A psychologist once told me that "psychology is everything." I suspect the main reason for her saying this was to refute supernatural beliefs, specifically those of fundamentalist religions. I am in agreement; as I have made clear in previous blogs, I am convinced that no educated, twenty-first century mind can accept as fact any religious dogma, such as the belief that a man named Jesus literally rose from the dead or that a god that exists beyond human consciousness intervenes in history. Wishful thinking is no substitute for evidence. The psychologist, however, was, I am convinced, implying something in addition. She was using the word "psychology" to denote not only the scientific investigation of the human psyche, but as a synecdoche for science in the broadest sense of that word. In other words, what she really was saying is "science is everything." Since morality is definitely something, she implied that a scientific basis for morality is possible--in fact, science provides the sole possibility for determining the validity of moral norms. This is a widespread belief, one that has been gaining traction. But is this a fact? The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that this is an unprovable assumption. We all do need a vibrant sense of morality to live meaningful and useful lives; the content of morality, however, has, at best, only a tangential relation to science.
The Dual System for Moral Decision Making--Can Morality be Reduced to Neuroscience?
In 2001, neuroscientist Jonathan Cohen discovered that moral decision making apparently involves two areas of the brain. Functional MRIs, (fMRIs,) of the brain revealed that, when subjects were asked to work out a moral dilemma, the amygdala and the medial prefrontal cortex lit up very quickly. This demonstrated two responses. The first was a fast and presumably intuitive response; the second response was slower and involved areas of the brain involved with cognitive processing. The first response was thought to have its evolutionary basis in the need for quick decision making in the face of peril. Since little deliberation is involved, Cohen thought that this response is not to be trusted. The second response, the slow and analytic response, was believed to be the true source of morality. The graduate student involved with this project, Jonathan Greene, asserted that abstract reasoning is more or less impersonal and that personal factors are basically irrelevant when considering the second response. This dual-theory of morality has gained widespread acceptance. The second process supposedly reveals a biological basis for abstract moral concepts, such as universal justice. This, I am convinced, is untrue. Personal factors are always present--One can use analysis to come up with a good plan to act according to a particular value, but that value must be assumed first. For instance, if one's value system asserts that fulfilling personal desires is all that really matters, that person is going to use his analytical abilities in a very different way from a person who asserts that the common good is of primary importance. A good example of demonstrating that morality does not have a neurologic basis is an episode in early American history. The European settlers were convinced that "manifest destiny" meant that it was morally justifiable to displace native populations in order to achieve control over the continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean. Rational analysis--today--exposes the dubious assertions underlying the carrying out of that ethnic cleansing--namely, that Europeans were superior and that manifest destiny was God's will--in this case, yesterday's rational analyses had very different assumptions from those of today. It is indeed a fact: science can never demonstrate that even genocide is wrong. If some scientists believe that science and ethnic cleansing are incompatible, it is due to moral axioms assumed at the very beginning, and not due to conclusions based on science.
A less strong scientific theory for the basis of morality has been proposed by evolutionary biologists, specifically, kin selection. Some animals--soldier bees for instance--will sacrifice their own lives for the sake of the group. But is this really altruism? Honeybees give a good indication that this supposed altruism is merely the best way for a worker ant to assure that its genes survive, albeit in their kin. Due to their unique genetic make-up, workers are more genetically related to their sisters than they would be to their own children! So it makes sense--in a gene-based selfish way, for these ants to sacrifice themselves when necessary for the sake of their sisters. Kin selection is, certainly, a type of cooperation. Unconscious altruism is, however, a contradiction in terms. The statement that cooperation is in our genes is, therefore, only partially, and thus only weakly, true.
Positive Psychology and the American Psychological Association
Martin Seligman invented Positive Psychology in 1998. It is based on the dual origin theory of morality already discussed. He believes that depression is a state of "learned helplessness," a negative intuitive response to inner turmoil. This could be overcome by supporting the analytic areas of the brain. With the help of cognitive therapy, one can learn, well, to accentuate the positive and reduce, if not eliminate, the negative. One of his main reasons for advocating this technique was to help people to stop considering themselves victims. Like the learned helplessness of a depressed person, blacks, for instance, supposedly suffer from the learned helplessness of defeatism. It is clear to me, however, that the belief that positive psychology can eliminate defeatism among the poor without any consideration of what brought about and is still causing that defeatism, rests on a very dubious moral assumption. Individual responsibility is emphasized; legislation aimed at helping those in need is not. It is apparent that Seligman's view is basically a conservative view; this does not mean that it is wrong. It does mean, however, that it is a moral view and as such is not based on science.
