Evolutionary Philosophy
  • Home
  • Worldview
    • Epistemology
    • Metaphysics
    • Logic
    • Ethics
    • Politics
    • Aesthetics
  • Applied
    • Know Thyself
    • 10 Tenets
    • Survival of the Fittest Philosophers >
      • Ancient Philosophy (Pre 450 CE)
      • Medieval Philosophy (450-1600 CE)
      • Modern Philosophy (1600-1920 CE)
      • Contemporary Philosophy (Post 1920 CE)
    • 100 Thought Experiments
    • Elsewhere
  • Fiction
    • Draining the Swamp >
      • Further Q&A
    • Short Stories
    • The Vitanauts
  • Blog
  • Store
  • About
    • Purpose
    • My Evolution
    • Evolution 101
    • Philosophy 101

The Michael Shermer Show with David Sloan Wilson

1/31/2021

4 Comments

 
Picture
The founder of Skeptic magazine, Michael Shermer, had the eminent biologist David Sloan Wilson on his podcast recently to discuss David's new novel Atlas Hugged. During a wide-ranging 2-hour discussion, Michael asked him about bridging the is-ought divide and David responded by bringing up my published paper on that subject. The whole podcast is excellent (as is pretty much anything with David Sloan Wilson), but if you just want to listen to the segment about me, that starts at 23:54. I thought that section was also worth transcribing here, however, and writing a short response. Here goes:

--------
DSW: If we want to eliminate suffering from the whole word, we need to turn the whole world into a single organism. So that is something which is entirely within the bounds of hard science, methodological naturalism, no mythic, no nothing. There is actually an agenda which we can pursue. I think that’s a pretty big deal. Not just in the novel, but in the real world. This motivates a whole earth ethic and a path for expanding what we mean by organism to larger and larger scales.

MS: Just to put a pin on that, you are doing what I have been trying to do, and Sam Harris, and to a slightly lesser degree Steven Pinker, and that is bridging the is-ought barrier. As you know, Hume famously said you can’t go from an is to an ought. But in a way, that sounds exactly like what you are doing. Like, “We ought to structure society based on some way nature is (in this case, human nature).” And you’re comfortable doing that?

DSW: Yeah, I am. I’ve been having a wonderful conversation with an evolutionary philosopher named Ed Gibney. It’s actually on Letter Wiki. If your audience doesn’t know about Letter.Wiki, it’s a wonderful forum for respectful conversations where two people get together and they write letters to each other which are available to the public, but it has the respectful quality of two friends communicating with each other in a respectful fashion as they would if they were writing letters to each other. And Ed I think did something brilliant. I don’t think it was necessarily something original, and he wouldn’t say that it was, but he says let’s add a third word to is and ought. That third word is want. And so although ought cannot be derived from is, it can be derived from is plus want. So if I want a glass of water and the only water is available in a spring a mile up the road, I ought to go to that spring to satisfy my want. This is what Hume meant perhaps when he said reason is the slave of the passions. We can’t really employ reason unless we want something. And so I think that that really is brilliant given all of the press that’s given to the so-called naturalistic fallacy. To think that all we need to do is to add a third component, the desire component, and it’s at that point, if we want to do something, we need to consult the world as it is in order to achieve that want. Have you encountered that? Don’t you think that’s kinda good?

MS: Yeah, I like that. I like that a lot. But I don’t have any trouble going from is to ought because if you study human nature and social science it seems like it’s pretty clear, at least in the general form of things, it’s better to be free than enslaved, it’s better to be satiated than hungry, it’s better not to be tortured, it’s better to be healthy rather than diseased and so on. And once you recognise that that’s human nature, that’s a universal, then we ought to strive for that. I think that’s what the liberal tradition ever since the Enlightenment has been moving toward: this kind of more universal ethic that borders more on utilitarianism and consequentialism than say a Kantian rule-based deontology. 
--------


How cool is that! It's great to see philosophy make it into real world discussions. (Particularly for me, my own little independent philosophy!) To follow up on this, I told Michael and David on Twitter that using any old wants to get from any old is to some specific oughts is not my invention, but trying to find the right wants that give us moral oughts does seem to be my unique contribution (as far as I know). To illustrate this using David's example, if you want a glass of water, and the only water is in a spring up the road, then yes, you ought to go to the spring. This is just a simple logical argument using a conditional premise (i.e. if x, then y). But the real question is how do you justify that first premise? In this case, how do you know it's okay for you to want water? We surely don't think all of our wants justify oughts as good ones to fulfil.

Readers of my original paper on this will know that I trace it all back to the survival of life. That's the most fundamental want that exists, which turns it into a need. Without life, there are no oughts at all. And so just as Darwin flipped the design of life on its head in a strange inversion, which replaced a designer from on high with a relentless bottom-up blind process, I believe morality should be looked at the same way. Moral oughts grow more and more complex for life as more and more knowledge and choices become available and more and more robustness becomes possible. As I told Michael and David on Twitter, I believe the next trick is to recognise that these wants and needs are being selected for and have grown over time. I believe they have grown into something like my evolutionary hierarchy of needs, which replaces Maslow's needs that were narrowly focused on human individuals alone.

