- The morality argument
Morality, ethics, etc: these things are not based on rationality. Some may argue that empathy – a vehicle for morals – is rational as humanity will do better if empathy and compassion prevails. They aren’t wrong about that, but there is also no rational reason to want humanity to do well. We cannot even justify wishing for our own survival through rational means. It’s simply an urge we were given via evolution. It seems to us, for the most part, universal enough to warrant no thought to the rationale, but that’s not true. I believe it a good urge, but not for reasons I can prove true with logic, unless by providing goals which also can’t be proven rational. And those reasons would have been the key to proving any morals not merely relative. Not having them, we must accept all morality as relative.
So, we each must come to our own conclusions in the most difficult task of all: not being able to rely on logic for the underlying reasons. Relying only on our own goals, dreams, and wishes for guidance. This is a dangerous task if we wish to keep clear of bias.
I don’t need to understand all, or even a sizable portion, of physics to know the basics of how nuclear reactors work. This is because it is based on fact – not opinion. For any idea someone like me would need to glean from reactors, I need only a few facts. The same is true of most of the natural world.
Therefore, when asked my opinion of if nuclear reactors are inherently unsafe, I need recall little. I need know little, to be honest.
When asked if something is ethical, however, there are no facts to back me up – or at least, facts which I can prove are relevant. There is no evidence to suggest my values that guide my opinion of ethics are the more morally sound. There is no evidence to suggest morality even matters. We take it as a given they do, unprovable as they are. Yet I have no right to speak with authority on the matter, as is fairly simple to do when concerning facts.
We often feel justified in authority regarding morality, but I find that foolish. Every society in history has felt secure in their beliefs and every society in history that I have come across has had at least a few morals completely antithetical to mainstream morality today. They were blinded by their hubris, as we very well could be (And in all likelihood, almost certainly are). For example, there are still Americans alive today who see no moral dilemma supporting slavery of blacks. They are so certain that they don’t even entertain the possibility they are wrong. Most of America sees no issue with killing cows and pigs for food but we condemn other countries for eating dogs and cats and whales and such. Our morals aren’t consistent.
Because of this predicament, we need much more information to answer the ethics question. We can’t simply look up the answer in a book. We can’t point to data that uniformly verifies our opinions. We certainly can’t trust in public opinion. We must formulate our own answers, which are essentially only best guesses.
And to give our best guesses, we need knowledge. It may be an opinion we are wishing to find, but it is (should) be based on fact. If we haven’t the data to give an educated answer, or the self-control to give an unbiased answer, then we have failed and we may lead ourselves astray.
If we could prove, or at least, if you accept that we should all seek the best paths for humanity or even only for ourselves, then it would, indeed, be immoral to not seek the truth in all things, and be as free of bias as you could manage. It would be immoral to lack epistemic responsibility.
As an aside, perhaps this is a contributing factor to the prevalence and dependence on religion? It claims to solve this problem of morality by feigning a factual foundation. “God wishes it, therefore it is fact we should want it.” Ethical questions that should take us mortals significant time pondering are looked up in a book. Ethics is an uncomfortable topic for many people, specifically because there are no facts to guide us to the end. You can never know if you’re right. It’s far easier to claim the divine already solved it.
- The utility argument
It is hard to argue this next point immediately after calling all morals relative, but for now, let’s preface this with an intro that most of us, at least, would agree with: “If you wish for the most good to the maximum amount of people, then:”
If only fact was taken into account, there would be almost no conflict: If you take out belief based on opinion, there would never be another death on the hands of the religious. No more holy wars, oceans of blood, mountains of bodies. If you take out belief based on bias, there would be no more greed – primary fuel for it as it is. Greed is the most reviled of bias’ patrons, if perhaps not necessarily the most widely harmful (arguable). There would be no more xenophobic, homophobic, racist, sexist, nationalistic, or any other phobic thoughts guiding our folly and leading us to suspicion, mistrust, and violence.