This is clear from the writing of a prominent member of the Positive Psychology school, Jonathan Haidt. As Tamsin Shaw points out in an excellent article in the February 25, 2016 edition of The New York Review of Books, "The Psychologists Take Power," Haidt gives a very biased prescription to advance much-needed political cooperation in the United States. He asserts that there are six essential pairs of morality: care vs. harm, fairness vs. cheating, loyalty vs. betrayal, authority vs. subversion, sanctity vs degradation and liberty vs. oppression. He asserts that progressives, who are basically interested in care for those in need, have a narrow view, while conservatives, who are interested in all six moral virtues, have a wider moral perspective. Political harmony can be reached if the liberals learn to appreciate the more broad-based perspective of conservatives. Contrary to what Haidt might think, his is not an objective, science-based view of a biological imperative advocating increased cooperation; his conclusions are based on conservative moral assumptions which came before, and thus only seemingly substantiate, his analysis.
Were some members of The American Psychology Association, which actively supported Positive Psychology and the promotion of moral behavior, immune to corruption? Tamsin Shaw's article provides a convincing summary of the American Psychological Association's capitulation--for money, what else?-- to the demands of the CIA and the DOD. Seligman's learned helplessness could be induced, the military was told. "Enhanced interrogation techniques," that is, torture, can induce a state in which the victim is no longer capable of any kind of resistance. It was soon found out, however, that torture didn't provide any useful information. The tortured person eventually said what the torturer wanted him to say. The A.P.A., after the 9/11 attacks, changed its guidelines and gave the green light to involvement with the CIA and DOD. The association received millions of dollars; two notorious psychologist members, Bruce Jessen and James Mitchell were involved with torturing detainee--for which they apparently received 81 million dollars from the United States government! One hapless victim who had nothing to confess, was waterboarded 83 times, in addition to other severe tortures such as being locked in a box full of insects, sexual humiliations, etc. His left eye was destroyed during one of these torture sessions. The Bush administration was told that further torture was of no avail; they were ordered to proceed until they got what they wanted. The victim, Abu Zubaydah, eventually confessed to "knowledge" of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. This was, of course, a false confession, but just what the Bush regime wanted to help justify its plans for an imminent invasion of Iraq.
The A.P.A. the guardian of the knowledge that a neurology-based system of morality had (supposedly) been found, failed to practice what it preached. Psychology obviously isn't everything. It can not be considered to be the source of morality; its norms are subject to manipulation and corruption.
If not science, however, what is the source of morality?
The Golden Rule
The article by Tamsin Shaw. after coming to the conclusion that science is not the source of morality, concludes as follows:
No psychologist has yet developed a method that can be substituted for moral reflection and reasoning, for employing our own institutions and principles, weighing them against one another and judging as best we can. This is necessary labor for all of us. We cannot delegate it to higher authorities or replace it with handbooks. Humanly created suffering will continue to demand of us not simply new "technologies of behavior" but genuine moral understanding. We will certainly not find it in the recent books claiming the superior wisdom of psychology.
I completely agree with Shaw's conclusion; however, it does not go far enough. What criterion or criteria are we to use to guide us to the best moral judgment in any particular situation? We have determined that abstract reasoning is not disinterested; it can be abused by conscious or unconscious desires that can be quite immoral. (In fact, everyone making a moral decision needs to acknowledge that he or she can be misguided. This is why the First Amendment is of vital importance. One needs to make a decision and stand by it; one must realize however, that other views need to be heard as well. Encountering others' opinions might reveal hidden biases of one's own. We must always admit the possibility that we can be wrong. Self-righteousness is never good; listening to and weighing the opinions of others is an essential virtue in a vibrant democracy.)
We need a criterion to guide us in the right direction and by which we are to judge our decisions and the decisions of others. The Golden Rule, that is, doing unto others what you would like them to do unto you, is one such criterion. Since our moral touchstone cannot be derived from science, it must be accepted as an axiom. I think Shaw might have been hesitant to assert this, since the Golden Rule and its cognate, Love your Neighbor as Yourself, are most often associated with religious faith, with the assumption the source of morality comes from a god outside nature. Such belief is not necessary. The Golden Rule applies to the religious and the secular alike. Even the "love your neighbor" principle can be viewed as a secular criterion for moral judgment.
Every healthy human has access to an inner core that can provide one with a moral compass. There is nothing wrong with deriving this moral guide from intuition alone. We intuit many of the truths we live by. Science, for instance, teaches us that we are material beings. Insight, however, does not permit us from viewing ourselves and our neighbors as mere concatenations of atoms. Reflection on what direction our moral compass should point to always leads in a healthy mind to some form of the Golden Rule.
I consider "Love thy neighbor as Thyself" to be the best moral principle of them all. What is the nature of this "commandment?" This is the subject of Part ll of this essay: "Leviticus 19: The Ultimate Win-Win Equation."
No comments:
Post a Comment