Dr Richard Carrier
There has been a lot of debate recently about the role of science in deciding moral questions. And I am sure this will continue as scientific investigations reveal more about our morality.
One issue which keeps coming up, though, is the question of telling an “ought from an is.” Often this is presented dogmatically (“You can’t tell an ought from an is”) and justified as almost an ancient philosophical truism.
But this is now being challenged by some of the participants in this debate. recently I heard Richard Carrier, a philosopher and historian of science, on this. He rejects this specific dogma. In the interview Richard supplies a clear example:
“A surgeon ought to maintain high levels of hygiene in her work.”
Seems pretty obvious, doesn’t it. And we can get there from two “is’s.”
- Unhygienic surrounding enable fatal infections, and
- A surgeon protects human life.
I thought it useful for him to divide the argument in this way. Too often we think only of the first is – the facts which have an immediate effect. Most people will acknowledge that science usually has a role in this area – and that is clear in our example. Science has established the role of hygiene in prevent fatal infections.
So there is wide acceptance that science can “inform” moral decisions such as these. But Many people, not just religious believers, will maintain that step 2 is not an “is.” One can’t prove logically or scientifically that “A surgeon protects human life” or the equivalent.
Well, I think in the case of surgeons it goes with the job, the definition of the profession., But the more general case would be the “is” that humans have such attributes. The claim that you can’t prove it is human to protect life, to desire the flourishing of human life, etc.
Getting rid of dogma
Personally I think this is another dogma that the philosophically, or religiously, inclined often cling to. But science is telling us a lot about ourselves these days. Anthropologists and evolutionary biologists have helped us understand our biological and social evolution. Cognitive scientists and psychologists have provided understandings of our human thinking and instincts.
Consequently we have a better idea now of this second “is” – our human nature. We can appreciate how our social relations have developed, how our intuitions have evolved to aid social interaction. We can understand some of the physical and social reasons for our empathetic intuitions. Both in terms of basic nature but also in the way these adapt to social interactions and learning. And our knowledge about the differences and similarities of human societies today and historically help us overcome old racial and sexual biases which influenced our social interactions and our morality.
In effect this second “is” refers to our nature as sentient, conscious, intelligent, social, and empathetic beings.
So I agree with Richard. It’s about time we stopped repeating the old dogmatic mantra “You can’t get an ought from an is.” Lets realise we can do a lot to provide an objective basis for human morality. And we should not be intimidated into accepting an imposed “morality” which doesn’t have such an objective basis.
See also:
The End of Christianity (Table of contents).
Skepconnect Richard Carrier interview
Related articles
- A philosopher comments on science and morality (openparachute.wordpress.com)
- Waking up to morality (openparachute.wordpress.com)
- The Science of Right and Wrong (scientificamerican.com)
Slosh – again you fall back into the straw man approach. it seems you are having trouble actually modeling what I say and impose your own incorrect interpretation:
“you’d have to put aside the idea of universal moral truths” - Incorrect – That is not my position.
And you are wrong to describe my reference to human nature as inappropriate. You have to look a little more widely than comparing this view with gravity.
Clearly, for example, human morphology has an objective basis in our DNA and its interaction with the environment over time. This objective does not mean that all human morphology is exactly the same. Just go to any busy mall and have a look. There is a huge variation. However, we can confidently describe certain features, and ranges, typical of human morphology.
I see human morality as being objectively based on the is’s of the facts of the situation and the facts of human nature and their interactions). This does not lead to “universal moral truths” – far from it. Just as we have a range in human morphology we can have a range in human morality. I don’t describe this a relativism – the fact of an objective basis does put limits on ranges and distributions.
You may be correct that Sam has to add in, or acknowledge, some axioms – or I would say the objective basis of human nature. I hope he does but there does not currently seem to be pressure on him to do this (or the attention is currently elsewhere). While philosophers and the philosophically inclined just throw the is/ought dogma at him as a mantra he won’t go further. He will just reject it – as he should. Dogma is never a good basis for the development of ideas.
Similarly to accuse him of advocating “universal moral truths” because he is arguing against moral relativism is only obscuring the real important parts of the discussion. He is certainly well past that issue. His important critics come from the science and philosophical directions – mainly atheist – he is done with the fight against religion on this issue. His book makes that clear.