Some
would have us eliminate religion, and perhaps even philosophy, and
rely solely on science. But where would that leave us in regard to
morality? Does science offer any guide as to how to behave, or does
it help us sort out questions of values?
There
are basically two ways to define science. According to the first
definition, science is just the body of facts that have been
established through scientific inquiry. According to the second
definition, science is the process of searching for truth through
scientific means. If we use the first of these definitions, we must
conclude that science offers not the slightest guide to either
morality or values.
A
mere body of objective facts does not offer any guide as to how to
act. Imagine if a man is considering whether to sneak into someone's
house, kill the owner, and steal that person's jewels. If we were to
first give such a man a large volume summarizing all of the factual
findings of modern science, and have him read such a volume from
cover to cover, that would in no way give him any guide as to whether
or not he should take such an action.
But
imagine we use the second definition of science – the definition
that defines science as the activity of scientists. Could this serve
as some kind of guide as to how to act in a wide variety of
situations? Not really, despite claims to the contrary – we can't
get very much of a moral code just through emulating scientists.
Here
is one argument that could be used to support a claim that a good
code of ethics can be derived from science, defined as the activity
of scientists: scientists work for the benefit of man, so you too
should work for the benefit of man. But we must remember that
science has also given us things such as nuclear weapons which have
long threatened the human race with extinction. So we would have to
include that, making the previous statement like this: scientists
work for the benefit of man, and also create things that may cause
the extinction of man, so you should work for the benefit of man.
The second part of that statement doesn't seem to necessarily follow
from the first part.
Another
attempt to derive some kind of ethical code from science might go
like this: scientists consider things calmly and dispassionately
so you should make life decisions calmly and dispassionately. It
is true that such a
principle might be helpful in calming down someone who is considering
killing someone in a rage. But such a principle would not deter
someone who is calmly plotting to kill his spouse for the insurance
money, or someone calmly plotting a bank robbery. Also, if we made
all our decisions dispassionately we might not be moved to make the
moral act of helping someone out of pity. So such a principle isn't
all that useful in guiding us to a moral life.
Another
attempt to derive some kind of ethical code from science might go
like this: scientists prize the advancement of knowledge, so you
should avoid that which causes a destruction of knowledge. Such
a principle might be fairly useful in discouraging some maniac
plotting to start a nuclear war that causes the extinction of
mankind. But it wouldn't discourage someone who plans to start a
nuclear war designed to wipe out 99% of all humans, leaving behind
only a privileged remainder. Nor would such a principle discourage
someone from wiping out all humans and replacing them with robots who
had been uploaded with the sum of human knowledge. Nor would such a
principle deter someone from killing another person, as long as he
thought that the person to be killed had no important knowledge known
only to that person.
Another
attempt to derive some kind of ethical code from science might go
like this: scientists are careful to truthfully report the facts,
so you should be truthful in your life. But
the conclusion doesn't really follow from such a premise. Strictly
speaking, from the fact that scientists are accurate in their
professional reports, all we might be entitled to infer is that we
too should be accurate when we make professional reports. Since we
know nothing about how much scientists lie to their friends or
spouses, we can't derive any general principle about truthfulness
from scientific behavior. Another problem with such a principle is
that truthfulness is only a small part of morality (for example, you
can be a truthful ax murderer).
It
seems that science offers us no very substantial guide as to how we
should conduct our lives. We may note that scientists have often
favored the morally destructive doctrine of determinism, the idea
that humans have no free will. Those who believe in such a doctrine
can justify any atrocity they may commit on the grounds that they had
no choice, because they didn't have free will. Such a factor may
wipe out any claim you might be able to make that following science
leads to moral behavior.
Another
morally destructive doctrine advanced by some scientists is the “many
worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics. This doctrine is
upheld by a minority of physicists, but when physicists do advance
this doctrine they are pushing a doctrine that by all rights should
be a complete morality killer. The “many worlds” theory holds
that there are an infinite number of parallel universes, and that
basically every second our current reality splits into an infinite
number of alternate realities, in which every possibility becomes
actualized. Such a theory is completely antithetical to moral
concerns and moral rules. For example, why worry about saving a child
freezing to death on the street, if there will be both an infinite
number of parallel universes in which the child freezes, and also an
infinite number of parallel universes in which the child prospers –
no matter what action you take? Also, why bother with following moral
rules, if there will be an infinite number of alternate universes in
which you act morally, and an infinite number of alternate universes
in which you act wickedly? I can't think of any idea more destructive
to the foundations of morality than such a theory.
Vision disorder reminiscent of parallel universes theory
Considering
all these factors, it seems that at best “following science” will
only have a mild tendency to make you more moral, and at worst
following certain theories fashionable among certain scientists may
tend to take you completely cavalier or indifferent to moral
concerns.
Some
scientists are highly moral, and some type of scientific activities
are moral, such as searching for a cure for cancer. But overall
science itself is basically amoral – meaning morally neutral. From a
purely scientific standpoint, a nation in which half of the
population are slaves is just as good as a nation in which the entire
nation is free; and from the same narrow perspective, a world in
which half of humanity is starving is just as good as a world in
which everyone is well-fed. From a purely scientific standpoint, one accurate data set is just as good as any other accurate data set, regardless of whether either includes moral horrors.
A scientist puts it like this on his web site:
A scientist puts it like this on his web site:
Science
is amoral.
I ask if this is a good or a bad thing, and after a moment, we
realize that such a value judgement is irrelevant. It is simply a
statement of fact.
So
what will happen if we only rely on science in the decades ahead? Our
weapons will grow more and more frighteningly destructive, but we
will be lacking the morality to restrain us from using such weapons.
Such an approach may be a prescription for human extinction.
As discussed here, modern
science is unable to explain the origin of the universe, the origin
of life, the origin of human consciousness, and the cause of many
puzzling phenomena that we observe. Science is also unable to
give us much help in figuring out how to live or any help in
discovering moral truths. Consequently the claims of scientism
(which claims that science is all we need or the only thing that
gives truth) are laughable.
Postscript: In this discussion I originally failed to mention the harmful moral consequences of enthroning the idea of "survival of the fittest." When we have only science to guide us, we may end up with a moral outlook that approves of the strong wiping out the weak, approving such a thing as "survival of the fittest" that is "natural."
Postscript: In this discussion I originally failed to mention the harmful moral consequences of enthroning the idea of "survival of the fittest." When we have only science to guide us, we may end up with a moral outlook that approves of the strong wiping out the weak, approving such a thing as "survival of the fittest" that is "natural."
No comments:
Post a Comment