Philosophy 101: The Nature of Morality Part 3

This is Part 3 of my series on the Nature of Morality. If you haven't been following along, you can find Part 1 here, where I established that morality must be universal and not relative. In Part 2, I established that divine morality could not guide a society and that Kant's Deontology was wrong. Here, I present Part 3, discussing what I think is the best source of morality: Consequentialism. 

Consequentialism holds that the morality of an action is to be determined by its consequences however, consequentialists are by no means united in how one goes about doing this. 

I believe that a universal moral consequentialist theory should be based on the well-being of a human beings. This is different than Jeremy Benthem's Utilitarianism which seeks the greatest good for the greatest number because it seeks to minimize human suffering not increase utility of acts and people for the majority. 

The only legitimate argument against consequentialism is as follows:

1. The limitations on human knowledge means that we will never know the possible or full consequences of an act before or after the act is completed; without that knowledge people will make uninformed decisions, and potentially immoral ones. 

I think these objections are ignorant of reality. No human decision, ever made in human (or animal) history has been made with absolute and full knowledge of the past, present and future consequences.

With that said, today, more-so than ever, we have access to more information than at any other time in history. I have, at my fingertips, more information than all the Pharoahs of Egypt, Kings of England, Presidents of the U.S. (past) and other leaders ever had for themselves. If there is ever a time where we need information to make decisions, there is no better time than today (except tomorrow).

I'd make the rest of the case however I believe Sam Harris will do a much better job. Although I think he words his reasoning oddly (and unnecessarily), Sam lays out his idea of universal consequentialist morality. He covers these points:

1. Morality should be based on human well-being. 
2. We must work to reduce human suffering to promote the well-being of humans. 
3. Science can inform us on the well-being of humans. 

To frame this argument better, let's discuss some examples:

Take the following action:

Murder:

1. It obviously works against the well-being of the human.
2. Increases human suffering to the victims family not to mention the victim before they are killed, etc.
3. The act is immoral because human suffering is generated. 

Therefore, it is immoral. This also easily applies to denounce other acts like rape.

If Deontology won't pass the "Nazi test" (see part 2) how does this form of consequentialism react to the historical example?

In the Nazi example, when soldiers knock on the non-Jewish home searching for Jews, the family can reason that it would increase human suffering if they were taken by the Nazis as they would be forced into camps and eventually killed. 

However, let's add some complexity:

What if the soldiers' catch the non-Jewish family lying? The likely result would be that they catch both families and both would be punished; surely this would increase total human suffering and justify the non-Jewish family's will to give away the hiding Jewish family? 

This is next point is key: If caught, both families will be killed, however, the non-Jewish family will not be the cause of the increase in human suffering. I believe, that the suffering should be prioritized based on intent. 

This determines that when the Nazi soldier's are directed away from the house and spend the entire day looking for the family only to go back to their general empty handed, the soldier's surely suffer, however, the suffering of the family is prioritized over the soldiers' because the Nazi's are the catalysts who seek to increase the human suffering. Likewise, working with the soldiers means that the Non-jewish family intends to increase human suffering, and therefore helping would be immoral. 

Admittedly, this may be an area where Sam Harris and I disagree but I would have to look into it further.

What is interesting is that the 3rd point of Kant's Deontology is actually quite consequentialist. In it he says "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."  One way to determine if an act is moral is to determine whether it can be replicated by everyone. If I kill, and everyone kills, society couldn't function, therefore the act is immoral. Apply the same reasoning to lying, cheating, raping, and more. The basis for this aspect of Kant's theory is to try to figure out the consequences on society if an act is universally replicated, and therefore, consequentialist.

Now, even that aspect of Kant's moral theory is flawed and I don't ascribe to it, but I thought it was a noteworthy aspect.

To understand where I'm coming from, watch this TED video by Sam Harris discussing what he calls the Moral Landscape.

It's a very good representation of his position. If you won't watch it, he mentions what I've already said with some better examples. But he ends it with a strong point:

Once you admit that morality should be based on decreasing human suffering (thereby improving human well-being), you also admit that science is the best guide to help you do that. Which is why he says Science can teach us our morals.

I haven't run by any other moral theory that is as good as the one Harris proposes. So does this mean that what he proposes is universal in nature (as I previously established morality must be)?

Of course. Human suffering exists in all societies on earth, this means that we can establish which acts cause more human suffering and deem them immoral.

Upon delving deeper into this theory, I questioned how such a moral compass could guide us on questions that aren't related to human well-being or human suffering. There are two ways to address this:

1. Some supporters of this theory believe that we should include animal suffering as well, and therefore become all vegetarians or vegans (I haven't looked too much into it but they may have a point). Something Peter Sanger would agree to, I'm sure.
2. Questions that are unrelated to suffering and well-being, of human or animals, aren't moral questions at all! Can you think of any moral questions that don't have to do with human suffering? There aren't many, if any. 

In a previous post I had discussed the morality of celebrating Osama Bin Laden's Death. You can read that here.

Considering that this moral theory is the only theory I've come across that properly addresses current and future moral questions, I must also reconsider my position on celebrating his death.

Of course I would clarify that I'm discussing the morality of the celebration of Bin Laden's killing and not the killing itself. Under this moral theory, killing Osama Bin Laden is moral because he has been the cause of much human suffering(capturing and trying in court is also a good choice. Death is not demanded to remove someone worsening society). However, celebrating his death doesn't seem like a question that entails human suffering (at least not on its face). As such, it becomes a morally neutral issue: not a moral question at all.

This isn't final because if you can show how this might be a moral question, I'm all ears, but I don't see it.

What is so beautiful about this theory is that an act no longer deemed as moral or immoral because I say so. Now, we can use our (growing) knowledge of human well-being (all aspects of it) through science to tell us what is right and what is wrong. The scientific method removes our inborn biases to find objective truth, and is the perfect source of facts, and when morality is determined by facts, science is our best guide. It no longer is a matter of opinion, rather, a matter of facts.

This is the most powerful theory I've come across and I welcome you to challenge it. 

You can get all these page updates by "Liking" the Facebook blog page! here : http://on.fb.me/hWYYmi or by following me on Twitter! http://bit.ly/fIU3d7 Please Share on your network, email, comment or subscribe!