As some of you might know, I happen to be a purveyor of the idea that science can answer moral questions. However, I recognize (quite brutally) that it is really difficult to convince most other intellectual types of that idea. Not merely that science can help us answer such questions, after values are established. My claim is that values, themselves, can be determined by science, as well. And, here, I make the bold claim that this will, eventually, be a much more accepted notion. But, it will not happen right away. It is going to take a couple of generations of turnover before it goes more mainstream.
My predictions take the following, more specific, form:
Prediction #1: Academia will transform morality almost entirely into a science. Perhaps a "soft" form of it. But, the role of philosophy will become diminished to that of pure systematics: taxonomy, nomenclature, etc. It might take 1 or 2 generations (of roughly 20 years each), before progress will be noticeable.
Prediction #2 is about how morality will change. It has three sub-predictions, that more-or-less follow from each other: (In a previous draft these were numbered separately.)
2A: Morality will take on more of a consequentialist type of angle, in a greater number of people. This will also take a couple of generations to notice. And, some parts of the world will transform slower than others. This is NOT classical utilitarianism, in the Jeremy Bentham sense. This is a "new" form that more fully encompasses the six foundations of morality, that folks like Johnathan Haidt have documented. (Though, Haidt might not agree that they can be unified in this way.)
2B: The average "well being" of all human lives will continue to improve at an accelerated rate. Our measurements of "well being" might be primitive today. But, they will improve over time, across various components: health, wealth, "happiness", etc.
I used the word "continue" because this seems to be happening, anyway. The real key word is "accelerated rate". And, this would be as a result of #2A happening, of course.
2C: Skepticism will become much more of a recognized and respected skill. To be reliable, the consequentialist requires oodles and oodles of information: The more you know about everything, the better you can foresee the possible consequences of your actions, without relying on any arbitrary principles. But, as we all know: Good information ends up swimming around in oceans of bad information. Therefore, information filtering, i.e. skepticism, will be a much more sought-after skill.
I am not sure, yet, if skepticism will ever become mainstream: It might end up as more of a specialized profession, like doctors and lawyers. But, if we can find better ways to teach those skills, it might spread like reading and writing after the industrial revolution.
I recognize that there are some forces working against these ideals:
* Our own evolutionary heritage has favored principles and duty for so long, it will take some mighty powerful forces to overrule them in the general population.
* I also read up on recent findings on how evolution could favor the collapse of reciprocal altruism in certain situations.
* And, some temporary set-backs will sometimes crop-up ("The Great Sort" of U.S. politics, the rise of ISIS in the Middle East, etc.)
But, we live in a world where we can start to see all of these coming, and I think we can become increasingly adept at neutralizing them.
I would also like to point out that I could wrong about one of these predictions (either #1 or the collection of #2's parts), and still be correct about the other. If that turns out to be the case, then I hope whoever happens to read this post, in that future, would be willing to grant me half-credit.
(If #2C should become true, but not any of the other parts of #2, I would NOT count that as a victory for the purposes of this thread. Skepticism could rise for reasons not related to morality. My prediction is in how morality will be its driving force.)
I plan to argue for these predictions, this weekend, at SkeptiCamp NYC 2014. So, I probably should have started this thread sooner. While I might not have time to post too many responses before that event, I promise to read all of the posts before it takes place. And, I might revise the form of the predictions after the event is over, based on feedback and such.
So, your thoughts are appreciated.
Daniel Dennett once described the Theory of Evolution as a "universal acid", that eats away at all other notions of biological origin before it. I am much worse than that: I see the very disciple of science, itself, as a universal acid: Eating away at all other forms of thinking-about-stuff that came before it! I predict that this will, eventually, include pretty much all of morality, itself!
My predictions take the following, more specific, form:
Prediction #1: Academia will transform morality almost entirely into a science. Perhaps a "soft" form of it. But, the role of philosophy will become diminished to that of pure systematics: taxonomy, nomenclature, etc. It might take 1 or 2 generations (of roughly 20 years each), before progress will be noticeable.
Prediction #2 is about how morality will change. It has three sub-predictions, that more-or-less follow from each other: (In a previous draft these were numbered separately.)
2A: Morality will take on more of a consequentialist type of angle, in a greater number of people. This will also take a couple of generations to notice. And, some parts of the world will transform slower than others. This is NOT classical utilitarianism, in the Jeremy Bentham sense. This is a "new" form that more fully encompasses the six foundations of morality, that folks like Johnathan Haidt have documented. (Though, Haidt might not agree that they can be unified in this way.)
2B: The average "well being" of all human lives will continue to improve at an accelerated rate. Our measurements of "well being" might be primitive today. But, they will improve over time, across various components: health, wealth, "happiness", etc.
I used the word "continue" because this seems to be happening, anyway. The real key word is "accelerated rate". And, this would be as a result of #2A happening, of course.
2C: Skepticism will become much more of a recognized and respected skill. To be reliable, the consequentialist requires oodles and oodles of information: The more you know about everything, the better you can foresee the possible consequences of your actions, without relying on any arbitrary principles. But, as we all know: Good information ends up swimming around in oceans of bad information. Therefore, information filtering, i.e. skepticism, will be a much more sought-after skill.
I am not sure, yet, if skepticism will ever become mainstream: It might end up as more of a specialized profession, like doctors and lawyers. But, if we can find better ways to teach those skills, it might spread like reading and writing after the industrial revolution.
I recognize that there are some forces working against these ideals:
* Our own evolutionary heritage has favored principles and duty for so long, it will take some mighty powerful forces to overrule them in the general population.
* I also read up on recent findings on how evolution could favor the collapse of reciprocal altruism in certain situations.
* And, some temporary set-backs will sometimes crop-up ("The Great Sort" of U.S. politics, the rise of ISIS in the Middle East, etc.)
But, we live in a world where we can start to see all of these coming, and I think we can become increasingly adept at neutralizing them.
I would also like to point out that I could wrong about one of these predictions (either #1 or the collection of #2's parts), and still be correct about the other. If that turns out to be the case, then I hope whoever happens to read this post, in that future, would be willing to grant me half-credit.
(If #2C should become true, but not any of the other parts of #2, I would NOT count that as a victory for the purposes of this thread. Skepticism could rise for reasons not related to morality. My prediction is in how morality will be its driving force.)
I plan to argue for these predictions, this weekend, at SkeptiCamp NYC 2014. So, I probably should have started this thread sooner. While I might not have time to post too many responses before that event, I promise to read all of the posts before it takes place. And, I might revise the form of the predictions after the event is over, based on feedback and such.
So, your thoughts are appreciated.
Daniel Dennett once described the Theory of Evolution as a "universal acid", that eats away at all other notions of biological origin before it. I am much worse than that: I see the very disciple of science, itself, as a universal acid: Eating away at all other forms of thinking-about-stuff that came before it! I predict that this will, eventually, include pretty much all of morality, itself!
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire