The Making of Morals

Daniel R Blume on Flickr

Stephen Begin on Flickr

Can you imagine a world where our moral standards, our laws and customs and our acceptable behaviours are determined not by culturally varied traditions but by what will maximize the wellbeing of all creatures and the earth? It is largely true that ‘questions regarding values, morals and meaning, when distilled are really questions about wellbeing’ and that we already take the wellbeing of conscious creatures into account when defining moral codes. But there are varying cultural standards as to what creates wellbeing. Imagine a world where rapidly developing sciences such as genetics and neurobiology allows us to empirically determine the behaviours that lead to wellbeing or suffering. A world where science helps us objectively define morality.

This is a world that Sam Buckberry has imagined.

DogfromSPACE on Flickr

His reading and scientific studies have led him to form the following view on the place of science in society and where it could take us in the future:

As a general way of asking questions, I believe science can help us answer the most pressing questions of our time, including questions regarding morality. We are increasingly becoming a global society, one where conflicting values and practices are impinging on the wellbeing of humans and our fellow conscious creatures. It is clear that some cultural practices and beliefs are in total conflict with one another. As our borders are increasingly becoming meaningless by the day, we have a moral obligation to determine what is right regarding wellbeing in a global society. Science has always been valued for its ability to tell us how we think and behave, but informing us on how we ought to behave has been off-limits – science has offered no opinion.

 

I believe a moral or immoral act must in some way affect the wellbeing of a conscious creature. Although wellbeing may seem hard to define, it is conceptually no different to the concept of health. And we can make clear scientific distinctions about what makes healthy people sick. I believe with the emerging sciences of the brain (genetics, neurobiology, psychology, etc) we will be able to determine which acts and practices maximise wellbeing or indeed cause suffering. By studying the effects of specific social institutions and practices and the neurological basis of happiness and suffering, facts about wellbeing will no doubt be found to be independent of culture.

 

lapolab on Flickr

Just as HIV is the same no matter what culture you identify with, I believe wellbeing is still wellbeing, suffering is still suffering. The more we increase our understanding of wellbeing (or lack of) at the level of the brain, the more I think we will be able to answer questions regarding how we ought behave. For instance, ‘Does physically punishing children help create more compassionate human beings?’ If not, then we ought not behave that way. If we can understand questions such as this by studying how such behaviours have effects at the level of the brain, I think the answers will inform us on how we should behave. Women and children are clearly not treated equally in all cultures and societies, and for this many ultimately suffer at the level of the brain – the centre of all experience. If the sciences of the brain can begin to understand what practices cause more suffering than others then ultimately science can tell us how we ought to act. In principle I think science is capable of solving such questions, but in practice there will no doubt be challenges.

What do you think? Could and should science be used as the basis of our social laws and acceptable codes of behavior? This discussion reminds me of a talk I saw by Jane Goodall. She was talking about the evolution of morality and the development of greater compassion and cooperation.  Studies (such as hers) into animal behavior and evolution have provided us with insights into our own behavior, and also the mental and emotional life of creatures that we should treat with care and respect (google Frans de Waal). However Jane believes we should be looking forward rather than backward- focusing on what we can do to improve and get ourselves out of the mess we are in rather than worrying about how we got here. But how can we encourage people to work together globally?

axinar on Flickr

The general public often has either a lack of trust in what scientists are saying (think climate change) or a blind faith that anything claimed to be ‘scientifically proven’ must be true (think vaccines and autism). So would the public want to base their morality on neuroscientific evidence or not? People will jump on the bandwagon for a ‘scientifically-proven miracle weight-loss diet’ that has a slim chance of improving their life, but may be less inclined to change behaviours that may ultimately cost the earth. Is it because we are overwhelmed by the scale of issues like climate change? That it’s too much effort for no short-term gratification? What drives people to put their faith in sometimes misconstrued ‘scientific data’ from poorly conducted studies, but not in a mountain of evidence in support of scientific theories such as evolution?

Frerieke on Flickr

A misconception the general public has about scientific study that Sam would like to see addressed is:

that science can provide definitive answers with no room for doubt, which is not the case. Scientists are generally very careful with their words and often (for good reason) leave room for doubt. They know how easy it is to be wrong. And I think this sceptical nature leads the public in many cases to doubt many scientific claims. This is clearly due to a poor understanding of the scientific method, how results are interpreted and the process of peer review. For example, when you look at the apparent controversial issue of climate change. Because there is margin for error and few clear-cut answers regarding how much warming is attributed to humans, people begin to doubt humans have anything to do with it at all. I think the public generally see science as a fertile field that can produce extraordinary technologies and give us what we want. Yet they don’t understand the key underlying principles of research. Public education is the key and I don’t think sensationalist media and politics helps either.

What do you think?

markchadwickart on Flickr

Check out more of Sam’s ideas at his new blog Sambucas.
In particular, Sam’s post on ‘neurolaw’ and to what extent we are responsible for actions determined by circumstances and biology we can’t control. Fascinating stuff! http://sambucas.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/the-product-of-choice/
Tweet