A Statement of My Dilemma in Metaethics

1-23-00
by Matt Landreman

Along with probably nearly everyone else on this planet, I am simply trying to do the right thing. I just want to be a good person. Unfortunately, there is one small problem. Life does not come with an instruction manual. Since mankind could think, people have wrestled with the question of what is the right thing to do, and there is still no general consensus today. Anyone who set out to find an answer will surely be dismayed by this losing streak.

For myself, the issue is framed as a paradox. I claim to know two things, which seem to contradict each other. On the one hand I believe the findings of science, and science tells me I do not have free will and that morality is nothing but an evolutionary adaptation. On the other hand, it sure feels to me like I am constantly making decisions, and I feel at a loss without some systematic way to make them. Although I cannot reasonably expect to solve in one semester what Western philosophy has not done in thousands of years, I am hoping this spring to at least understand the problem better and maybe to feel a little less direction-less.

To understand this problem of mine, we should start with a brief discussion of what I mean when I say "ethics." Some conceive of ethics as a very esoteric, erudite subject. It is discussed by an elite few in classrooms, who read ancient books by dead white men. On the contrary, I see ethics as a very ubiquitous subject that touches every moment of life. Right now I am writing an essay, but I had to decide if I should write or read when I woke up. My stomach is hinting that I should eat some breakfast, but I elected rather to stay at my computer. Ethics is about decisions like these. We are constantly bombarded by our wants, and we cannot possibly have everything. We need to make decisions so we can focus our attention on one and act. For this to happen, all of our wants need to be rated somehow. We must evaluate which are the most important, which ought to be done. Thus, I see ethics as a very practical concept. In my confusion, I consequently am overcome with dilemmas. While most people seem to think in terms of "Should I do X or Y?", I think "By what criterion should I decide whether to do X or Y?" Of course, I do make decisions like everyone else, for one cannot escape the responsibility. However, I feel like my decisions are not based on anything real, that they are uncoordinated and seem to "just sort of happen". I cannot really focus behind anything I want to accomplish, because I cannot justify to myself why that thing is so important. So while I might seem to be detached in a scholarly dilemma this semester, I do not see things this way at all. I feel like I cannot live my life without an answer.

While science can probably never answer this question of how to act, it does seem to offer some important related ideas. The first is the notion of determinism. We have a notion that the mind is somehow independent of the body, but this is only an illusion. It has become clear that every mental state has a neural correlate. When people feel happy, lie, compute a math problem, dream, or perform any other mental action, a specific area of the brain shows a certain pattern of activity. The brain is a physical system, made up of the same particles obeying the same forces as the rest of the universe. Because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle the universe is not completely deterministic, the its behavior is statistically predictable at the particle level. No action on particles other than the gravity, electromagnetism, and the nuclear forces has been reliably observed. Thus, everything that happens in the brain is a product of statistically deterministic events at the particle level, and consequently the mind is similarly deterministic. We might have the illusion that we are making a decision, but measurement of brain activity can determine our choice even before we are aware of it ourselves. Any freedom of the mind we feel is illusionary, for the mind is fundamentally a physical machine.

A second contribution of science is a paradigm of what morality is and where it came from. From anthropological studies it has become clear that a wide range of moral systems are possible among the human race, wider than the range we observe among our own culture. Discard for a moment the any ideas that moral systems can be "true" or "false." People acquire their moral systems at a young age, heavily influenced by parents and peers. A moral system is an idea that passes from people to people, and can spread or die out. Richard Dawkins coined the term "meme" for such a thing, to emphasize the similarity to a gene. In biology, even a creationist must admit that evolution occurs today, as organisms with genes ill-suited to their environments die out. Similarly, even a moral realist must acknowledge that memetic evolution occurs among moral systems.

All we have said so far is that ethics is in practice affected by an evolutionary process, regardless of the truth-value of a given idea. However, some thinkers like Edward O. Wilson go a step further. It seems that memetic evolution is enough to explain both the presence and the content of moral ideas. Once our ancestors acquired the ability to possess culture, it would be a survival advantage to also possess a moral system. Cultures with an ethic could act in a unified way and focus better on achieving whichever goals their ethic defined to be good. More unification and focus meant more productivity, and an advantage over non-moral groups. Mankind thus evolved the ability to conceive of moral systems. Once this machinery was in place, certain moral systems emerged that gave their believers a further survival advantage. An individual can be more productive if he does not have to worry about competition from his neighbors, so a certain level of altruism was advantageous. Moral beliefs that were not good at replicating themselves died off, to leave us with the mix of belief systems we observe today. This story is a compelling notion of morality. It explains the variety of thinking around the globe, and can account for the subtle mix of altruism and selfish behavior that human possess.

Furthermore, morality does not seem to have any comprehensible reality. Many people say they can gain insight into right and wrong through reflection, but this notion has fundamental difficulties. Any mental state must have a neural analog, so if a person can perceive information about morals there must be a way for that information to enter at the level of neurons. The Is/Ought barrier – the fact that no normative statement can be deduced from statements of fact – precludes the possibility of morals having a physical basis. Nothing in the physical world has the property of compulsion that "the good" does. Insight into moral truth then requires "miraculous" influence of neurons – the physical particles in the brain would have to be moved by forces other than the fundamental physical ones. Without any documented evidence of this ever happening, we must discard the notion as preposterous.

With this scientific perspective, it seems clear what morals are. They are patterns of behavior among people that are passed on by communication. The notion that morals are anything more, that there are "correct" ways to behave, is nothing more than a human error. Most people rationalize their actions in terms of "principles," but these principles only held because they are the victors of memetic evolution. From this new vantage point many problems are immediately resolved. Philosophers have debated for millennia about the true ethic, but they have not found one because there is none to be found. Without the modern scientific information we are lucky to possess, they made a very honest mistake of following their intuition that morals had some sort of reality. The Is/Ought barrier goes away as well, because "I ought to do X" really means "My upbringing has instilled me with a tendency to do X in this situation and to rationalize it in terms of morality." The new perspective is exceedingly compelling because of its clarity and simplicity.

The situation seems to be resolved. People in the past have had some naÔve notions of morality and free will, but science has shed light on the true nature of things. Unfortunately, this information only confuses me. When I have to decide which classes to register for, I feel like I do have free will. I have to acknowledge the fact that my decisions are in a sense controlled by the laws of physics, and are determined by the memes of behavior that exist in me. Nonetheless, I feel like it is my decision to select the classes. I want to make the right decision, but science seems to be telling me there is no right decision. In a decision between two courses I can give reasons why either would be good. How though do I evaluate which reasons are better? I have conflicting wants, but I do not know how to decide among them. What should I want?

Since the earliest humans, people have been faced with the problem of how to make decisions. Modern scientific findings are telling me the problem is irrelevant. I still need to find a solution, though. I cannot live without a solution and science is telling me there is none. I feel like the answer lies in a better understanding of the paradox. It was difficult for me to write the previous paragraph, because I do not feel like I understand exactly what I am complaining about. I hope that by the end of this semester I can at least better comprehend the dilemma, although I ultimately wish to know how to act. All I want is to be a good person.

[Return to writing page]