Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
There have been extensive conversations here of late on the topic of whether, as Sam Harris claims, science can actually determine human values. Most of these conversations have been either quite abstract or have dealt with topics entirely non-controversial, at least within rationalist circles. I thought it might be interesting to discuss a test case that is quite specific and perhaps somewhat divisive amongst liberal thinkers. Of those of you who would assert in the affirmative [as to science determining human values], how would you suggest that the scientific method could be used to address the intrinsic morality of polygamy or plural marriage in general?
I think science can be applied toward achieving ethical goals but I’m unconvinced that it applies to the nomination of values. In other words, it gets us what we want but does not inform us of what we ought to want.
The well being of conscious creatures. Polygamy thus is not excluded on that premise alone.
That would be my assessment as well. I can’t see any obvious way that the WBCC criteria could be used as a basis for rejecting polygamy. Add to this the observation that many people choose this lifestyle despite widespread governmental persecution, and it is hard not to conclude that some people believe that this practice enhances their wellbeing. Would you accept the next logical assertion in this progression that it is immoral for governments to restrict peoples’ ability to practice plural marriage?
I think science can be applied toward achieving ethical goals but I’m unconvinced that it applies to the nomination of values. In other words, it gets us what we want but does not inform us of what we ought to want.
Yes, of course, but polygamy is an act not a want. You can want to cohabitate with multiple women without running askance of the law, but it is only when you act on this desire that you become guilty of a crime. The law doesn’t require that a sadist stop desiring the killing and torturing of others, only that he does not carry out any of these desires in any overtly illegal fashion. In your estimation what ethical goal is the prosecution of polygamy expected to achieve? And is this goal consistent with maximizing the WBCC?
It depends on the net effect of legalizing polygamy on everyone’s well-being:
On the positive side: a small number of people whose well-being would be increased by a large amount when they were allowed to enter into polygamous marriages. And a small number of people whose well-being would be increased by a small amount because they believe other people should be allowed to enter into polygamous marriages even if they themselves have no desire to do so.
On the negative side: a large number of people whose well-being would be decreased by a small amount because allowing polygamy runs counter to their values.
On the impossible-for-science-to-calculate side: whether the well-being of someone desiring to enter into a polygamous marriage counts more or less than the well-being of someone opposed to allowing them to do so.
Net result: Even if science could determine and quantify the effect of allowing polygamy on every, single individual conscious creature’s well-being, science still cannot determine whether allowing polygamy increases or decreases the net well-being of conscious creatures because science cannot determine the relative contribution of different individuals’ well-being to the net well-being of conscious creatures.
I think science can be applied toward achieving ethical goals but I’m unconvinced that it applies to the nomination of values. In other words, it gets us what we want but does not inform us of what we ought to want.
Yes, of course, but polygamy is an act not a want. You can want to cohabitate with multiple women without running askance of the law, but it is only when you act on this desire that you become guilty of a crime. The law doesn’t require that a sadist stop desiring the killing and torturing of others, only that he does not carry out any of these desires in any overtly illegal fashion. In your estimation what ethical goal is the prosecution of polygamy expected to achieve? And is this goal consistent with maximizing the WBCC?
I don’t think legality is mainly about morality. Although they can converge. The prosecution of polygamy has to do with lots of things (some I’m probably unaware of) Promoting one religious view over another, for instance. Tax codes are probably relevant. A reasonably, possibly ethical concern for the coercion of young women. It might viewed as culturally unhealthy since most polygamist societies favor the dominant male. It tends to promote unreasonable and destructive competition. As well as narrowing the gene pool. Some studies might indicate that a traditional nuclear family is the healthier environment for young children… Many potential reasons exist. Whether authorities are justified in intervening into the lives of consenting adults… Probably not.
I guess what I really need to answer the question is to take out of the hypothetical. Where it can always go either way. Instead, examine some real life situation and determine if there is something unlawful or unethical taking place.