All of this is stands on much firmer ground than Michael Shermer's proposed guidance that
 "It's better to be free than enslaved, it's better to be satiated than hungry...and so on." First of all, it's not always better to be satiated than hungry. If that rule were always followed, obesity would follow soon thereafter. Secondly, the "and so on" is where the rub lies. Morality is not about the easy choices; it's about the hard ones. And Shermer offers no guiding principles for that here. (Maybe he does elsewhere?) In fact, he sorta makes a bad blunder by saying "that's human nature, that's a universal...we ought to strive for that." Almost by definition, there's not that much of significance that is universal in human nature. If anything is truly universal, then there is no choice about it. But there are plenty of possible things in all of our natures, and some of those are grand some of the time, and some of those are abhorrent some of the time. We need a guiding principle to know which ones are which and why.

I go into this in some more detail in my 9th letter to David in our Wiki conversation, where I describe how to reconcile the three main traditions of moral philosophy—consequentialism, virtue ethics, and deontology—but I'll leave that discussion for another time as I'm working on turning that into a published paper later this year. For now, I just wanted to draw some attention to this discussion.

What do you think? Is David right that my is-want-ought formula is something "brilliant" in the struggle to decide what we ought to do? Let me know in the comments below.
4 Comments
SelfAwarePatterns link
2/1/2021 12:35:46 am

I think your solution is a good one. It resonates with something I've heard called "the missing for". You can't get an ought from an is, unless that ought is <i>for</i> something. So you ought to go to the spring for quenching your thirst.

But I think that exposes the main issue with the traditional ought, and moral rules overall, their ambiguous nature. If I want to learn a skill, then the right thing to do is to study and practice. It would be incoherent to simply say the right thing to do is study and practice without relation to that goal. But in the case of moral rules, saying X is right, full stop, is taken as something meaningful. I don't think it is.

All of this, I think, comes from the human tendency to want to ground our own preferences for how we should live together in some kind of metaphysics that trumps the other guy's preferences. But the only way to ground how we should work together is in our collective preferences on what that should be. People hate that conclusion but I think it's reality.

Anyway, looking forward to listening to that interview. Shermer can be annoying, but he has a pretty good podcast.

Reply
Ed Gibney link
2/1/2021 02:58:34 pm

Thanks Mike! Yes, that instrumental <for> is another way to deal with this. I went with the <wants> since that's what Hume was looking for and he's the one who named the is-ought divide, but your wording basically gets to the same thing. In addition to the metaphysical trump card, I think people just want a simple answer, and one that jives with their immediate revulsion to some acts. But yeah, the world doesn't work like that and people hate to hear it.

(Pssst. I also agree Michael Shermer can be annoying but I was trying to be nice to him in my main post because he was kind enough to leave a good message about me in his podcast. : ) David Sloan Wilson keeps this podcast interesting though.)

Reply
REMO COSENTINO
2/1/2021 01:07:45 am

Your ideas (emanating from your understanding of evolutionary philosophy) always seem common sensical and your "philosophy [does] make it into real world discussion (s)." I have no problem with your interest in these problems discussed with other philosophers and enjoy them immensely. However high-minded and philosophically important, my problem with the exchanges are that they are luxury goods. My concerns and my interests today lie in the question of how we eliminate "suffering from the whole world". Contrary to the discussion, most individuals never bother to question if ought is the next stop after is.Many people have defiantly leaped to "want", bypassing is and ought: as exhibited by the insurrection at the US Capitol. Nuanced thought is not in the vocabulary, nor in the brains, of the mob launched by the rogue ex-President of the America. You may believe that this discussion is outside the purview of your blog or Sloan's novel, but almost half the population of the United Sates exhibits murderous instincts, because the never have considered the question of the survival of human life. They seem to live outside the concerns of the human species. "Wants" have always been part of the human equation: what is needed is a philosophy on to alleviate, reduce, diminish, lessen, weaken, lighten, attenuate, etc. the destructive "wants" of social beings who have no guiding moral principles. The have to be taught or "conditioned" on how to live with tolerance and understanding of other human beings. That is how we might, possibly, eliminate suffering in the world. Thank you for including me in your blog.

Reply
Ed Gibney link
2/1/2021 03:03:01 pm

Thanks Remo. I really do acknowledge that this is a "luxury good" of a conversation. When I worked at the Secret Service, though, the director told me hired me there because he needed a program that "dealt with the important things rather than the urgent." You are 100% right that there are many urgent things in the world of today that need our attention (which I spend some of time and money on), but I think it's important to help lay the philosophical groundwork for big overhauls in the system that will address the systemic nature of all these problems. It's not an either / or choice, but a both / and choice for me. Thanks to you too for taking part in it!

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Subscribe to Help Shape This Evolution

    SUBSCRIBE

    RSS Feed


    Blog Philosophy

    This is where ideas mate to form new and better ones. Please share yours respectfully...or they will suffer the fate of extinction!


    Archives

    January 2023
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    August 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    May 2019
    March 2019
    December 2018
    July 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    April 2012


    Click to set custom HTML
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.