Open Society

Criticising Ethical Proposals

There are many who think that it is impossible to criticise ethical theories, proposals, rules, or whatever. This is why they are wrong:

To insulate statements from criticism and refutation is the easiest thing, done simply by denying the applicability of all standards of criticism, allowing any statement, whether ethical, scientific, mathematical, or whatever, to be shielded from refutation. If a statement is to be criticisable, then you need to decide what kind of criticism you will accept, and preferably making your conjectures bold and risky. In other words, ethical statements are refutable if you choose to make them refutable i.e. clarify the problem which your ethical statement is an attempt to solve, and then specify what kind of argument or experiment could be deployed as a test of that statement.

For example, the problem I choose to try and solve by ethical investigation is something like the following: how can we live together peaceably, despite our disagreements and conflicts of interest? When I conjecture an ethical statement, or set of statements, I am attempting to solve this problem, and invite criticism of my proposals.

This approach is fundamentally different to a traditional approach to ethics. How you might ask? In short, there is no assumption of a categorical imperative, utilitarian principle, deontological logic, or divine law, there is only a problem which may find its solution in any of these ideas, or perhaps something entirely different. There is also no assumption that this problem is any more real than any other, or that everyone must share a desire to solve this problem (note, however, that anyone who did not share this problem would surely have no interest in a rational discussion about ethics, which by its very nature is a peaceable way to address disagreements i.e. a fight of words, rather than fists).

If you begin with a problem, like "how can we live together peaceably, despite our disagreements and conflicts of interest?", then every means of criticism ordinarily brought to bear on scientific statements, can also be applied to ethical statements, including empirical evidence, thus dissolving the is-ought problem. After all, if an ethical statement is intended to solve the above problem, then it either corresponds to the facts that it does, or it corresponds to the facts that it does not.

Selling Anchovy Ice Cream

Check out this piece by Russell Roberts of George Mason University, Selling Anchovy Ice Cream. If you would prefer to listen, then here is the radio broadcast. I recently shared some of my own thoughts on this topic in the comments section of Russell Roberts' blog, Cafe Hayek.

It is worth remembering that what politicians say and what politicians do, are quite different. The purpose to both what they say and what they do are to gain and maintain power, but the incentives acting on each are not one and the same. If you take everything which politicians say at face value, then you would expect each administration to be radically different from its predecessor, but this is rarely the case. The rhetoric changes, of course, but the actual policies change very little.

I find it a disturbing tendency of political discourse, particularly in the mainstream media, to treat each electoral candidate as a potential King or Queen, who would wield a royal prerogative to override and implement any policy they might want on a whim. Thankfully, the reality of political office is quite different to the fantasy implicit in much of the rhetoric of the electoral race, a reality of institutions and incentives that will be almost identical for whoever wins, and which will produce similar results.

A Critical Rationalist's Take on Theism

I had the recent pleasure of debating the issue of theism, atheism, agnoticism and the role of faith i.e. commitment, in regard to these three positions. The following are excerpts which capture my thoughts on various issues, and which have a distinct critical rationalist flavour, or at least I think they do (any critical rationalists reading this, please disagree with me in the comments if not).

On Theism and Atheism:

A theist is one who thinks that the statement "there is a God" is true, and an atheist is one who thinks that the statement "there is a God" is false. It is really that simple. Note, there is nothing selfcontradictory about the statement "there is a God", and it is logically possible that it is true i.e. "there is a God" might correspond to the facts. Moreover, If the purpose of rational investigation is taken to be the discovery of truth, there is nothing inherently irrational about the statement "there is a God", to say otherwise would imply that a person is irrational to think that it is true, even if it is actually true.

On Theism and Faith:

[Theism does not necessarily have anything to do with faith], because "faith" is a state of mind. It might well be that some people have faith in the statement "there is a God", but it is also possible to think that the statement "there is a God" is true, without having faith in it. This point is amply demonstrated by the many people who doubt their theistic beliefs, question and probe them, look for errors and inconsistencies. The designation of "theist" informs you about what a person thinks is true, whereas the designation "faithful" tells you about their attitude and state of mind. The two are not inexorably tied.

On Agnosticism:

In short, you are saying that if someone does not believe the statement "there is a God" or "there is not a God" with absolute conviction, 100% certainty, unshakable commitment, then they are, in fact, agnostic. Think about the implications if this principle is applied consistently, especially for scientific investigation, which we are continually reminded is always unfinished, uncertain, unproven, incomplete, open to criticism. It would suggest that almost everyone is an agnostic on every scientific matter. Of course, you are free to define words however you choose, but some consideration should be given to historical usage and the usefulness of the distinction which a definition makes.

