Search This Blog

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

A Defense of Ethical Intuitionism--Part Three

This is the third in a series on Ethical Intuitionism (part one and part two). In my view, moral intuitions are like axioms in mathematics. They are "givens," self-evident facts that serve as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. One has to start somewhere. One must have certain assumptions that are deemed to be right morally before one can build a superstructure of moral theory. These "starting points," or "axioms," or "intuitions," are apparently something that we born with. We don't have to be taught them, we don't have to defend them, they are universally recognized as true or right. Where do these "intuitions" come from? That is a hard question. Christians would say they come from God. He implanted them in us when he created us in his image.  Others would argue that these intuitions have become part of our brains through evolution. In that sense, they are something like instincts.

I came across a very interesting article in the New York Times "The Moral Instinct" (Jan. 13, 2008), by Steven Pinker , a Professor of Psychology at Harvard University and formerly a Professor in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT.

Pinker discusses research which seems to show that our moral instincts or intuitions are a result of evolution. He writes:

Today, a new field is using illusions to unmask a sixth sense, the moral sense. Moral intuitions are being drawn out of people in the lab, on Web sites and in brain scanners, and are being explained with tools from game theory, neuroscience and evolutionary biology.

. . . The human moral sense turns out to be an organ of considerable complexity, with quirks that reflect its evolutionary history and its neurobiological foundations.
1. Moral intuitions are different than moral opinions.

The starting point for appreciating that there is a distinctive part of our psychology for morality is seeing how moral judgments differ from other kinds of opinions we have on how people ought to behave. Moralization is a psychological state that can be turned on and off like a switch, and when it is on, a distinctive mind-set commandeers our thinking. This is the mind-set that makes us deem actions immoral (“killing is wrong”), rather than merely disagreeable (“I hate brussels sprouts”), unfashionable (“bell-bottoms are out”) or imprudent (“don’t scratch mosquito bites”).
2. Moral intuitions are felt to be universally true.

The first hallmark of moralization is that the rules it invokes are felt to be universal. Prohibitions of rape and murder, for example, are felt not to be matters of local custom but to be universally and objectively warranted. One can easily say, “I don’t like brussels sprouts, but I don’t care if you eat them,” but no one would say, “I don’t like killing, but I don’t care if you murder someone.”

3. Violations of moral intuitions are felt to be worthy of punishment.

The other hallmark is that people feel that those who commit immoral acts deserve to be punished. Not only is it allowable to inflict pain on a person who has broken a moral rule; it is wrong not to, to “let them get away with it.” People are thus untroubled in inviting divine retribution or the power of the state to harm other people they deem immoral. Bertrand Russell wrote, “The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell.”
4. Moral intuitions sometimes cannot be explained rationally.

Pinker cites an example from psychologist Jonathan Haidt:

Julie is traveling in France on summer vacation from college with her brother Mark. One night they decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. Julie was already taking birth-control pills, but Mark uses a condom, too, just to be safe. They both enjoy the sex but decide not to do it again. They keep the night as a special secret, which makes them feel closer to each other. What do you think about that — was it O.K. for them to make love?
Most people will have a moral intuition that a brother and sister engaging in sex is wrong. But why?

In the case of Julie and Mark, people raise the possibility of children with birth defects, but they are reminded that the couple were diligent about contraception. They suggest that the siblings will be emotionally hurt, but the story makes it clear that they weren’t. They submit that the act would offend the community, but then recall that it was kept a secret. Eventually many people admit, “I don’t know, I can’t explain it, I just know it’s wrong.”
5. Apparently our brain has evolved to find certain behaviors instinctively wrong.

The idea that the moral sense is an innate part of human nature is not far-fetched. A list of human universals collected by the anthropologist Donald E. Brown includes many moral concepts and emotions, including a distinction between right and wrong; empathy; fairness; admiration of generosity; rights and obligations; proscription of murder, rape and other forms of violence; redress of wrongs; sanctions for wrongs against the community; shame; and taboos. . . . The moral sense, then, may be rooted in the design of the normal human brain.
It could be that because incestuous relationships produce genetically inferior children, and are therefore counter-productive to human evolution, our brains have evolved to find that behavior instinctively wrong. Other moral instincts would also be derived from whether the actions under consideration were productive or counter-productive to human evolution.

We will examine this issue further in a future post.

29 comments:

  1. "possibility of children with birth defects"

    All these posts about Ethical Intuitionism and morality are so very interesting Ken

    I agree its the possibility of birth defects.And also possibility of disease that made us reason on things like incest and monogamy.In my opinion though i feel these things might be more about intuitions of knowledge and culture,rather than being any (innate) intuitions.

