John Hamby outlines the difficulties in constructing a unified theory of morality, why there is so much disagreement between philosophers and scientists, and why the moral arc bends so slowly
John, this was very well written and provides me with some food for thought. If I could ask for a point of clarification, it would be for you to more clearly define justice. All of these ideas and debates, it seems, are motivated by creating a more just world. What, in your view, does that look like?
My idea of justice is pretty much textbook: treat others fairly and avoid doing harm. The problem with defining justice is the same as that for defining good and bad, right and wrong, or for that matter, morality. I tried to address this somewhat in the section of the article about “perceived reality” and values. For example, one person may think that all people should be equal, while another person may think that only people with a certain skin color should be equal. Or of a certain political, or religion, or you mane it—whatever criterion you choose. Until we can get everyone to see something the same way, we will have differences in our definitions, and, thus, our behavior toward one another. Fortunately, many moral concepts have been written into law, (or in a tight-knit community where shame and embarrassment are used as control tactics), and this keeps most of behaving in seemingly moral ways. However, some laws and social structures do not promote equality and avoid harm. Sorry I can’t give you a more definitive answer, but justice, like so many complex concepts, is a puzzlement.
Thanks for reading the article. I don’t understand your criticism. The point of the article was to give three examples as to why the moral arc bends so slowly. I was trying to show how human activity was the culprit. I did not intend to discuss the behavior of other animals. I do understand that animals have feelings, and some research shows that some animals might have conscious thoughts. But animals are neither scientists, philosophers, science deniers, nor human. I think a science of morality should address how humans should treat animals and do so humanely. But I don’t know how a science of morality would determine how animals should treat humans.
Hi Micheal, I would very much be interested in hearing your thoughts on my book.
“It explores the ethical complexities of interspecies relations through the lens of an advanced alien civilization called the Jacksons. The novel challenges readers to consider how easily a more advanced civilization might view humans as a resource, mirroring humanity’s own treatment of other species on Earth.
You might be better served by getting in touch with Michael Shermer directly at Skeptic.com than making a comment to the article I wrote. Michael might not see your comment here.
My simple view is that a) morality is mistky a fancy word for fairness or doing the right thing and b) there is no external foundation of morality.
Everyone kind of knows what's right or fair (even a 3-year old); it's just that some people choose to (generally) do (what they think is) the right thing and some don't. In part this will depend on the environment in which a person grew up and/or finds him or herself in.
Thank you for reading the article and making a comment. I respect your view, but if you read the literature extensively you will find that the idea of morality is not as simple as you might think. In the section of the article that deals with "perceived reality", I contend that individuals construct their world views based on their inherited characteristics interacting with the environment into which they are born. Therefore, since these personal characteristics and environmental experiences vary considerably, so can individual's world views. The concepts of "the right thin, good, fair, bad, moral, immoral, etc." can have different meanings for different individuals. We just are having difficulty coming up with definitions to which everyone will agree. You mention that there is no external foundation of morality. Religious philosophers who contend that there is not morality without God would disagree with you. I don't mean to start a debate with you, but i would encourage you to dig deeper into the subject. Again, I appreciate your taking time to read and comment on the article.
Gary, thank you for reading the article and taking time to comment on it. I could have hoped that you would have pointed out where in the article I expressed a mistaken and disgusting attitude toward philosophers as well as some sources that show that there is more agreement among scientists and philosophers than I showed in the article. If I came across as an enemy of philosophy, I had no intention of doing so. If you disregard the title and read the three points in the subtitle, you would see that my goal was not to disparage either scientists or philosophers, but to show that their differences, along with other factors I discuss in the article, do create difficulties in the development of a theory of morality. I must say that I was surprised that you, as a clinical psychologist, would take such a negative approach and use name-calling rather than providing constructive criticism. I guess that sort of makes the point of one of my arguments about disagreement. Anyway, thanks for reading the article.
“When we tell them that their beliefs are wrong, they might not take it as a correction, but as an attack on their identity.”
Well said. The issue of how our identities are formed and reinforced (or challenged) should be of great interest to those who want to persuade.