On the negative side: a large number of people whose well-being would be decreased by a small amount because allowing polygamy runs counter to their values.
If you’re not critical/rigorous about that expression in your equation, though, you’d have to also enter “appeasing a spoiled child” on the positive side, and “failing to appease a spoiled child” as a negative expression. That’s not the way it really works, though. “Well-being” doesn’t mean “feels good”. It generally ends up that way, but sometimes health and well-being require some discomfort and pain ... like growing up.
Antisocialdarwinist - 30 June 2012 08:59 AM
On the impossible-for-science-to-calculate side: whether the well-being of someone desiring to enter into a polygamous marriage counts more or less than the well-being of someone opposed to allowing them to do so.
Impossible? I’m not so sure about that. Could be, but if not it certainly seems to be a tough nut to crack at least.
It depends on the net effect of legalizing polygamy on everyone’s well-being:
On the positive side: a small number of people whose well-being would be increased by a large amount when they were allowed to enter into polygamous marriages. And a small number of people whose well-being would be increased by a small amount because they believe other people should be allowed to enter into polygamous marriages even if they themselves have no desire to do so.
On the negative side: a large number of people whose well-being would be decreased by a small amount because allowing polygamy runs counter to their values.
On the impossible-for-science-to-calculate side: whether the well-being of someone desiring to enter into a polygamous marriage counts more or less than the well-being of someone opposed to allowing them to do so.
Net result: Even if science could determine and quantify the effect of allowing polygamy on every, single individual conscious creature’s well-being, science still cannot determine whether allowing polygamy increases or decreases the net well-being of conscious creatures because science cannot determine the relative contribution of different individuals’ well-being to the net well-being of conscious creatures.
A solid utilitarian analysis of the issue. For me the problematic aspect of the analysis is not so much the weighting of individual contributions to a total wellbeing metric, but the inevitable reduction of morality to something closely resembling a popularity contest. If we were to turn the clock back to the immediate post civil war South and do a similar analysis on interracial marriage, I can’t see any conclusion being drawn other than it not being conducive to net wellbeing—a conclusion hard to stomach from our current historical perspective. If we can’t find ways of applying the WBCC criterion in ways that avoid the well trod foibles of traditional utilitarianism, the philosophy is dead in the water.
On the negative side: a large number of people whose well-being would be decreased by a small amount because allowing polygamy runs counter to their values.
If you’re not critical/rigorous about that expression in your equation, though, you’d have to also enter “appeasing a spoiled child” on the positive side, and “failing to appease a spoiled child” as a negative expression. That’s not the way it really works, though. “Well-being” doesn’t mean “feels good”. It generally ends up that way, but sometimes health and well-being require some discomfort and pain ... like growing up.
Does that mean we should be penalized—I mean, “taxed” for not eating our broccoli?
Edit: also, you’re making assumptions about the value of future well-being versus present well-being. Does science bear out—or have anything at all to say about—those assumptions?
It depends on the net effect of legalizing polygamy on everyone’s well-being:
On the positive side: a small number of people whose well-being would be increased by a large amount when they were allowed to enter into polygamous marriages. And a small number of people whose well-being would be increased by a small amount because they believe other people should be allowed to enter into polygamous marriages even if they themselves have no desire to do so.
On the negative side: a large number of people whose well-being would be decreased by a small amount because allowing polygamy runs counter to their values.
On the impossible-for-science-to-calculate side: whether the well-being of someone desiring to enter into a polygamous marriage counts more or less than the well-being of someone opposed to allowing them to do so.
Net result: Even if science could determine and quantify the effect of allowing polygamy on every, single individual conscious creature’s well-being, science still cannot determine whether allowing polygamy increases or decreases the net well-being of conscious creatures because science cannot determine the relative contribution of different individuals’ well-being to the net well-being of conscious creatures.