In this particular instance, such a broad and sweeping definition of "agnostic", would render the term almost useless. It is such a broad definition that it almost fails to make any distinction at all, and tells us little of use in regard to what people think is true. Now, it is possible to think and argue that a proposition, any proposition, is true, without absolute commitment and unshakable conviction. In fact, we do so almost all of the time, because life does not give you the option to remain undecided when a practical action must be taken, so we conjecture, guess, choose that which we think is true, and act on an assumption.

That is the test. If put in a position where practical action is to be taken, what assumptions with regard to the forces of nature, or the existence of God, does a person make? This almost invariably reveals their true thoughts and feelings, and they will act on whatever proposition they think is true, irrespective of whether they are 100% certain, committed, or whatever. In this light, it is clear that the majority of "agnostics", are in fact, atheists. In other words, they behave in such a way that assumes that God (at least the Abrahamic God) does not exist, and to a casual observer they are often impossible to tell apart from devout atheists.

Reality does not allow us to sit on the fence, but rather forces us to make choices. Our indecision or uncertainty is irrelevent, and we must choose to act as though a proposition is either true or false, thus revealing our critical preferences. In other words, it is not inherently more rational for an "agnostic" to act as though the statement "there is a God" is false, than to act as though it is true. There decision to assume the former reveals their critical preference, irrepective of any uncertainty and fallibility on their part.

On Faith and Proof:

It is useless to define "faith" as equal to "belief in that which cannot be proven", because that begs the question. What standard of proof do you accept? To many theists, The Holy Bible is the infallible word of God, and it proves that God exists and created the heaven and the earth. Of course, an atheist will chuckle at these claims, but rarely recognises that his much cherished "experiment and observation" is no more infallible, and as Dascartes argued with his Evil Demon, and Hume revealed with the problem of induction, observation is far from proof of anything.

On Critical Rationalism:

I believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is true, but I am not absolutely certain or committed to it. I believe that Albert Einstien's theory of special relativity is true, but I am not convinced or bound to it, and do not really understand it. I believe that the vast majority of planets in the universe are lifeless rocks, but I would not bet my life on it and cannot have possibly observed every one. In fact, I cannot think of anything which I do not hold open to criticism or reevalation, even the basic presuppositons of logic and rationality. However, to say that I am agnostic about everything (including being agnostic) tells you nothing about what I think is true, what I would argue in a debate, or what assumption I would make in regard to practical action.

Thought of the Day...

"you know, if you keep talking deeper, deeper, digging beneath the superficial, and under the surface, eventually, you have dug up so much that there is nothing left to dig, and you are in fact now standing upon the pile of dirt which you were attempting to cast aside, ending back where you begun, the superficial. Then, there suddenly does not seem to be such an important difference."

Thought of the Day...

I place no greater authority on self-evidence than I do upon evidence, which is precisely nil. It is an all too common occurrence, that different people come to varied and often contradictory conclusions regarding what is self-evident, in much the same way as they do regarding ordinary evidence. I am not aware of by what means self-evidence is elevated to that infallible plane which seems to make it such a desirable goal, or what relation to the truth which it is supposed that self-evidence possesses... or is that just supposed to be self-evident?

On The Ultimate Resource

I have never read Julian Simon's The Ultimate Resource, but after reading a discussion about his ideas, I tried my best to explain why I think a growing population will bring more wealth, rather than a dwindling share of the pie.

There exists a landscape of ideas, and with every passing thought it is a landscape which we explore. The terrain of this landscape is infinite, composed of every idea which can be thought, and many that cannot, both valid and invalid, true and false, right and wrong. By the faculty of our mind we explore this landscape, but not without a purpose, for we are each searching for particular ideas. The ideas which we search for are contingent on the problems we seek to solve, such as "what ideas are true?", "what ideas are valid?", "what ideas are right?", etc. If our problem happens to concern how to increase the yield of a crop, then we seach the landscape of ideas for possible solutions, hoping to strike upon an idea which would achieve that end.

We need not even be trying solve this problem to actually solve it, but another entirely. Everytime we make a mistake or follow a "blind alley", there is a chance that we will stumble upon a solution that we were not looking for, to a problem which we had not considered. In fact, many of our most useful ideas and inventions arose like this, accidental byproducts, solutions to problems which their "inventors" were not trying to solve. If we are trying to solve a problem, such as how to increase the yield of a crop, finding an alternative to fossil fuels, or of discovering a cure for cancer, then it pays to have as many minds exploring the landscape of ideas as is possible, even if they are not actively trying to solve any of the problems given. In other words, the more you play the game, then the more likely you are to hit the jackpot.

The engine that drives economic prosperity is human ingenuity, creativity, and more often than not, fortunate mistakes and lucky guesses. Important to recognise, is that the frequency of each increases with the number of minds there are explore the landscape of ideas.

In fact, I think there are other explanations of why a growing population might be a good thing, but for the purposes of my comment, I thought it enough to concentrate on only this one.