF THE previous post, I quoted a remark Sam Harris made near end of his talk on science and morality at TED:
But the demagogues are right about one thing, we need a universal conception of human values.
I suggested that Sam was on dangerous ground here.
If he means that we need to come to a universal understanding about what morality is and how it works, based on the actual use humans make of morality, then it's easy to agree.
But if he means that we need to come to a single way of deciding what is right and what is wrong, which will be the province of experts who will then hand the moral law down to the rest of us, then it becomes harder to see the difference between the farmers and the pigs.
Just how would Sam's position be different from the position of the "demagogues"?
It all depends on where Sam stands, so let's listen to Sam...
Now, what stands in the way of this?
Well, one thing to notice is that we do something different when talking about morality -- especially secular, academic, scientist types.
When talking about morality we value differences of opinion in a way that we don't in any other area of our lives.
So, for instance the Dalai Lama gets up every morning meditating on compassion, and he thinks that helping other human beings is an integral component of human happiness.
On the other hand we have someone like Ted Bundy: Ted Bundy was very fond of abducting and raping and torturing and killing young women.
So, we appear to have a genuine difference of opinion about how to profitably use one's time. (Laughter)
Most Western intellectuals look at this situation and say, "Well, there is nothing for the Dalai Lama to be really right about -- really right about -- or for Ted Bundy to be really wrong about that admits of a real argument that potentially falls within the purview of science.
He likes chocolate, he likes vanilla.
There is nothing that one should be able to say to the other that should persuade the other."
Sam is obviously exaggerating here.
In fact, most of us, including intellectuals, would agree that Bundy was aberrant.
And, aside from the exaggeration, Sam is also misdirecting us—though he may not realize it.
The point isn't whether Bundy disagrees with the Dalai Lama, but that he disagrees with humanity as a whole, on a matter of values.
But Sam continues...
Notice that we don't do this in science.
...So, what would happen if I showed up at a physics conference and said,
"String theory is bogus. It doesn't resonate with me. It's not how I chose to view the universe at a small scale. I'm not a fan." (Laughter)
Well, nothing would happen because I'm not a physicist, I don't understand string theory.
You see what I mean?
Sam is already suggesting here that, as in the case of string theory, morality should be taken out of our common hands, and settled by a trained elite.
Exactly like the religious moralities he despises.
They would presumably be trained in universities rather than seminaries, but...
But this is just the point.
Whenever we are talking about facts certain opinions must be excluded.
That is what it is to have a domain of expertise.
Again.
Those words could have come out of the mouth of a fundamentalist preacher or an Islamic Mullah.
Morality is not to be, in Sam's system, a matter of your values or mine .
It's to be the domain of experts.
That is what it is for knowledge to count.
How have we convinced ourselves that in the moral sphere there is no such thing as moral expertise, or moral talent, or moral genius even?
How have we convinced ourselves that every opinion has to count?
Well, actually, we haven't. I don't know of anyone who feels that Bundy's opinion really counts, for example, in any serious moral discussion.
But Sam continues...
How have we convinced ourselves that every culture has a point of view on these subjects worth considering?
Does the Taliban have a point of view on physics that is worth considering? No. (Laughter)
How is their ignorance any less obvious on the subject of human wellbeing? (Applause)
This is all well and good, if you and I don't end up on the wrong side of the power struggle.
But, of course, he could have gotten the exact same reaction from an audience of Islamic fundamentalists by claiming the ignorance of liberal Americans on the subject of human well being was obvious.
There is another way.
What Sam is really after, here, is a way to exclude the opinions of those who invent systems (like toxic religion, for example) which do not fit humanity.
But that is not difficult at all, once he abandons the top-down model, and recognizes that the word "values" has two, quite distinct meanings in current parlance:
-
It can mean moral "values"—ideas and beliefs which are derived from a specific world view and moral system, such as the value of wearing a burqa or refusing to dance.
These "values" are generally decided by some authority or group of authorities, and then preached to or imposed on the rest of us.
They are not really values at all, but political or religious opinions.
They have no more legitimacy than the world view they are based in. -
It can mean natural values—those values that are inherent in being human, which we all share in varying degrees, and which lie behind legitimate moral decisions, such as the value of freedom or truth or the well being of humans and animals.
These values work from the bottom up to inform our morality.
They provide the legitimate transitions from "is" to "ought".
Humans do not like to see other humans suffer.
It's a natural value.
Humans like freedom, and truth, and fairness—even if we have to sacrifice a little "well being" to achieve them.
More natural values.
It's who we are.
Admitting this, and recognizing that there is a difference between a moral value deduced from any system, and a natural value which is not deduced but is simply a fact of human nature, gives Sam the fulcrum he needs.
Natural values are real values, and should be recognized no matter who has them.
Moral values are not real values, and there is no need to take them any more seriously than we would any other belief.
We should simply ask for the evidence:
-
What natural value is this based on, which we humans agree on, and
-
What scientific facts get us from that value to the moral conclusion?
So, for example:
-
We value healthy, happy children. (natural value)
-
Beating children damages their health and happiness. (statement of fact, with lots of evidence to back it up)
-
We ought not to beat children. (legitimate moral conclusion)
On the other hand:
-
We value healthy, happy children. (natural value)
-
My gay son will go to Hell, where he will be neither happy nor healthy, if he acts on his homosexuality. (statement of fact, with absolutely no evidence to back it up)
-
I ought to murder him before he can act. (illegitimate moral conclusion)
The problem is invariably in the world view, not the values, when we are dealing with sane people.
Our world views have often been skewed—most often by authoritarian forces.
But our natural values, as a species, are rather noble.
Of course, I'm prejudiced—speaking as a human myself.
At least, that's what I think today.