We’d be forced into looking at all humans as our fellows. Similar creatures with lives as fully vivid and complex as our own. The widespread use of the fundamental attribution error – blaming the individual for all their problems without concern for external factors that may have contributed to their position – would cease. Only two possible ways to view people remain: through a lens of apathy or one of empathy. Apathy, while not good, is neither bad. Empathy we would agree is good. Having fewer options of lenses and especially apathy being the more boring option, I believe empathy would begin to soar.
While material equality wouldn’t magically happen overnight, the gap would most probably stop widening, as we would no longer seek money for affectation or other shallow reasons. This means that people would have no reason for billions of dollars. Likely not even millions. As well, price gouging and the general greedy nature of a capitalist free market would stop, so we’d need less money to be happy anyhow. Things would naturally start to even out and income inequality would shrivel. It’s, perhaps, idealistic to even mention the hypothetical outcomes, as we will almost certainly never be free of bias and greed even millions of years in the future, but the fantasy is comforting for a brief moment at least.
I think it reasonable, given history and what we observe of reality, that this decrease in conflict has a linear correlation with an increase of rationality. My example was that all bias would cease, but that isn’t required to reap the benefits of less conflict and violence. It seems evident that the more rational we become, the more wellbeing there will be.
- The best life argument:
We all wish for happiness. That may be the most universal thing humanity has in common. Even masochists cut themselves because it makes them happy (happier, anyway) in some part of their brain, else they wouldn’t do it. An alcoholic who hates the fact that they’re an alcoholic still indulges because when their will breaks, it is through a guise that a beer would make them happier in that moment that their brain has successfully convinced them of.
So, what can we do that will give us the most happiness?
I have no idea. However, I know the best way to find that answer. Knowledge. How can you know what will give you the most happiness, lead to the greatest joy, if you have never even heard the thing that would give you the most happiness? Or if you don’t know how to avoid the pitfalls that could prevent you from practicing it?
Going by the odds, chances are that the greatest painter who ever lived never painted a thing. The greatest woodworker never made a single chair. The most genius computer programmer was dead long before computers were invented. The greatest chess player may not have known of the concept of a ‘king’. Society at large might have known them as the greatest at these things if they’d only had that first experience with them. In turn, they would have continued the art/craft/game/etc as their passion, and would have thus found their renown and more importantly, their meaning.
The point is, most of us do not try most things. Even a portion of the possibilities. Even a fraction. This, too, is an aspect of epistemic responsibility in my opinion. I’m not necessarily talking of skydiving and rocky mountain climbing and bull riding – typical things people cite when giving bucket list options; at least in hit country songs – but to try and know at least a few things about as many things as possible so you can better decide where you might gain inspiration. Where you can find the meaning in your life.
To steal from an earlier unpublished writing of mine that is relevant:
01-17-18
Not valuing knowledge and reason is tantamount to being in a room with dozens of doors you could possibly exit. You check only a few doors and then choose your favorite between those to apply as your ‘meaning’ and ‘purpose’. The door decides your goals in life. My argument is that you should open every door so that you can see the possibilities and make a much better and more informed decision of what your purpose is. Where you can spend the currency of your passion. If you don’t know the possibilities – if you don’t seek knowledge or if you have tunnel vision in what you do seek – you are keeping those other doors latched tight, their contents hidden away, their possibilities unknown.
To do this successfully will require you to have an accurate view of reality. If you have no interest in reining in your biases, you cannot know if your opinions are based on fact. They permeate your views – insidious. In turn, the rest of your reality might be likewise tainted. It is much the same argument as Descartes’ basket of apples. One bad one can rot those next to it. To be reasonably sure you can eat from your basket, indeed, requires epistemic responsibility. *I later wrote a post which mentions this idea with the ‘flat reference surface’*
Build something. Learn programming. Paint along with Bob Ross for a few sessions. Grow some plants. Learn electronics. Try to make a song or poem. Travel. Learn to sew. Hell, go skydiving. Go to the grand canyon. Even if you have no passion for any of these things, dip a foot in each pond you come across. You might find what seemed somewhat tepid is actually quite to your taste and might become your meaning.
