Can morality be derived from science – does sociobiology fit that bill?
Thank you for inviting me for this discussion on spiritual perspectives on social biology and its importance in human society at large. So three things I think we will broadly discuss What is social biology? How does social biology stand in the overall vision of humanity and how can humanity evolve to create a better future? So specifically correct me if I am wrong social biology refers to the application of evolutionary biology to social organisation as a term invented by E.O. Wilson and broadly you could say that some people at least including at times E.O. Wilson have used it as the biological version of the theory of everything science the theory of everything not exactly in the sense of cosmic origins in terms of origins of human behaviour and the emergence of social organisations yeah ok no my purpose is to not caricature but to contextualise so that we understand why this is at all relevant to us in our discussion so social biology there has been it is you could say the summit of the or one summit in the evolving understanding of the role of science in human society so Francis Bacon one of the pioneers of the scientific method he envisions science as a tool for improving humanity's moral condition sorry material condition in fact initial science which evolved in the western world was theistic and they said just as Jesus could elevate people's spiritual condition science could elevate people's material condition so we could say spiritual condition or the word could be used in moral condition that people tend to do terrible things and that hurts us so we can say that broadly speaking the hurts in the world come from two sources two sources one is the natural forces the second is the human agents that means say when a natural calamity occurs there is a earthquake or there is storm a tornado that's one source of evil the second source of evil second source of distress rather you can use the word evil or not is humans at individual level people may abuse and hurt each other at a collective level power hungry kings may go on rampages to kingdom to conquer kingdoms and cause the death of thousands and now with weapons of mass destruction available millions also so initially science was thought as a means to improve people's material conditions that means nature provides us certain level of comforts we could increase those comforts through science and technology and nature provides us certain amount of distresses and we could decrease those distresses but as the discussion as science became successful at least in some sense in through technology transforming and improving people's material condition the hope of what science could do increased further and that led to the promise that science could improve people's moral condition also that means people could behave better could be made to behave better at one level there are western thinkers for example Immanuel Kant who has pointed out that actually you cannot derive an ought from a is that means to derive values from facts is not easy we have things but if say I have ten thousand dollars what should I do with them there is a is and a ought should I use them to maybe buy some stocks so that I will have some savings should I use them to give them in charity should I use them to provide some better toys for my kids should I use them to treat myself to some retreat on a hill station so from a given set of facts we could derive number of courses of action so there is no fixed ought from is that means materials and morals so material condition and moral condition they are not necessarily the same there is no one to one correspondence between them of course if we are starving and we get some money then we could say it is obvious it is no brainer that use the money to get the food but not all situations in fact very few situations in life are that simple that's why when people get a lot of money for example if suddenly people win a lottery their material condition improves but their moral condition what should you do with the money from a lottery if that is not clear they are not able to really do much with it so now as where do we turn to one of the biggest authorities in science is Darwin and his theory of evolution has influenced almost every aspect of modern human society and culture what to speak of science so some people had the idea that to derive a ought from a is we should turn to Darwin that means we should let evolutionary biology shape what we are going to do ok that meant that just as nature has the principle of the survival of the fittest so maybe among human beings also some humans are some human races are fitter than other human races some human races can act are morally superior to other human races that is not just physical superiority but also moral superiority and some human some races are burdens for the earth and some races are are treasures for the earth are the are the pride of the earth so nature would anyway eliminate the races that are unfit that are burdens but we could use science to accelerate the process of evolution and this led to the idea of eugenics eugenics was social Darwinism and although that is the theory that is rejected but that was an attempt to apply science to improve people's moral condition humanity's moral condition that means certain species were deemed inferior say for example Nazi Germany deemed Jews to be inferior even gypsies to be inferior and made a program to eliminate all of them conversely this was not just a Nazi racist program it was actually a program which at least to some extent it derived itself from science and from evolution of course evolution cannot be blamed alone for it there is no one cause for complex factors for complex events but the principle is that this had its scientific basis how sound the scientific basis was that is open to question so identifying a causal chain between A and B does not mean guessing A is responsible for B so yeah there is a book from Darwin to Hitler and I have read that but I do not think that it is necessary that every Darwinian has to become a Nazi definitely not but we cannot deny that the road to Nazism the road to Hitler did have a significant starting point in Hitler in Darwin so eugenics so the idea was that through science or through what was considered to be science we could know what ought to be done that certain races should be promoted and in fact say for example if people are physically handicapped if people are mentally weak then they should be forcibly sterilized so that they do not reproduce so that they do not continue the reproduction of weak species weak members of the species so that in this