A solid utilitarian analysis of the issue. For me the problematic aspect of the analysis is not so much the weighting of individual contributions to a total wellbeing metric, but the inevitable reduction of morality to something closely resembling a popularity contest. If we were to turn the clock back to the immediate post civil war South and do a similar analysis on interracial marriage, I can’t see any conclusion being drawn other than it not being conducive to net wellbeing—a conclusion hard to stomach from our current historical perspective. If we can’t find ways of applying the WBCC criterion in ways that avoid the well trod foibles of traditional utilitarianism, the philosophy is dead in the water.
It depends on the net effect of legalizing polygamy on everyone’s well-being:
On the positive side: a small number of people whose well-being would be increased by a large amount when they were allowed to enter into polygamous marriages. And a small number of people whose well-being would be increased by a small amount because they believe other people should be allowed to enter into polygamous marriages even if they themselves have no desire to do so.
On the negative side: a large number of people whose well-being would be decreased by a small amount because allowing polygamy runs counter to their values.
On the impossible-for-science-to-calculate side: whether the well-being of someone desiring to enter into a polygamous marriage counts more or less than the well-being of someone opposed to allowing them to do so.
Net result: Even if science could determine and quantify the effect of allowing polygamy on every, single individual conscious creature’s well-being, science still cannot determine whether allowing polygamy increases or decreases the net well-being of conscious creatures because science cannot determine the relative contribution of different individuals’ well-being to the net well-being of conscious creatures.
A solid utilitarian analysis of the issue. For me the problematic aspect of the analysis is not so much the weighting of individual contributions to a total wellbeing metric, but the inevitable reduction of morality to something closely resembling a popularity contest. If we were to turn the clock back to the immediate post civil war South and do a similar analysis on interracial marriage, I can’t see any conclusion being drawn other than it not being conducive to net wellbeing—a conclusion hard to stomach from our current historical perspective. If we can’t find ways of applying the WBCC criterion in ways that avoid the well trod foibles of traditional utilitarianism, the philosophy is dead in the water.
Not quite, because you’re ignoring the time-dependent aspect of the issue. Since, in the long run, interracial marriage is improving social well-being (because it would be difficult to avoid interracial marriage in a multicultural society), I would argue that it is more than a popularity contest. We do the best we can in our time, and history sorts it out. I’ll paraphrase a quote I’ve heard (only because I can’t remember it word for word) - “We are only as wise as the wisdom of our time, and ignorant with its ignorance.”
Really, opposition to interracial marriage is just an expression of an in-group/out-group mentality that doesn’t really serve us any benefit in a society where we increasingly follow the same laws and similar customs. Since the assumptions behind opposing interracial marriage appears flawed/false (I can’t think of any other motivation to merit it, other than racism, which is equally as irrational), then the beliefs based upon those flawed/false assumptions are flawed/false as well. Any other “cultural” reasons are going to be post hoc justifications of these prejudices.
It depends on the net effect of legalizing polygamy on everyone’s well-being:
On the positive side: a small number of people whose well-being would be increased by a large amount when they were allowed to enter into polygamous marriages. And a small number of people whose well-being would be increased by a small amount because they believe other people should be allowed to enter into polygamous marriages even if they themselves have no desire to do so.
On the negative side: a large number of people whose well-being would be decreased by a small amount because allowing polygamy runs counter to their values.
On the impossible-for-science-to-calculate side: whether the well-being of someone desiring to enter into a polygamous marriage counts more or less than the well-being of someone opposed to allowing them to do so.
Net result: Even if science could determine and quantify the effect of allowing polygamy on every, single individual conscious creature’s well-being, science still cannot determine whether allowing polygamy increases or decreases the net well-being of conscious creatures because science cannot determine the relative contribution of different individuals’ well-being to the net well-being of conscious creatures.
