What is morality? Part Deux

So the last post suggested the possibility of human society or at least the United States moving toward purely logic-based reasoning, likening law to a science rather than a form of influence subject to personal ideologies. By removing illogical influences such as religion and emotion, law will have no choice but to surrender to completely objective reasoning, and thus cannot be disputed. No wars, no uprisings, complete peace on Earth, right?

But is it really that easy?

The golden rule is considered among many to be the most basic principle for living a noble life. The Declaration of Independence stated that certain unalienable rights were "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Great. Most rational human beings can agree to these, but in fact, what is unique about morality and law is that, unlike science, anything can be disagreed upon. There is no "majority rules" in science. Rather, it is the study of fact: what is and what can be. Morality is based on opinion: what should be. Therefore, unlike science, rights can only be declared, never proven.

So maybe there is a reason to all the competing ideologies out there. Maybe subjectivity is inseparable from morality and law, even at the most basic level. And maybe then, the sluggishness of advancement in human rights is justified and unchangeable, and this blog is futile...

:(

But wait.. There may be a solution. Instead of comparing science and morality, perhaps they need to be fused. In order to do this, humans must be recognized not as sovereign beings who are above all laws governing the universe, but merely as glorified animals who occupy a certain niche and are just as subordinate to influences as any other unit of life or matter. Therefore, humans need to be studied, analyzed, and documented in order to determine what is truly best for them and what are true unalienable rights. "Best" here refers to the common good and remains an opinionated term, yet it becomes much more objective if based on scientific facts, rather than mere declarations.

This is certainly not a radical idea. In many ways, the U.S. already implements laws based on this method of reason, but they are largely limited to public health regulations. This makes sense. Science governs laws about science. The FDA and other health care organizations are instrumental in making these regulations based on sound research.

But, again, what about these so-called "unalienable rights"? Where is it proven that humans need or deserve these rights? Why isn’t the right to reproduce included? Surely that is essential to the prosperity of all life. What is “freedom” anyway?

These rights represent worthy ideals, sure. But why not take it a step further and justify them through scientific conclusions about the human race and remove the question of validity? For example, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs ranks a list of human needs based on research using responses from human subjects. It demonstrated inherent human values that were applicable across the broadest range of individuals, independent of personal ideologies. If studies like this were used in law-making, it may be surprising as to what really are the most logical ways in which we should govern ourselves.

To end, let me leave you with this video that analyzes free will. It may be somewhat unsettling at first, but eye-opening nonetheless.

What is morality?

The last post posed the question of why the progression of human rights is so slow compared to that of science and technology. This post will expand on this issue a little more and discuss more specifically the concept of objectivity, or lack thereof, in determining law and human rights today. In order to explain this, it’s necessary to refer to a quote from a reputable, scholarly source, which says:

Emotions run deep within our race sound bite

"Emotions run deep within our race. In many ways more deeply than in humans. Logic offers a serenity humans seldom experience. The control of feelings so that they do not control you."

The wise man who said this was Sarek, Spock’s father in the latest installation of the Star Trek movie series. He said this as words of advice to his son, Spock, who was undergoing an internal struggle throughout the movie, deciding whether to embrace his emotions or to reject them. A little context: Spock, who is a mix of two races, has a human mother and a Vulcan father. The Vulcan race hails from the planet Vulcan, and they practice the tradition of purging themselves of all emotion. This tradition “frees” their race from emotional binds so that they can make “better” decisions, based purely on logic. In this movie, Spock actually opts out of this Vulcan tradition and joins the human space military academy, Starfleet, instead of entering a Vulcan university and following in his father’s path.

Yes, this is a movie… And a fantastical one at that. But science fiction is a genre that is known to build upon the theories of science, in effect actuating in film and literature what scientists can only dream of. So for the sake of a blog that promotes forward thinking, what better source to reference than Star Trek, right?

The movie attempts to decipher what is truly the greater good. In the Vulcan sense, the greater good can only be determined through a rationale that is devoid of all emotion. Logic should prevail at all times, and thus there can only be one sensible solution to any problem. Therefore, an absolute greater good is easily identifiable, just like a solution to a math problem. If this type of reason were applied in a social sense on Earth, surely there would never be reason for war or conflict of any sort, and human rights would be indisputable.

One could argue that this type of society is exactly what we as humans are moving towards. The first evidence of this is the separation of church and state, which officially recognized the two as independent institutions and removed the church’s influence on state affairs. While illegal, however, it is still evident that religion does play a part in law establishment and policy making today, as it serves as the basis of much of our reason as individuals. So, while abortion is legal in the United States, it faced an incredible amount of opposition at the state and grassroots level, and still does, due undoubtedly to a major stigma imposed by churches, but affirmed by individuals. Religion, thus, shapes our values and emotions. So is the separation of church and state a start to the eventual separation of emotion and state, and possibly emotion and reason altogether?

If this is true, then what would morality and law be based on in the future, if not religion? Perhaps it would take the road of Descartes, a French philosopher who completely reeducated himself according to logical principles, the first of which being “I think, therefore I am.” The starting point for morality and human rights may very well be none other than the Golden Rule, “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.”

Food for thought, indeed. But so as not to bore you with length, this discussion will have to continue next time. Till then!

What is "progress" anyway?

Ask different people, and you'll surely get different responses. Ultimately, there is no definite answer but the answer we make for ourselves. Yet it is important that, as a world civilization, we have some sort of consensus about ways in which we wish to advance ourselves.

You have probably envisioned to yourselves how the world will be in twenty.. fifty.. even a hundred years. What technological breakthroughs will have occurred? Flying cars? Teleportation? What things we currently practice will be abolished and considered atrocities of the past? Alternatively, what will be commonplace or legalized that we consider atrocities now? What new values will we hold dear, and what others will we have abandoned?

In order to answer these questions, we must be able to learn from our past as well as constantly look towards our future. We must be forward thinkers.

A doctor once told me, during a talk on stem cell research, that he does not approve of the research not because of the "baby-killing" argument, but because he feared what the future would hold for further "advances" in that area. He noted that the past has taught us that humans will use use technology unchecked, which have led to disasters such as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Chernobyl and the Challenger accidents. Global warming. So what's to stop scientists from cloning humans soon, if they haven't already in some underground lab? The CIA LSD experiments were kept secret for decades, as was their infusion of crack cocaine into Black communities. All it takes is for someone to justify it.

During this talk, the doctor said one thing that will probably stick with me forever. And that was:

"Our technology is evolving much faster than our morality."

Deep, right?

Think about it. Slavery in the United States was abolished only 150 years ago, yet institutionalized discrimination still exists. Blacks received the right to vote shortly after, but women were excluded until 1920. Are you kidding me? Guns, cars, and lightbulbs were well established by then. In 1960, the television or radio was a staple in many U.S. homes, but women were confined to the kitchen. It seems that while science is advancing exponentially, morality is doing so logarithmically... (Calculus, anyone?)

Well, this is a HUGE problem.

But what is the difference between science and morality? What is holding morality back?

A large part of it must be that science is vastly more objective. Certainly, as is taught by history, evolving morality is hindered by tradition, stubbornness, and special interests. Why else hasn't the U.S. already adopted universal healthcare?

This blog is an attempt to combat this sluggish trend of improving human rights by promoting foward thinking about moral issues we face today. It will discuss the past, present, and future in order to provoke thought on a deep level about where we have come from, where we are, and where we are going as a civilization and human race. Perhaps you, the readers, will be inspired to think more about what exactly is "progress" and to work together to identify a true greater good.

The world needs forward thinkers because, after all, the future is now.