Magazine article Skeptic (Altadena, CA)

Moral Philosophy and Its Discontents: Can Science Determine Moral Values? an Exchange with Michael Shermer, Massimo Pigliucci, and Kevin McCaffree

Magazine article Skeptic (Altadena, CA)

Moral Philosophy and Its Discontents: Can Science Determine Moral Values? an Exchange with Michael Shermer, Massimo Pigliucci, and Kevin McCaffree

Article excerpt

Editorial note: The following debate unfolded organically when moral philosopher Massimo Pigliucci wrote a critical analysis of Michael Shermer's Scientific American essay on utilitarianism. Shermer responded to Pigliucci, who in turn replied to Shermer's rebuttal. Wien the sociologist Kevin McCaffree wrote an analysis of the entire exchange we decided to bundle all articles into this special section of SKEPTIC:

* You Kant Be Serious: Utilitarianism and its Discontents by Michael Shermer

* Michael Shermer on Utilitarianism, Deontology, and "Natural Rights" by Massimo Pigliucci

* Science and Morality: A Reply to Massimo Pigliucci by Michael Shermer

* Michael Shermer on moral philosophy, second round by Massimo Pigliucci

* Are Human Rights Natural Rights? by Kevin McCaffree

You Kant be Serious

Utilitarianism and its discontents

BY MICHAEL SHERMER

(Originally published in the May 2018 issue of Scientific American)

WOULD YOU CUT OFF YOUR OWN LEG IF IT WAS THE ONLY way to save another person's life? Would you torture someone if you thought it would result in information that would prevent a bomb from exploding and killing hundreds of people? Would you politically oppress a people for a limited time if it increased the overall well-being of the citizenry? If you answered in the affirmative to these questions, then you might be a utilitarian, the moral system founded by English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and encapsulated in the principle of "the greatest good for the greatest number."

Modern utilitarianism is instantiated in the famous trolley thought experiment: You are standing next to a fork in a trolley track and a switch to divert a trolley car that is about to kill five workers unless you throw the switch and divert the trolley down a side track where it will kill one worker. Most people say that they would throw the switch--kill one to save five. The problem with utilitarianism is evidenced in another thought experiment: You are a physician with five dying patients and one healthy person in the waiting room. Would you harvest the organs of the one to save the five? If you answered yes, you might be a psychopathic murderer.

In a paper published online in December 2017 in the journal Psychological Review entitled "Beyond Sacrificial Harm," University of Oxford scholars Guy Kahane, Jim A. C. Everett and their colleagues aim to rehabilitate the dark side of utilitarianism by separating its two dimensions: (1) "instrumental harm," in which it is permissible to sacrifice the few to benefit the many, and (2) "impartial beneficence," in which one would agree that "it is morally wrong to keep money that one doesn't really need if one can donate it to causes that provide effective help to those who will benefit a great deal." You can find out what type you are by answering the nine questions in the authors' Oxford Utilitarianism Scale. I scored a 17 out of a possible 63, which was at the time described as meaning "You're not very utilitarian at all. You Kant be convinced that maximising happiness is all that matters."

The cheeky reference to Immanuel Kant sets up a counter to utilitarianism in the form of the German philosopher's "categorical imperative," in which we can determine right and wrong by asking if we would want to universalize an act. For example, lying in even limited cases is wrong because we would not want to universalize it into lying in all instances, which would destroy all personal relations and social contracts. In the physician scenario, we would not want to live in a world in which you could be plucked off the street at any moment and sacrificed in the name of someone's idea of a collective good. Historically the application of a utilitarian calculus is what drove witch hunters to torch women they believed caused disease, plagues, crop failures and accidents--better to incinerate the few to protect the village. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.