(A Response to Sam Harris and his Moral Landscape Theory)

The following essay was written in response to the Moral Landscape Theory (TMLT) challenge, whereby the author of TMLT requested responses to his questions: 

Can Science tell us which values lead to human flourishing? 

Can Science provide a moral code?

_______________

“The Evolutionary Problem” discussed below is one of three distinct snags I’ve encountered (so far) within The Moral Landscape Theory (TMLT); this particular snag won out over my other two for the simple reason that it makes sense without endnotes, quotations, and/or references. (Harris and crew set a rather painful ceiling on each essay’s word-count, sadly.)

_______________

Proposition:

“There must be right and wrong answers to questions of morality and values that potentially fall within the purview of science.”

The Good News: Sam Wasn’t Wrong!

Harris will be glad to note that biology does, indeed, contain an uncomplicated, elegant system of values that we’ve discovered through ever-advancing scientific technologies and witnessed throughout history.

Within this science-derived biological system of morality:

IF our role is that of “DNA Replicator” — and IF our biologically-decided, genetically-programmed, and scientifically-discovered main goal goes something like “Alive? Survive! Over time, we shall thrive!” — THEN it follows that:

GOOD or MORAL acts are those leading to or supporting the organism’s survival and replication, which, if successful–in sufficient numbers, and assuming that natural selection is at work–will result in the refinement of the species, over time, thereby ensuring the ultimate survival of the species (in particular) and life on this planet (in general).

BAD or IMMORAL acts are those jeopardising the organism, its species, or “life on a broad scale.”

Harris will be especially happy to note that in this scenario, we’ve been able to reconcile the notions of “natural phenomena” and “morals” without invoking any metaphysical, intangible, or otherwise-debatable entities, such as God, the soul, or those 72 virgins.

This is an important point (nay, victory), for a system meant to evaluate or even rank behaviours (or decisions or thoughts or, or, or…) just doesn’t work as well when every single person has his or her very own made-to-measure and however-else-customised “gold standard.” 

And when one person or organisation gets to set the standard, it won’t be long before someone starts thinking “wait a sec…why do *they* get to set the rules?” and we get into rebellions and coups and all sorts of preventable strife.

But when the standard is already set by an external force, a higher power–Science almighty!–we’re all in the same boat: no favourites, no fairness. True, the standard may irk some, and yes, life can be nerve-wracking with Lady Luck and her trusty sidekick (Chansom, aka Random Chance) at the wheel.

But we’re not here to be happy, we’re here because we’re here, strolling through that happily-random (and sometimes randomly-happy), unplanned gift we’ve received as a result of the similarly-unplanned, heretofore-unceasing traversals of our great Sci Almigh through time and space.

Does Science have an ultimate plan? I would argue that it can’t, since Science is neither conscious nor sentient, but anything’s possible (and that’s a whole other discussion, in any case).

Perhaps our path to global well-being will be facilitated once individuals realise, internalise, and utilise the fact that it’s not our job to figure out “the point” of life, nor to waste the gift of our present in chasing the past; it’s not necessarily our job to make the best of things, either, but when Sci gives you lemons, why not sacrifice the all-too-fleeting happiness of a fridge full of lemonade *now* by planting (most of) them and enjoying the harvest forever? (Well, until you return to the planet–or run out of sugar…)

To this end, I stand with Sam Harris in his quest to research and facilitate human well-being; it would be great (or “morally good” in practice) if other scholars and scientists made the same commitment to abandon any and all professional fields that do not directly contribute to the current and future well-being and/or positive health of humans.

In fact, one could argue that it’s a crime to devote hundreds of faculty members, thousands of hours, and millions of dollars to additional research on 14th Century Ugandan Literature, Evolutionary Biology, and Vampires in the Media; what’s the point?

If children are starving, if people are dying and we’re more interested with Edward Cullen’s fangs and the “missing link” than we are with curing cancer and finding alternate resources to ensure our survival… well, in my view, that’s the most immoral thing of all.

Some might reply that “learning about our past is the only way to secure our future,” but the truth is that certain fields have been sucked dry of their potential benefit to our future, and since our forward path is, in the end, desperately random–aka “unpredictable,” aka “what worked then might not work again”–I’m urging all scientists: “know when to say when!”