A solid utilitarian analysis of the issue. For me the problematic aspect of the analysis is not so much the weighting of individual contributions to a total wellbeing metric, but the inevitable reduction of morality to something closely resembling a popularity contest. If we were to turn the clock back to the immediate post civil war South and do a similar analysis on interracial marriage, I can’t see any conclusion being drawn other than it not being conducive to net wellbeing—a conclusion hard to stomach from our current historical perspective. If we can’t find ways of applying the WBCC criterion in ways that avoid the well trod foibles of traditional utilitarianism, the philosophy is dead in the water.
Like what kinds of ways, for example?
A good question and one I don’t think Sam Harris answered very well—certainly not with his good life/bad life parable. It is quite easy to say that science can select the better alternative when every conceivable metric points the same way, hell we hardly need science for that—most any kindergarten graduate should be able to choose wisely between those alternatives. I like to think that science can begin to address fundamental human concerns long considered outside its domain, but making grandiose claims as to science determining human values but then not following through with any substantive support for the proposition, did the issue a disservice.
I’ve been reading Daniel Kahneman’s “Thinking, Fast and Slow” and finding in it much of the kind of thing I had hoped for when I picked up “The Moral Landscape”. Kahneman doesn’t start out with any grandiose claims about science and morality. Instead he presents a carefully chosen selection of research findings that lead his readers to discover for themselves how much the science of psychology has advanced towards addressing issues pertinent to human well being. For example, he describes how pupil dilation studies have allowed research to accurately and routinely gauge the level of mental effort required of various tasks and relates this to decision making biases related to mental laziness and weariness.
I feel that Kahneman is on the right track here. The systematic recognition and ultimate elimination of bias from our social institutions would go a long way towards improving people’s lives. Would this constitute “determining human values”? I wouldn’t phrase it that way myself. but that’s just word mincing, if science can make life better through this approach I’m not particularly hung up on the semantics.
Really, opposition to interracial marriage is just an expression of an in-group/out-group mentality that doesn’t really serve us any benefit in a society where we increasingly follow the same laws and similar customs. Since the assumptions behind opposing interracial marriage appears flawed/false (I can’t think of any other motivation to merit it, other than racism, which is equally as irrational), then the beliefs based upon those flawed/false assumptions are flawed/false as well. Any other “cultural” reasons are going to be post hoc justifications of these prejudices.
Agreed 100%. Now let’s return to address the original question in this same light. Is the criminalization and prosecution of polygamous families just another example of in-group/out-group mentality or is there some other dynamic at work here? Certainly the current practice of polygamy is associated with two very out-groups: a small group of Mormons that even the LDS church has distanced itself from, and fundamentalist Muslims. Neither of these groups are likely to evoke much sympathy from liberal thinkers that typically champion the rights of persecuted minorities. If the plural relationships that some communes experimented with decades ago had caught on amongst liberal thinkers would the subject be viewed in a very different light today?
Really, opposition to interracial marriage is just an expression of an in-group/out-group mentality that doesn’t really serve us any benefit in a society where we increasingly follow the same laws and similar customs. Since the assumptions behind opposing interracial marriage appears flawed/false (I can’t think of any other motivation to merit it, other than racism, which is equally as irrational), then the beliefs based upon those flawed/false assumptions are flawed/false as well. Any other “cultural” reasons are going to be post hoc justifications of these prejudices.
Agreed 100%. Now let’s return to address the original question in this same light. Is the criminalization and prosecution of polygamous families just another example of in-group/out-group mentality or is there some other dynamic at work here? Certainly the current practice of polygamy is associated with two very out-groups: a small group of Mormons that even the LDS church has distanced itself from, and fundamentalist Muslims. Neither of these groups are likely to evoke much sympathy from liberal thinkers that typically champion the rights of persecuted minorities. If the plural relationships that some communes experimented with decades ago had caught on amongst liberal thinkers would the subject be viewed in a very different light today?
Yeah, to me it’s the same thing. Unless there’s a good reason to disallow it, I say let it go. Why not? The only reasons are religious. Otherwise, it’s just something else society would have to get used to, like interracial marriages, gay marriage, women having the right to vote, etc.