    Because for instance there were some tribes who never practiced monogamy, and Balinese and some Inuit tribes have altogether different beliefs about what constitutes illegal and immoral incest.And in Ancient Egypt, brother–sister, father–daughter, and mother–son relations were practiced among royalty.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If God created us with our moral senses, why did they have to evolve, to change, to get arguably better? Why do we have to move from slavery to a sense that it is wrong? Why not pre-install a perfect sense of morality right from day one, and then leave us with our free will (wink wink) and in so doing do away with untold suffering?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anon,

    I think there has been some evolution of these moral intuitions. There has been a tendency to consider those outside of one's clan or tribe to be something less than a human being and thus killing them or enslaving them would be acceptable. Also I think that people could overcome the moral intuitions if they felt that some higher authority such as a god was authorizing their actions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "They are "givens," self-evident facts that serve as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. One has to start somewhere. One must have certain assumptions that are deemed to be right morally before one can build a superstructure of moral theory."

    This sounds very much like an ethical form of presuppositionalism.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Christians would say they come from God. He implanted them in us when he created us in his image.

    But biblical Christians would also say that intuitions have no authority, disconnected from the divine command. Just b/c you intuit that sthg is right or wrong means nothing more than that you intuit that sthg is right or wrong. No necessary connection to actual normativity, prescription, proscription, moral law.

    I'm glad to see you fleshing out this topic, thank you. I do have to say that it makes me thankful to God for rescuing me from such an empty system as atheism.

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  6. DW,

    It is a form of presuppositionalism or more accurately epistemological foundationalism. There has to be a starting point before one can know anything; however, the presuppositionalism that you advocate is different in that it presupposes a whole system, namely biblical Christianity. That is much more than just an epistemological foundation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rhology,

    What about Rom. 2:14-15. Paul said that the Gentiles were without excuse for breaking the law because it was written on their hearts.

    Universal Intuitions or instincts are more "objective" than the myriads of interpretations of the Bible. That is your problem, Christians can't agree on what their "objective" moral code says. What they do agree on is no different than what everyone else agrees on anyway as a result of moral intuitions. Many societies who have never seen the Bible have moral codes that prohibit murder, stealing, rape, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "But biblical Christians would also say that intuitions have no authority ..."

    But biblical Christians give no good reasons that the 66 books of the Bible should be invested with ultimate authority. Why, for example, is the book of Jude or Hebrews or Esther clothed with divine authority? Who says so? Why is the gospel of Mark stamped with some divine imprimatur, when it never even makes any claim to special authority?

    You take an awful lot for granted.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hello Dr Pulliam,

    Yes, Rom 2:14-15 is a great and very thought-provoking psg, and you are right, as far as your statement goes. Paul's just shown that the Jew doesn't have an excuse before God, b/c he has the written law and can't keep it. Then Paul goes on to expound on why the Gentile can't appeal to the excuse of not having the written law - the reason the law written on their hearts condemns them before God is b/c the heart-written law is a reflection of the objective written law.

    Surely you know that
    1) objectivity is not affected by the reader's or listener's understanding, memory, or obedience to the object, and
    2) objectivity (or truth) is not measured by counting noses, argumenta ad populum.


    What they do agree on is no different than what everyone else agrees on anyway as a result of moral intuitions.

    That is true to a large and lamentable extent in practice. But on what grounds can someone, or God, look at those intuitions and the actions based on them and judge between good and bad? What, more intuitions? That's what your system offers, and it's pitifully inadequate. No, we can judge them b/c there's a higher law, and it is objective, static, and written.


    Many societies who have never seen the Bible have moral codes that prohibit murder, stealing, rape, etc.

    Yes. Surely you didn't already forget Romans 2:14-15, did you?




    SteveJ,
    But biblical Christians give no good reasons that the 66 books of the Bible should be invested with ultimate authority

    An ignorant statement. You should get out more.
    One good one is the inadequacy of all other means of knowing moral truth.


    Why, for example, is the book of Jude or Hebrews or Esther clothed with divine authority? Who says so?

    God said so.


    You take an awful lot for granted.

    Haha, so do you, my friend. You just don't know it, apparently.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rhology, please explain when and where God said the books of Jude and Ruth were divinely inspired and authoritative.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 2 Timothy 3:16, and other comments on the authority of Scripture in the NT, such as Mark 7:1-13. And God's stated desire to communicate with His people what He wanted to communicate.
    We know from the impossibility of the contrary that God has revealed His Scripture to His people.