This argument is probably better said within this essay of mine.
*update* I found this old writing of mine, and I had thought it different enough to merit another argument, but really, it’s just a restating of the above:
7/3/18
Incompetence is difficult to spot in ourselves. As the Dunning-Kruger effect points out, we often lack the very skills needed to realize how bad we are at things. Pockets of ignorance in our understandings make us blind to the fact that we are often not as good as we think we are. Ego plays a part, obviously, but most will admit their incompetencies when they can spot them. But with our ignorances, it’s rare that we can do so.
Being able to accurately assess our strengths and weaknesses can better inform what we need to work on. It keeps us from inflating our perceptions of ourselves. And, like the other arguments, help us towards choosing the decisions that best lead to our goals.
Taken as a given in these arguments: We all have goals in life we wish to meet, even if ever-changing. We all want to be happy. Meeting those goals is a great source of that happiness. There are multiple ways to work towards those goals – some better than others, some completely inadequate, some provide more happiness, and knowing which path to take is a matter of knowledge.
3.5. The Argument (half) Argument
My final entry which was written on a separate occasion only just fits with the rest, so I don’t consider it a full argument, but still a valid reason to support epistemic responsibility.
2/17/18
There’s an interesting point to be made on a trick detractors pull on scientists, or more accurately, those who argue in favor of their data and evidence. These people understand the concepts of science and know it will always be more valid than their gut-feelings that they wish so badly to believe. They feel they must oppose science (or anything else, for that matter) that doesn’t support their worldview or what their political party or constituents don’t agree with. So, in arguments on the science of something like climate change, they feign sudden interest in logic and fallacy, claiming that because their interlocutor is relying on words of scientists, this constitutes an appeal to authority.
It’s an interesting problem. In some cases, they aren’t wrong. Rationally, we would be correct to assume we should defer to the judgement of experts in the field, yet if it goes no further than that, it is indeed an appeal to authority. Obviously, what scientists say can be backed up with evidence and data, but the problem becomes a matter of education. If you don’t have enough knowledge to interpret the data yourself, it will remain an appeal. It only ceases to be such when you, yourself, understand at least the basics about the data and what it reveals about reality. Even then, however, it will still appear as fallacious to those you’re explaining to until you adequately teach those you’re debating enough knowledge to interpret the data correctly.
If you don’t know at least the basics of what the greenhouse effect is and why it happens, you’re simply taking scientists word for it. Historically, there are far worse things you could do (with few exceptions). Nevertheless, it’s fallacious. Until you understand the physics, you are trusting what they are saying, arguably without sufficient justification. You can argue with people that the greenhouse effect (for reasons you don’t understand), is logical proof that more CO2 will cause warming, and then can point to data showing the amount of increased CO2 humanity is pointing out is not insignificant, logically proving humanity is contributing in some capacity to the observed warming. But you are putting yourself in a trap for the type of people I’m referring to.
If they ask you why, exactly, the greenhouse effect would affect CO2, you’ll be forced to say you ‘heard it from scientists’, at which time they will joyously dismiss all the valid evidence you have brought forth – essentially ignoring the entire rest of your argument. They, themselves, will at this time ironically be guilty of what’s called the ‘fallacy fallacy’, yet I doubt they’ll much care. Being logical was never their concern; ‘Beating’ your argument through any means, even using weapons of their enemies, was.
We should not seek to ‘beat’ the arguments of those who deny science. We should get better at educating them, and to do so requires us to be knowledgeable on the matter (an example: according to Pew, atheists and agnostics know far more about Christianity than the average American Christian for probably just this reason). They don’t want to believe science and will actively attempt to limit their exposure to education on the matter, looking only for views espousing what they already believe (aka, selective exposure). If they know enough that they actually understand it, they won’t need debates to shut them up. They will be too busy struggling at internally refuting the concepts that their minds finally understand and rationalizing some way they can still believe what they wish instead of what is truth.
“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” – Einstein
Robot Philosopher 