We begin with one of the most famous quotes in moral philosophy:
“In every system of morality which I have
hitherto met with, I have always remarked that
the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary
way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a
God, or makes observations concerning human
affairs. When [all] of a sudden I am surprised to
find that, instead of the usual copulations of
propositions, is and isnít, I meet with no
proposition that isnít connected with an ought or
an ought not. The change is imperceptible, but
is, however, of the last [and greatest]
consequence. For as this ought or ought not
expresses some new relation or affirmation, it is
necessary that it should be observed and
explained. And at the same time, [it is
necessary] that a reason should be given for
(what seems altogether inconceivable) how this
new relation can be a deduction from others,
which are entirely different from it.”
– David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature
What does “ought” mean? The broadest meaning of
“ought” is expectation: “Ice ought to melt if you
apply enough heat to it.” That is, given past
experience and our present best understanding of
how the world works, ice would reasonably be
expected to melt under those circumstances. A
subset of this is the hypothetical ought, the
“practical syllogism” of Aristotle: “If you want
X then you ought to do Y”. That is, you would be
expected to do Y, because Y is a necessary or
efficient way of achieving X. It is the “ought”
of expectation applied to human behavior. It is
also a form of advice.
Neither of these, the ought of expectation, nor
the hypothetical ought, are in any way
mysterious. At least, they are no more mysterious
than induction, which we use all the time. We
expect ice to melt when raised above zero degrees
centigrade, at sea-level atmospheric pressure,
because it has regularly done so in the past. We
form a mental model of the cause-and-effect
relationships that operate in the world, and use
it to form expectations of what will happen if we
try various actions. So, based on what we believe
about cause-and-effect, we say “if you want
X then you ought to do Y”.
David Hume was speaking about the moral “ought”,
which seemed to be different because it did not
have any “if“ clause attached; it was not
hypothetical but categorical. It was supposed to
exist independently of any human desires or
choices and apply to all of us whether we chose
to acknowledge it or not. This sort of
“categorical ought“ was mysterious. What did it
mean, and how could one tell if a particular
statement using a categorical “ought” was true?
Are there any categorical oughts, really?
Lots of people believe in categorical oughts, but
THAT is not hard to explain; they believe because
it is what they were taught as children. Because
we learn morality in childhood, we first learn it
as a set of rules and commandments laid down by
higher authority (our parents), as something
imperative that comes from outside, not as
something that we choose. In her essay “Causality
Versus Duty”, reprinted in PHILOSOPHY:
WHO NEEDS
IT, Ayn Rand briefly
notes that “A Kantian sense
of 'duty' is inculcated by parents whenever they
declare that a child MUST do something because he
MUST. A child brought up under the constant
battering of causeless, arbitrary, inexplicable
'musts' loses (or never acquires)... the
distinction between realistic necessity and human
whims... As an adult, such a man may reject all
forms of mysticism, but his Kantian
psycho-epistemology remains (unless he corrects
it)... he believes... that it is his 'duty' to be
moral, and, in extreme cases, even that it is his
'duty' to be rational.” <See
more Ayn Rand quotes here.>
In “Causality Versus Duty”, Rand continues (begin
extended quote):
In reality and in the Objectivist ethics, there is no such thing as
'duty'. There is only choice and the full, clear
recognition of... the law of causality. The
proper approach to ethics, the start from a
metaphysically clean slate, untainted by any
trace of Kantianism, can be illustrated by the
following story. In answer to a man who was
telling her that she's GOT to do something or
other, a wise old Negro woman said: “Mister,
there's nothing I've GOT to do except die.” ...
Reality confronts man with a great many 'musts',
but all of them are conditional; the formula of
realistic necessity is “You must, if-" and the
“if” stands for man's choice: “-if you want to
achieve a certain goal.” .... In a rational
ethics, it is causality - not “duty” - that
serves as the guiding principle in considering,
evaluating, and choosing one's actions. (end
quote) <See more Ayn Rand quotes
here.>
So, what is being proposed here? That we
construct an ethical system entirely, repeat,
entirely, out of hypothetical oughts, of the form
“If you want X then you ought to do Y”.
Hypothetical oughts describe a causal relation
between means and ends that is objectively true
or false, and can be investigated by scientific
procedures. An ethic made of hypothetical oughts
is called a “consequentialist” ethic. An
objective ethic is a consequentialist ethic that
has an ultimate goal that is objectively
measurable. There is some desired goal specified;
whether an action is right or wrong, good or bad,
is determined by the objective consequences of
the act FOR the ultimate goal of the ethic. In
the case of social-contract morality, “If you
want to maintain peaceful and cooperative
relations with your neighbors, don't kill, steal,
lie, or break agreements.” As Shakespeare wrote,
“It needs no ghost, Milord, come from the grave,
to tell us this.”
By avoiding the use of categorical oughts, we
avoid the problem pointed out by David Hume.
Anyone who claims that there ARE categorical
oughts will have to explain where they come from,
but we do not.
Constructing such “consequentialist” ethical
systems is engineering. It is NOT a science, in
that it is not discovering a unique “correct”
ethical system that exists in nature
independently of human choice. It is not the case
that there is only one “correct” ethical system,
in the same way that it is not the case that
there is only one “correct” automobile. Likewise
ethics is not art, in that it is not simply an
expression of our emotions and ideals.
Engineering has elements of both science and art,
but it is distinct from each. (As I understand
it, this is what Rand meant by the distinction
between “intrinsic”, “objective”, and
“subjective” ethics.)
There can be a large number of objective ethical
systems, one for each coherent strategy for
achieving each objectively measurable goal. For
example, one person might adopt the goal of
avoiding death for as long as possible; another
might seek to maximize the number of descendants-
children, grandchildren, etc.- they had by the
time they died. Another might try to maximize the
quantity of wealth they owned at their death,
another their contributions to refereed
scientific journals. Each goal will imply a
somewhat different set of derivative instrumental
values.
Suppose I ask “Why would I be expected to care
about your constructed ethical system? Why should
I be ethical, by that definition?” To give me a
meaningful answer, you have to answer in terms of
MY motivations. Why would I be expected to follow
the prescriptions of this or that ethical theory?
Why this PARTICULAR theory, rather than that one?
Rules of conduct are man-made. Does this one suit
my own goals and purposes, or does it not? There
is nothing I've GOT to do except die.
Saying that all “oughts” are hypothetical does
not by itself imply egoism, because it does not
say that MY motivations are entirely
self-interested, nor does it say that they should
be. But as a practical matter, it gives a strong
push toward Aristoteleanism. You wish to tell
someone, an adult who thinks, that they OUGHT to
do Y. If they ask why, you have to supply the
“if” clause. And what do you know about THEIR
motivations? Sometimes, all you know is that they
are a human being, so you appeal to typical human
motivations, motivations that would be part of
human nature. Most people are very fond of their
self-interest, so if you can justify a rule of
conduct on the basis of self-interest, that is
probably your safest bet. Or, you could appeal to
other typically human motivations, such as
concern for the well-being of their kinfolk, or
their desire to maintain peaceful and cooperative
relations with their neighbors, or the desire
that their lives have some larger meaning.
Given that humans are biological beings evolved
by natural selection, who normally survive by
cooperating in groups, we would expect the vast
majority of them to desire the health (defined as
the ABILITY to survive) of their families and the
peace of their communities. This gives us a
"natural" standard of ethics: The Good is that
which leads to health, The Right is that which
leads to peace. This standard would be expected
to be popular and persuasive across all human
cultures, because it is based on universal human
nature.
|
