Bubbling excitement and eagerness rise in my chest. I lean forward in my seat as if I could hear the speakers on stage better that way. The audience fluctuates between quiet attentiveness and laughter, appreciating the conversation between the two men sitting in black arm chairs, one a cosmologist the other a neuroscientist and philosopher.
A few months earlier I had bought my tickets to the event in Portland, a live audience episode of the Waking Up podcast hosted by Sam Harris. I had bought the tickets without knowing who the guest was going to be and I was thrilled to discover that Sean Carroll would be sharing the stage, a scientist and blogger I had admired for even longer than I had been familiar with Harris’ work.
I’m particularly intrigued by one question that the two thinkers disagree on. Can ethics be based on empirical science alone?
Some assumptions are needed to get the enterprise of science off the ground. We need to assume that our senses convey some information about reality, and that there is some amount of predictability to the fabric of our universe that will allow us to formulate theories that accurately predict phenomena. I guess we don’t have to assume the latter to make the attempt, but unless it’s true there doesn’t seem to be much point. Perhaps we are assuming other things about logic and foundational mathematics. As we go along we sometimes discard assumptions that don’t prove useful in constructing the predictive theories we’re after.
The question is, do we need to assume anything further to get ethics off the ground? Science can answer questions about how reality is structured and what exists. Can answers to questions of how we should act follow from that knowledge of reality? Or do we need ethical axioms in addition to our scientific axioms?
Sam Harris thinks we don’t need any further assumptions. He points out that if you study conscious creatures deeply enough you will have a complete understanding of which behaviors are best for those conscious creatures. Goodness is something you understand by looking inside brains, and brains are part of the natural world.
Sean Carroll argues that although a complete science of conscious systems may lead to an understanding of which outcomes will result from which behaviors, but that science will not be able to conclude that any of those outcomes are better than any other. We may be able to determine scientifically that a certain action will lead to great suffering, but it is a step further to then claim that the suffering would be a bad outcome.
I have many thoughts on this which I hope to explore in future posts. Delightfully, I have wavered back and forth between agreeing with Sam and agreeing with Sean. What do you think? I created a discussion on Kialo and I would love for you to join me!