Sam’s commentary on the scientist more committed to her own survival (in the form of job security and a steady income) might sound something like:

“Even though she chose her own well-being–and that of her family of five–over that of her global family, it’s clear that her decision is a moral one, a good one…even if it wasn’t the most moral, most “good” decision possible (for the world, anyway).

But no one could, in good conscience, fault her for such a decision, because they would probably make the same one in her situation.”

In other words, she either meant well (principle vs. practice) or she meant well for her family but chose them over the world, aka she did not mean well for the world (or would not act upon her otherwise-noble feelings), but could certainly be forgiven for it.

Incidentally, this is where we hit that fatal flaw…

The Bad News: Soured Success

While Harris is (likely) jumping for joy that his oft-maligned offering and least-supported supposition does (to a certain extent) seem to “work,” the thought that his brain-child is the embodiment of or responsible for everything he finds horrific (and speaks against) might make him put the trampoline away for a spell.

Tip-toeing around such unwieldy questions as “which other types of organism fall into our aforementioned bio-moral system?” and focusing upon our own type, we, nonetheless, recall:

Organisms are here to replicate. 

Humans are organisms.

Ergo, humans¹ are here to replicate.

If that’s the case, and if “good morals” = furthering the species, then:

> Abortion is necessarily bad, morally speaking, as it denies the planet of potential replicators.

>>EXCEPT when the baby has been determined to have some universally-undesirable trait, in which case the abortion was moral, as it prevented a less-fit organism from wasting the already-dwindling resources needed for life to continue on this planet.

> Homosexuality is morally bad, as the species is not replicated.

> Bestiality is morally bad, as replication doesn’t occur. 

> Infertility is morally bad, as replication doesn’t occur.

Types of union aside, we now turn our attention to the roles of each biological sex.

If the goal of organisms is replication, and if humans can only replicate sexually (at this time), and if the biological role of men (in reproduction) is that of “fertiliser” and that of women is “incubator,” then:

> The taking of multiple wives is morally good, since one man should be able to fertilise half of the women in town before sundown.

Because breeding women are out of commission for nine months, they are necessarily less-valuable than are men (since the latter can, as previously mentioned, fulfill their genetic mission before sundown).

In fact…

Is it logical to even give rights to women, since:

> They can’t replicate as quickly;

> Their times of breeding result in reduced productivity at work or around the house, even;

> Even barren women are a waste of resources, because they’re not as physically-strong as the weakest of men.

The fittest survive while the weaklings just die.

Ending the lives of the weak (in mind as well as body) is morally good, because it results in:

More resources to support the strongest and make them stronger, instead of squandering the finite supply on weaklings who have no business surviving in the first place.

Due to those increased resources that were saved from being squandered, the pool of surviving replicators is smaller in numbers, but each replicator is that much stronger for it.

Therefore:

> Giving rights and accommodations to the disabled is morally bad.

>Since poverty usually results in malnourishment, and since our financial resources are already meager enough as it is, it is morally bad to waste a brass farthing on assisting the poor.

_ _ _

In conclusion, Sam Harris was right and he was wrong.

YES, there is, indeed, a “moral code,” of sorts, that could seem to stem from Mother Nature.

But I’d be very surprised if Harris could or would agree with the “moral code” described above.

+

In any case, Part II of my essay–the implications and suggestions inspired by The Moral Landscape Theory–shall soon be posted on this very page.

Bright blessings to one and all!

:)

sb

____________________________

1. I’m not quite sure when the stalwart DNA grew a brain and decided on this replication thing, but if one genetic being was able to think up such a mission, then the whole “collective consciousness” thing must also be true, for even if one monkey were able to type out love poems on a typewriter in under ten million years, surely the likelihood of *two* such poetic primates in the same era would be…at least somewhat-miniscule, eh?
   
   Meaning I had like a dozen stats classes in grad school, and I simply can’t bring myself to believe that two DNA-whatevers thought of the same exact thing in the same DNA-lifetime, and even if they did, it’s like…how did they get the idea to the others? 
   
   Fine, even if they DID have a one-night stand, what are the chances that two units of DNA magically grew a brain within the same lifetime AND were able to discover sexual reproduction in that same lifetime?
   
   I suppose it’s possible that even one braniac DNA could have discovered or fallen into asexual reproduction and sired the entire species, BUT what are the chances that the very same DNA had the good fortune to get an upgrade both upstairs and downstairs in the SAME lifetime? ↩︎