    ReplyDelete
  12. OK, so why are you so cocksure that 2 Tim 3:16 applies to Jude or Hebrews? (If you read the preceding verses, it sounds like he's talking about the Old Testament -- the Scriptures Timothy has known from infancy.)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rhology,

    You said: But biblical Christians would also say that intuitions have no authority, disconnected from the divine command. I replied that Rom. 2:14-15, which you accept as divine truth, says that the law is written on their hearts. This is equivalent to the moral intuitions that I am talking about. Surely you don't think Paul means that all of the details of the ceremonial law is written on the Gentile's hearts. The point I am making is that what Paul and you say is the divine moral law written on the hearts of all people is what I call moral intuitions and there is a perfectly good naturalistic explanation for this moral law which all men share. Paul attributed it to God but that is not necessary.

    As for "objectivity," I maintain there is no such thing or if there is we could never know it because everything we know we know as subjects. Unless you can get outside of your own mind, then whatever you know or think you know, is subjective. Thats just the way it is, since we are all subjects.

    ReplyDelete
  14. SteveJ,

    Like I said, the impossibility of the contrary. If God did not speak clearly, then we are left with irrationality.
    I'm "cocksure" about it b/c I take God's existence and speech as my fundamental presupposition.


    Dr Pulliam,
    This is equivalent to the moral intuitions that I am talking about.

    Then the inadequacy I've pointed out over and over again of your moral framework is agreed upon by both of us.


    Surely you don't think Paul means that all of the details of the ceremonial law is written on the Gentile's hearts.

    Yes, that's right.


    there is a perfectly good naturalistic explanation for this moral law which all men share

    And I don't deny that either.
    I am simply asking you to show the prescriptive and normative power of such intuitions. Why *should* anyone do what they say?


    As for "objectivity," I maintain there is no such thing or if there is we could never know it because everything we know we know as subjects.

    Eating 6ly Tuesday requires bluish adversity care. Further, Jell-O has furtively bones and the further they fly the much.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "I take God's existence and speech as my fundamental presupposition."

    You also assume up front that God wrote the 66 books of the Bible, despite the dearth of good reasons for such a belief. When it comes down to it, the shifting sands of errant church tradition have declared what belongs in your objective guide and what doesn't. There's a certain irony in that: Imperfect, subjective church authority somehow gave you a perfect, objective standard.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Besides, Rhology, your argument from God's wish to communicate ... well, it's just thoroughly unconvincing. What you're saying is, "I'm sure God wishes to communicate with us. Therefore, Hebrews and Jude must be divine communications." But why? There's a quantum leap between the first and second sentence, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rhology,

    2 Tim. 3:16 in context only refers to the OT (actually the LXX which includes some of the apocrypha).

    If the "moral law" written on the hearts as Paul describes in Rom. 2:14-15 is reliable and you say it is, then the moral intutions (which are one and the same thing) are also reliable.

    YOur nonsense statement in reply to "objectivity" doesn't prove anything. Please reply as to how an individual subject could ever have objective knowledge?

    ReplyDelete
  18. SteveJ,

    despite the dearth of good reasons for such a belief.

    You assume quite a lot. You have no idea of my reasons.


    When it comes down to it, the shifting sands of errant church tradition have declared what belongs in your objective guide and what doesn't

    Good thing I don't appeal to church tradition, then.


    Imperfect, subjective church authority somehow gave you a perfect, objective standard.

    No, God did. The beauty of His power and plan is that He uses imperfect sinful man to His own perfect ends.


    it's just thoroughly unconvincing

    Yes, b/c you're not willing to actually look at it. Rather, you'd prefer to stand afar off and assume that there are no good reasons, and make assertions as such.


    But why?

    Why does He want to communicate? B/c He wanted to tell people about Himself?
    Let's take this another way - I've answered some questions. Now it's your turn. How do you know that anything else exists? Also, where did the laws of logic come from?



    Dr Pulliam,
    2 Tim. 3:16 in context only refers to the OT (actually the LXX which includes some of the apocrypha).

    Well, the OT. There's a lot of good evidence that Jesus-era Jews held only to the Protestant OT; just b/c apoc books were frequently included in the same codex for convenience and economy doesn't mean they were considered inspired.


    If the "moral law" written on the hearts as Paul describes in Rom. 2:14-15 is reliable and you say it is

    I didn't say it was reliable. I said it was sufficient to convict them, and it should be obvious that in the hands of sinful men, a law written on the heart of a man who is suppressing the truth in wickedness (Rom 1:18) would imperfectly reflect the actual law.


    YOur nonsense statement in reply to "objectivity" doesn't prove anything

    I was trying to be subtle. I'll have to be less so, it appears.
    If you think objectivity doesn't exist, then your words carry no meaning. Disclaiming objectivity is self-defeating. So stop. :-)

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  19. "If you think objectivity doesn't exist, then your words carry no meaning."

