Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Humanism and happiness A SCIENCE OF MORALITY? What is it to be happy? “Prejudice apart, the game of push-pin is of equal value with the arts and sciences of music and poetry. If the game of push-pin furnish more pleasure, it is more valuable than either” - J. Bentham: The Rationale of Reward (1830) We can’t know what brings us most pleasure unless we’ve tried many options Immediate argument for education, and against repression of any sort Marginal satisfactions In terms of marginal utility, a unit of pushpin could be equal to a unit of poetry for me But perhaps there are goods that are preferable for everyone? And if so, maximising those goods seems a rational strategy for the species as a whole, or perhaps for sentient creatures generally. What causes unhappiness (at least, according to religion)? Lack of belonging/community? But perhaps we’d be as happy in sports/book clubs without the (circular) argument that metaphysical purpose is required. Meaning/purpose? We all have these – again, why do we need a metaphysical one? Wonder/mystery? Isn’t it obviously the case that there’s more of this for secularists? Eternal life? Not much different from being offered a 400% return after a month’s investment... What actually causes unhappiness? Unfulfilled desires? But who says you would have those desires, other things being equal? The source of most conflicts reduce to resource scarcity (or asymmetries in allocation) What is morality for? So much of morality may simply be welfare economics In that we have less reason to treat each other badly – and therefore cause unhappiness – if we all have what we need Morality: Traditional definitions For ordinary persons: a simple accident of geography But one that is privileged – dogma and prejudice which has been allowed to become axiomatic Even non-religious morality has this character – heuristics and scripts are attractive Why the holy handbook fails Provides easy answers to issues that can/should be compelling And moral confusion where there should be none – euthanasia, gay marriage, abortion More importantly, it cripples our moral sensibilities And forces us to buy into pushpin, not poetry Without god @Periyon Without God I have nothing else to live for... @SupaBaddizI Without God I am nothin, have nothin, && will never be able to accomplish nothin! @Rieno2 Without God, I wouldn't know how it feels to LIVE... @BellaKerber Without God, life has no meaning .. @taylormatthews Without God there can be no knowledge, good, evil, hope or joy. @DJFoRenZic_JA: Without god, there is no life! @iK00lKiDd Without God there is no me... Do Stockholm syndrome and abusive spouses come to mind? These viewpoints demonstrate a vested interest in human misery and suffering Or drug pushers – make you dependent, and then sell you the only solution. Is the life of an addict to be admired or emulated? There are consequences The “greener” people are, the more likely they are to lie and cheat Feeling virtuous does not correlate with actual virtue Confirmation bias: we over-value the good we do and undervalue the harm “Our own moral priorities always, uniquely, earn double points” - Baggini By contrast Secular folk understand that morality is complex And are perhaps less complacent about difficult choices – and perhaps in the end more virtuous as a result of more careful deliberation But how do we know what to do, without the holy handbook? The State of Nature Consider analogy to sport, and our incentive for following rules What does this say in terms of moral rules being “true”? We escape the state of nature by agreeing to not harm each other And morality consists of the rules that make social living possible at all Morality - a matter of prudence? Social insurance The utility of believing in objectivity: mutual reinforcement, weakening of opposition So yes, simple (or not, really) social engineering Even secularists have perhaps confused the usefulness of the narrative of objectivity with actual objectivity And rejecting objectivity does not entail relativism Morality from rationality Defining morality as necessarily objective is an illegitimate way to privilege religion We don’t have any non-pragmatic reasons to be good – and we don’t need any We don’t want morality to be grounded in empathy or altruism – why? Suffering still gives us reasons to act, via gametheory, evolutionary psychology, etc. – enlightened self-interest Deriving “ought” from “is” Sam Harris and the welfare of sentient creatures Controversy regarding “scientific morality” But what else can it be? Why is morality held to different standards than other forms of knowledge? We can reach justified conclusions – for now – and change our minds later (in light of new evidence) So, moral reasons not different from other reasons They are grounded in rationality, and motivate us like other reasons do. Culture and morality Moral virtue & happiness also a educational and political achievement Education contributes to respect and selfrespect (or can – cf. the 4th “R”) Secure & stable political system necessary for appropriate incentives Takes broader culture to even identify some lapses of virtue Religion as addiction The reflective vs. automatic systems Ignoring contradictions Confirmation biases Sunk-cost fallacies In short, a case study of heuristics gone wrong And a recipe for unhappiness, in that conflicts between belief and the world are inevitable – more so in multicultural environments Broader issues Has the species outgrown religion? Will we ever do so? Can we handle the responsibility of rational choice? Can a theory be cogent, yet not recommended? Compare to equality of persons The usefulness of heuristics in moral behaviour Should humanism aspire to becoming a grand narrative, to tap into these heuristics? Where are we now? Trying to fit foundationalism into a globalised world With no way of knowing right from wrong except mere habits – and our habits come from another world, and another time No moral theory perfectly satisfactory A long-term project Knowing, without knowing that you know – all science is hypothetical, why not morality? Moral ideas are always up for debate – but we apply inconsistent standards to happiness and welfare questions Applying critical standards, as with all “knowledge” There is a danger Even though atheists are divorcing less than Christians (Non-Denominational 34%; Mainline Protestants 25%; Atheists 21%) They are having fewer kids Unfortunately, education correlates with both atheism and fewer kids (on the whole, perhaps not unfortunate) .... But proportionally, we’re shrinking Which means that Liberal secularism and high-birth rates are (indirectly) contributing to the spread of fundamentalism The assumption that modernity leads inexorably to a lessening of religious belief may be wrong – and we have to work hard Even the secular role-model, Europe, not safe - most population growth via immigrants, who show higher fertility rate and are also religious And tend to become more so when confronted by Western secularism Religion takes on an ethnic, protective character, and becomes more fundamentalist. So work harder. Not at having kids (please) – but at conversion/persuasion Happiness? If a pretty poster and a cute saying are all it takes to motivate you, you probably have a very easy job – the kind that robots will be doing soon. And while some myths (maybe, that your friends actually like you) can contribute to flourishing, those that don’t need to be rooted out Science can help us here – not necessarily to derive moral principles, but as a policeman to detect the ones that make no sense, or do not conduce to human flourishing.