Morals are stupendously complicated, because they are not clear-cut facts. Instead, they are value judgements. It's hard to explain morality, because it takes you into a regress. Let's do this: assume you roughly define morality as principles about RIGHT and WRONG, or GOOD and EVIL. Now, how do you define or know what is RIGHT & WRONG, or GOOD & EVIL.
You might instantly argue that one knows this intuitively. After all, how many times have you heard your inner voice telling you to act morally during a predicament? Possibly hundreds or even thousands. So, you must be inclined to believe that you know what morality already is.
However, nothing is common sense, intuitive, or obvious for philosophy and my goal with this article is to engage in a philosophical discussion about morality.
Across millennia, religious seers, scientists, intellectuals, and secular philosophers amongst others have ruminated about morality and have contributed to the large corpus of moral philosophy. The central challenge in moral philosophy, as famously articulated by David Hume - Scottish philosopher and a leading luminary of the Enlightenment - is deducing an 'ought' from an 'is'. What 'IS' is a fact, but what 'ought' is a moral judgment and this has spawned numerous schools of thought studying morality.
In this article, I will explore 3 such schools of thought and highlight what I perceive as some of the glaring shortcomings of each. So, without further ado, let me begin.
1. Religious Morality
Religious morality is a system in which religious scriptures serve as the guide for determining what is RIGHT and WRONG.
People who derive their morals from scriptures are typically believers and followers of major world religions. For them, their scriptures serve as the
toolkit for what is RIGHT and WRONG, because RIGHT and WRONG are associated with what is considered VIRTUE and SIN, based on the commandments of a deity or prophet (In Abrahamic context). In the Hindu context, scriptures serve as the basis for determining good or bad karma.
Christian apologetics is a particular area of interest for me. So, let me illustrate my point with an example. The idea that humans derive moral values from god is so strong amongst Christians that in fact the moral argument is presented as evidence of god's existence.
a. The moral argument
It goes like.
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
The argument centers on the premise that in the absence of god, morals are merely subjective human judgements, and that it would not be possible, philosophically speaking, to objectively distinguish RIGHT from WRONG, GOOD from EVIL.
Yet, the argument goes, that we have an objective sense of RIGHT and WRONG. We all tend to consider certain things as objectively RIGHT and others as objectively WRONG, such as pedophilia or child sacrifice.
In the absence of god, the proponents argue, that any set of moral values one practices is arbitrary, because these rules are generated by humans as a consequence of our unique socio-cultural context, which implies they may not necessarily hold objectively true in all contexts. I have the strongest sympathy to this line of thinking.
I have further elaborated this idea under "Scientific morality." This line of thinking is however not bereft of counter arguments and criticisms. Below is one classic example.
b) Euthyphro's dilemma
Socrates was a great thinker and a philosopher and he posed the strongest challenge to religious morality (Although he challenged the religious morality of the Greeks). In a dialogue recorded by Plato, Socrates asks Euthyphro the following and their conversation on holiness and piety is now studied as Euthyphro's dilemma.
Is an action right because it is commanded by the gods, or do the gods command it because it is right?
Socrates' point was that if god commands something because it is RIGHT, then what makes something RIGHT is independent of god, and if one derives the notions of RIGHT and WRONG from god, then for god himself there's no distinction between RIGHT and WRONG. Which means good and bad are subject to god's whims and fancies.
In contemporary times, Bertrand Rusel, in his essay "Why I am not a Christian" gave the strongest counter argument to religious morality. While Christians have tried responding to Russell and his ilk's criticism, the floor is still open for debate.
Shortcomings:
Religious morality is not the same across different religionsand might even vary within different sects of the same religion. Christian morality might be guided by biblical and church doctrines, Islamic morality by Quran, Hadiths and Hindu morality by Bhagvad Geetha, Vedas, and Dharma Shastras. All these are different scriptures that make conflicting value judgements. To give a simple example, In Abrahamic faiths, idol worship is considered a sin, whereas it is a central practice in Hinduism.
Adherents of Abrahamic religions often address the challenge of religious multiplicity by asserting that their faith is the one true faith. However, I disagree with this claim, as I believe the question of which religion is true isn't a matter of objective truth in the same way as a mathematical equation. It's not a proposition that can be definitively proven true or false, like asking if 2 + 2 equals 5.
2. Scientific morality
In his famous Ted Talk 14 years ago, Sam Harris - one of the four horsemen of atheism - argued that science could answer moral questions. Common knowledge dictates that science does not concern itself with human judgments, which is the very definition of doing science. However, with his persuasive speech, Sam Harris almost convinced the audience about science's ability to answer moral questions. I call this the scientific morality.
Sam's primary motivation is to disentangle moral judgments such as RIGHT and WRONG from the fetters of religion.
To set the context, when we say a certain human action is RIGHT or WRONG, we are making judgments based on certain underlying axioms. The question is, what is the nature of these axioms? Let's take an example
Consider the act of stealing. We generally agree that stealing is wrong. But let's take a step back and ask two questions before making that judgment
- Why is stealing wrong?
- Is it possible to factually prove that stealing is wrong?
For the first question, if your argument is that we as a society mutually agreed that stealing is wrong, then you are not talking about morality anymore—you are discussing legality.
Ask yourself, if the majority decided tomorrow that stealing was right, would that make the act of stealing right? If you feel no, then there is much more to making those moral judgments. Would you then agree that what constitutes a moral value or judgment transcends what a particular society merely
agrees or disagrees on?
Regarding the second question, whether we can prove it factually, I say no. It's not possible. Think about this: what are facts? Facts are something real. There are trees, animals, and birds in the world. These are facts. Facts don't change based on our feelings or opinions.