    You have a premise and a conclusion, but no actual argument to join the two. Good luck, though.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Let's take this another way - I've answered some questions. Now it's your turn."

    It really isn't. Save it for your own blog.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rhology,

    My point about 2 Tim. 3:16 which you cited as proof that the Bible is inspired, at best only applies to the OT.

    If the moral law written on the hearts is not reliable, then Paul's argument in Rom. 2 loses it effect. He is saying that the Gentiles know they are doing wrong because of the inner law (which I would call inuitions).

    Regarding subjectivity, you haven't shown how a subject can know something is objective since all of his knowledge is subjective. The reason we can communicate is because we have agreed upon the meaning of words. In that sense the meanings are "intersubjective". One could say that it is "objective" in a relative sense but not in the true sense of the meaning of the word.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Paul C said:
    Save it for your own blog.

    Said the guy who doesn't have one. This isn't SteveJ's blog either.



    Dr Pulliam,
    at best only applies to the OT.

    It says "All Scripture". The NT is Scripture. The NT is God-breathed.


    If the moral law written on the hearts is not reliable, then Paul's argument in Rom. 2 loses it effect.

    It's not reliable in terms of setting the moral framework. As I said, it merely reflects it, partially. Or a better way to say it might be that it communicates the law to the human heart.


    He is saying that the Gentiles know they are doing wrong because of the inner law (which I would call inuitions).

    Yes, and I agree with this statement.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Rhology,

    In the context of 2 Tim. 3:16 Paul says that Timothy has known the Scriptures from a child (could only be the OT).

    3:15-16: And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

    Again if the inner law is not reliable, then Paul's argument loses all force. So it seems you have to say that it is reliable and since I think moral intutions are the same thing then you would have to admit they are reliable.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Ken - I'm encouraged that you are looking at Pinker, Gilbert, etc. The only way to know about people's innate morality is through experimentation. That's why I felt Huemer is a very bad starting point. Keep up the route of empiricism, and I will try to share new stuff as I see it.

    For example, check this one out:
    http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/007273.html

    A brain scan can tell whether someone is likely to cheat or steal, far more accurately than their own conscious belief will tell you.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Rhology: "It says 'All Scripture'. The NT is Scripture. The NT is God-breathed."

    Gargantuan assumptions all over the place. The "all Scripture" known to the author of 1 Timothy was the Old Testament -- there was no NT canon at that time. For Pete's sake ... you know this.

    Also, you have NO good argument for the canonical NT being "Scripture." You're assuming this, wholesale. A long, long time ago, a bunch of men decided those 27 books were supernaturally penned and you flat-out take their word for it.

    So at the bottom of your much-touted "objective" standard is the subjective judgment of men who decided your canon for you.

    ReplyDelete
  26. moral objectivity can be derived from OT alone.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Ken Pulliam said... "I think there has been some evolution of these moral intuitions"

    Yes Ken i agree with you.

    I think Rhology would do well to see that evolution of morals does exist ,how else would people change thought with regards to morals like whether stoning people slowly to death is moral or infact somthing immoral.The holy bible itself is testimonial to the fact of evolving moral.Hearts dont really change so much they mostly pump blood.But minds and knowledge change.

    The fact that intuition is said to come from intuitio act of contemplating,still allows that some morals will evolve.

    Dr Pulliam you have a wonderful blog that is always full of such interesting material .Thanks for all the time and effort you put into it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "If you think objectivity doesn't exist, then your words carry no meaning."

    Unsurprisingly, you chose to focus on my injunction to you to save your questions for your own blog, rather than try and mount an argument for your belief that language is meaningless if objectivity doesn't exist.

    I should have remembered that you'll use any opportunity to avoid defending your arguments - trying to force your interlocutors to answer questions that are irrelevant to the blog post is only one such opportunity, but one you make use of in every single debate you attempt.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Rhology,

    I had been thinking to say about the same thing until I got to the post by SteveJ of 6-29, 5:11 PM. He puts the issue very well there. It doesn't appear you could be so poorly informed as to not know something about the long , contentious process, filled with a lot of uncertainty and changes over the early centuries, in coming to an eventual consensus on a NT canon.

    And, as Ken emphasizes as well, there WAS no gathering of writings anywhere close to the eventual NT at the writing of 2 Tim., even IF it was written well after Paul, in his name (which it almost certainly was -- and determining authorship is another insurmountable problem with the logic involved in a supposedly "authoritative" NT.)

    If you have NOT studied much about how the OT and NT canons were formed, and the arguments there were over individual books, it would be a fascinating study for you (or anyone).

    ReplyDelete