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.