In this context, let's say person A stole a 1000 rupees from person B. This is a fact as it conveys something real. But when you say such an act is "wrong," then you are making a "moral" judgment about a fact. Where is the pathway from fact to values? (Remember David Hume's Is-ought problem?). Further to my discussion earlier, the answer is not in what a society collectively agrees, if one wants to make an objective case for morality.
Traditionally, religions have provided the foundations for morality in all societies. But Harris intends to dissociate morality from religion and instead ground it in science.
How is he doing it?
For him, well-being is good and suffering is bad. Anything that leads to well-being is morally good, while anything that causes suffering is morally bad. These are his underlying axioms. How does he intend to scientifically measure well-being or suffering? By measuring conscious experience.
His explanation goes like this: We are conscious (alive) creatures and, we are capable of having certain experiences. These experiences can be scientifically measured (this is the important point to his claim) because our brain is involved in our experiences, and his argument is that with progress in technology, we shall be able to correlate brain states with experiences.
To simplify it, consider a table with two columns, labeled good experience and bad experience. Now, populate all the brain states in those two columns. With technology, we must be able to identify the brain states associated with good and bad experiences—that's his argument. A factual basis to determine right and wrong.
Shortcomings:
Even if we managed to hypothetically measure all the experiences, the categorization of what constitutes GOOD and BAD would still remain contextual. Meaning, you can only categorize the experience as good and bad, but there is no way to tell whether actions that led to such an experience is RIGHT or WRONG.
For example, throwing a convict in jail might lead to their suffering, but they might come out a better person as a result. This does not mean the act of convicting is a morally bad action. If your child is super naughty, you may try to discipline them with a rap on the knuckle. Now, being hit on the knuckle gives a bad experience, but doing such a thing can translate into something good for your child.
Therefore, what the brain may hypothetically convey is the nature of the experience, but not whether the action that led to the specific experience is good or bad, and there is no factual means to determine it. While I commend Harris for his valiant efforts, I feel his scientific morality lacks depth and is too reductionistic.
In my view, Scientific or secular morality cannot be conceived without further resorting to making a set of 'unscientific' axiomatic claims like "Every individual is inherently worthy of respect." or that "Human well-being is good" etc. The world we inhabit is deeply imbued with religious presuppositions, which the likes of Harris regard as a rational given.
3. Reciprocal altruism
In evolutionary biology, reciprocal altruism describes a behaviour in which an organism incurs a cost to its own fitness to increase another organism's fitness in the short term, with the expectation that the favor will be returned in the future.
In his seminal paper titled "The Evolution of Cooperation", Robert Trivers, one of the founding fathers of evolutionary biology explored the biological basis for cooperative behaviuor in animals, including humans. Trivers introduced the concept of reciprocal altruism, positing that individuals can increase their overall fitness by helping others, provided that the help is reciprocated in the future.
Some evolutionary biologists argue that human morality is fundamentally rooted in reciprocity.They suggest that moral behaviors evolved as key adaptations, forming the foundation of human social behaviour.
I am sure you'd have noticed the paradox. Evolutionary theory emphasizes survival of the fittest, which means reciprocal altrusim seems counterintuitive for an organism to act in ways that may reduce its own fitness. However, evolutionary biologists argue that human groups with individuals displaying moral behaviors fared better, enhanced their reproductive fitness, and passed on more genes than groups with selfish individuals and hence moral behaviors evolved to boost our survival chances.
Shortcomings
It occurs to me that our motivations to act morally goes beyond our own selfish interest. When you donate to a charity or help the needy across your street, I am sure it's not with the expectation to receive some kind of help in return in the future.
From an evolutionary standpoint, the beggar across the street has diminishing fitness because he's short in resources. How then does the expectation of reciprocity make any sense. Therefore, when someone donates to him, it's probably out of compassion and pity and not expectation of reciprocity.
I think most of us, when we act morally, do so believing that it's the RIGHT thing to do. Therefore, the evolutionary school of thought does not sufficiently explain our moral behaviors or factor in our motivations to act morally.
Putting it all together
Dostoyevsky once famously claimed that "If there's no god, all is permitted", encapsulating the religious point of view - in the absence of god it is not possible to distinguish RIGHT from WRONG without making certain axiomatic assumptions like "suffering is bad" etc. However, I discussed the shortcomings of this view. The challenge is in answering which god? Which set of injunctions?
I also discussed Sam's moral philosophy that can crudely be equated, in my view, with secular or humanist morality and underscored its limitations.
The explanation of moral behavior from an evolutionary standpoint is unconvincing too. If placing morality at the levitating feet of a deity seems problematic so is ensconcing it in human nature. If moral behaviors are merely adaptations that aided survival in the past (Individually or at a group level), then it's not possible to objectively argue that a certain act is RIGHT or WRONG for all times, because our landscapes have changed.
At the heart of my discussion is the premise that there are certain acts that are objectively GOOD and certain others that are objectively EVIL.
Perhaps this isn't the case. As Steven pinker put it.
" The scientific outlook has taught us that some part of our subjective experiences are products of our biological makeup, and have no objective counterpart in the world. The tastiness of fruit, the scariness of height, and the prettiness of flowers are features of our common nervous system. If our species had evolved in a different ecosystem, or if we'd missed a few genes, our reactions could have gone the other way.
Now, if the distinction between RIGHT and WRONG is also a product of brain wiring, why should we believe it anymore real? And if it's just a collective hallucination, how can we argue that evils like genocide or slavery are wrong for everyone, rather than distasteful to us."
- Steven Pinker, Professor of Psychology, Harvard
