January 26, 2011

• What is the next step for Sam Harris' moral science?

  A commenter on my Amazon review of Sam Harris' latest book, "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values" asked me this:

  Ben,

  You're obviously very excited about this book. What changes do you envision for our government, exactly? Do you want to direct scientists to study things they don't already study? (If so, I can't imagine what those things might be.) Do you want to replace voters and voter representatives with a board of scientists? Do you want to abolish religion? Or what?

  
  I'm not sure exactly where this person was coming from (since there are some absurd suggestions and incredulity packed in there), but it's a fair question in essence.  So I responded:

  S. Prewitt,

  Thanks for commenting. I'd definitely like to know Harris' thoughts on the matter of what the first step is after the scientific community accepts his basic premise and acknowledges that there can be a branch of science for morality.

  I'm not in the best position to say what that might be. Though to speculate (since this wouldn't be a fun comment if I didn't), since there is already quite a bit of research on human behavior and psychology from the sciences that does exist, it would seem (given the second step of the scientific method) that would be the "gather information" phase to see exactly where we are at. There's probably tons of info and it would need to be restructured in terms of Harris' basic framework.

  How do we formulate what we already know in terms of moral prescriptions for improving our standing on the moral landscape? What issues arise from attempting to do this? I'm assuming that would entail evaluating specific metrics to see which if any are feasible and scientifically operational. Surely there'd be a debate over all the most plausible candidates for choice mental states (like the ones I referenced in my review near the end). Although I've seen studies on that already where people from all over the world were asked what they thought the best qualities of a person are. Something like that might be a heuristical starting place. We'd have to see what objections arise from beginning to create our recipe for "the good mental life" that is genuinely cross-cultural.

  Ultimately, I'd like to see research that can be condensed into a textbook on the topic of morality. I'd like to see there be moral education in schools. I'd like to see rigorous study on effective government structures and ways of nation building that have been shown to work around the world in bits and pieces. I'd like to see politicians who can brag about their higher education in morality. I'd like to see science advisors to leaders of the country to keep tabs on evidence-based policies and perhaps create a give and take environment where advice is given and studies are commissioned based on current needs. Perhaps questions like, "How should we structure our business world so that people get the best balance out of a satisfying career and also leisure time?" would be good to pursue. It would also be interesting to create some kind of automated online "moral advice" service designed to walk people through normative life decisions or something like that. We have that kind of thing for physical health issues (though there is possibly already something like it for mental health issues, but possibly not in a positive constructive sense?). Perhaps "what moral science says" can be included on voter ballots on particular issues and people can feel free to disregard the facts just like they do with all the current science on issues like vaccines, global warming, and whatever else.

  I don't think we should abolish religion or do anything like a scientific takeover of government. It should all be open-ended and complementary to most of what we already have going for us. The information should be made as available and easily accessible as possible in all the venues where it could help the most. But no one should be forced to use it. When moral science says, "initiative x would be the best we can do for our community" any group will have the opportunity to step up and pitch in towards that end. There shouldn't be some thought-police clause concerning everything you happen to believe.

  Anyway, that's my general conception of what may lie ahead in the next 10-20 years. If artificial intelligence is around the corner a few decades after that, then we'll start wanting to talk about how to use what we know to program moral mind machines. We'll want to talk about transhumanistic issues on how to augment the brain to correct for whatever issues evolution never quite got around to perfecting. We'll want to have all of the basic issues worked out well in advance, because the next challenges ahead are going to be even more difficult than getting the ball rolling here.

  Ben

  ---

  Outro:

  And then we kill 7 million Jews.  I may have left that part out.

  Ben

  • 8:35 am
  • 4 Comments