John, this was very well written and provides me with some food for thought. If I could ask for a point of clarification, it would be for you to more clearly define justice. All of these ideas and debates, it seems, are motivated by creating a more just world. What, in your view, does that look like?
My idea of justice is pretty much textbook: treat others fairly and avoid doing harm. The problem with defining justice is the same as that for defining good and bad, right and wrong, or for that matter, morality. I tried to address this somewhat in the section of the article about “perceived reality” and values. For example, one person may think that all people should be equal, while another person may think that only people with a certain skin color should be equal. Or of a certain political, or religion, or you mane it—whatever criterion you choose. Until we can get everyone to see something the same way, we will have differences in our definitions, and, thus, our behavior toward one another. Fortunately, many moral concepts have been written into law, (or in a tight-knit community where shame and embarrassment are used as control tactics), and this keeps most of behaving in seemingly moral ways. However, some laws and social structures do not promote equality and avoid harm. Sorry I can’t give you a more definitive answer, but justice, like so many complex concepts, is a puzzlement.
This entire diatribe is meaningless. Your problem is you’re caught up in sentience. But you don’t know a single thing about other animals’ sentience.
Thanks for reading the article. I don’t understand your criticism. The point of the article was to give three examples as to why the moral arc bends so slowly. I was trying to show how human activity was the culprit. I did not intend to discuss the behavior of other animals. I do understand that animals have feelings, and some research shows that some animals might have conscious thoughts. But animals are neither scientists, philosophers, science deniers, nor human. I think a science of morality should address how humans should treat animals and do so humanely. But I don’t know how a science of morality would determine how animals should treat humans.
Hi Micheal, I would very much be interested in hearing your thoughts on my book.
“It explores the ethical complexities of interspecies relations through the lens of an advanced alien civilization called the Jacksons. The novel challenges readers to consider how easily a more advanced civilization might view humans as a resource, mirroring humanity’s own treatment of other species on Earth.
It can be found here — https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/228994545-the-jacksons-debate
You might be better served by getting in touch with Michael Shermer directly at Skeptic.com than making a comment to the article I wrote. Michael might not see your comment here.
My simple view is that a) morality is mistky a fancy word for fairness or doing the right thing and b) there is no external foundation of morality.
Everyone kind of knows what's right or fair (even a 3-year old); it's just that some people choose to (generally) do (what they think is) the right thing and some don't. In part this will depend on the environment in which a person grew up and/or finds him or herself in.
Thank you for reading the article and making a comment. I respect your view, but if you read the literature extensively you will find that the idea of morality is not as simple as you might think. In the section of the article that deals with "perceived reality", I contend that individuals construct their world views based on their inherited characteristics interacting with the environment into which they are born. Therefore, since these personal characteristics and environmental experiences vary considerably, so can individual's world views. The concepts of "the right thin, good, fair, bad, moral, immoral, etc." can have different meanings for different individuals. We just are having difficulty coming up with definitions to which everyone will agree. You mention that there is no external foundation of morality. Religious philosophers who contend that there is not morality without God would disagree with you. I don't mean to start a debate with you, but i would encourage you to dig deeper into the subject. Again, I appreciate your taking time to read and comment on the article.
Good for me because I will disagree with you!
Your attitude towards philosophers is mistaken and disgusting. Very naive and simplistic.
There is much more agreement on morality than you think, and there can even be more if we apply Reason to the issues.
Gary, thank you for reading the article and taking time to comment on it. I could have hoped that you would have pointed out where in the article I expressed a mistaken and disgusting attitude toward philosophers as well as some sources that show that there is more agreement among scientists and philosophers than I showed in the article. If I came across as an enemy of philosophy, I had no intention of doing so. If you disregard the title and read the three points in the subtitle, you would see that my goal was not to disparage either scientists or philosophers, but to show that their differences, along with other factors I discuss in the article, do create difficulties in the development of a theory of morality. I must say that I was surprised that you, as a clinical psychologist, would take such a negative approach and use name-calling rather than providing constructive criticism. I guess that sort of makes the point of one of my arguments about disagreement. Anyway, thanks for reading the article.