way there was an attempt to manipulate humanity to fit into a mold that was considered to be good but that path led to over 20 million people dead in the second world war 10-15 million in the holocaust itself so now the idea that science can improve one's moral condition has not lost weight entirely but it has come up in a more subtle and possibly sinister way that is based on what we could almost say biological determinism so now the theory because of postmodernism is that there is no what ought to be done all that we have is what is and whatever is is good if you can understand why it is the way it is trying to formulate morality from science is that first of all science if we take biology to define our entire being then essentially we have no moral choices at all we don't have the capacity to make moral choices because if there is an inescapable programming within us which defines how we behave then why we behave in a different way becomes a mystery and our capacity to change the way we behave also becomes impossible if our biology defines our behavior then our behavior is simply our biological destiny and it's unchangeable so although we might say that somehow we human beings have mysteriously got the evolved consciousness to transcend our biological imperative but then how we got that what is it that enables us to transcend our biological imperative remains a big question and we say no actually that if we with our evolved consciousness can understand that all human beings that all that other human beings feel pain and pleasure just like us and therefore we can we should not hurt others because it also cause they hurt the same way we do but this is not a reasoned conclusion this is a religious opinion why because from that same what is yeah other people are human beings like me what ought to be done I should not hurt them this is this is not a necessary imperative because I could we could draw reasonable conclusion otherwise also that means that other people have the same need that I do and since the earth has only limited resources if I want to ensure that I and my children don't starve then I had better eliminate other people while I have the opportunity to otherwise it is I who will have to starve or we could say that because our race is wealthier taller stronger brainier than other race so there is that group has to be eliminated so that we will be able to flourish within a finite resources that we have so although we are all humans we are all different levels of humans our level is higher you might laugh off such reasoning but people have thousands and millions excepted this kind of reasoning enacted in the past the point is not that this reasoning is right the point is that reason itself may not be able to tell us what is wrong with this reasoning we have a moral sense that doesn't depend only on pure rationality we have rational and volitional capacities and our volitional side volitional is what we make a decision and we act so this is something distinct from how we reason we could do we could do reasoning about our morality and that's required but morality itself cannot emerge from reasoning because reasoning can draw us in different directions and to adjudicate the pity in them reason alone is not enough we need something more so for example we might decide that oh we are all human beings and we are all ultimately meant to for survival and flourishing and morality will be that which furthers survival and flourishing but what constitutes flourishing atheists like Sam Harris acknowledges that we cannot know through biology alone what constitutes flourishing he says that most of what constitutes human well being at this moment escapes any narrow Darwinian calculus now why does it escape because people people don't just live based on quality of life indicators that we are driven we are driven by the dictates to procreate and survive and to avoid pain but we are also driven by something more we also need meaning pain and pain avoidance and survival are not just the sole parameters for which we live we say we should seek happiness rather than suffering but what is happiness morality is that which furthers happiness and avoids suffering if we decide that but how do we define happiness is it that ok a 90 to 8.6 degree body temperature a hearty meal and a steady supply of sex is that what constitutes constitutes happiness but people who have this are unfulfilled they want something more we want meaning we want fulfillment and that doesn't come so what provides meaning and fulfillment is not just some material well being and flourishing or well being is something itself is very difficult to quantify to reduce to a set of parameters now you may say ok but at the basic level that may be subjective flourishing might be subjective but survival at least is objective we should act in a way which promotes each other's survival so at least we can agree on that level of basic morality can we really let's do a thought experiment suppose we have suppose say you are the ruler of a country it's a small country and people from your country are well adapted culturally intellectually and they are very likely to survive and flourish in future based on evolutionary understandings but you also have a your country is small and around you there are other countries who are not with populations bigger than yours and they are not as well adapted as you are but they keep coming into the steady flow of people into your country and what do you do you either wait for the inevitable that is your country gets overrun by the other country and eventually because their numbers are more they overrun your citizens and because they are not so well adapted eventually they die so the whole of humanity also dies or you are pre-emptive and you attack the other countries and eliminate those people who are maladaptive over there and populate them with your adaptive people better adapted people the second might seem an entirely reasonable option but that was the option which impelled Hitler to start the war which eventually caused the holocaust so when we have morality when the highest moral cause is material success it looks a lot like having no morals at all and that's why we need morality to come from somewhere else reason is a very powerful human resource but morality and rationality are two different faculties and rationality cannot produce morality morality has to come from something which transcends reason which transcends rationality and that's why even in the age of reason and rationality and science we have a moral style which comes from our spirituality which comes from a higher source and which is not reducible to the lower material level thank you.