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.
Let’s assume we have a way to objectively quantify an individual’s well-being (Harris’s patented Well-Being-O-Meter). Furthermore, let’s assume there are only two conscious creatures in the universe: you and me. We have an apple pie of six slices. The first slice of pie we eat increases our well-being by 32 points; the second by half that much, the third by half as much again, etc. How should we divide the pie to maximize the total well-being of conscious creatures (WBCC?)
If I eat the whole pie, the contribution to my well-being is:
32 + 16 + 8 + 4 + 2 + 1 = 63.
The contribution to your well-being is 0, since you didn’t get any pie. The total increase in WBCC is therefore 63 + 0 = 63.
Suppose we split the pie in half so we each get 3 slices. The contribution to my well-being is:
32 + 16 + 8 = 56
The contribution to your well-being is the same, for a total increase in WBCC of 56 + 56 = 112.
Other pie allocations yield similar results, but none as high as when we split the pie equally. Therefore, “science” has determined that the WBCC is maximized if we share the pie equally.
Or has it?
The implicit assumption is that your well-being and mine count equally. What if we assume that my well-being is ten times as valuable as yours? If I eat the whole pie, the contribution to WBCC is then 63 * 10 = 630.
If we split the pie, the contribution to WBCC is only:
56 * 10 + 56 = 616.
In this case, WBCC is maximized when I eat five slices and you eat one: [32+16+8+4+2] * 10 + [32] = 652.
Clearly, the division of pie that maximizes WBCC depends on the relative contribution to WBCC of our individual well-being. If science is to determine how to divide the pie in order to maximize WBCC, then science must first determine the relative contribution to WBCC of our individual well-being.
Can science determine the relative contribution to WBCC of our individual well-being? If so, how? If not, can we still claim that science has determined how to divide the pie to maximize WBCC? Or has it merely helped us to divide the pie in such a way that maximizes our own subjective perception of WBCC based on our own subjective perception about the relative contribution of our individual well-being to WBCC?
(Yes, I’m being sarcastic, posting this in the “science” forum.)
I think any WBCC scale has to take into account both positive and negative affects i.e. -1 - 0 - +1 as any action can be a plus or minus not just a neutral or plus. For example, if gay PDA’s were a negative for say 20% of the pop then that is greater then the estimated 10% of the pop who are gay, therefore the greatest WBCC would be no gay PDA’s. I wonder how many of our gay friends will support that if science determines that that promotes the most harmony in society. I wonder how many will think this is a real issue who thought the length of women skirts was not…...........
When a thesis has to reach into the absurd for its hypotheticals I think we are entitled to ask some simple questions… Not directed at your OP specifically but in general…
But in the interest of constructive collaboration: Yes, we can create all sorts of logical schemes for maximizing well being once we reach a consensus of what exactly that is. And quite often we can. Cultures are more and more permeable. Technology is systematically eliminating the physical barriers that have maintained geographic and cultural isolation. Children all over the world are cutting out the middle man and finding common ground directly.
Thing is though, it doesn’t happen in the context of academic debate over meta ethics. It’s art, poetry, music, food and (sad to say) religion. I maintain an open mind about new approaches to a system of objective moral values but I think we’d be better off organizing sing alongs and barbeques. That’s how you reach people.
Not even going to take a stab at convincing me that science can determine the relative contribution to WBCC of any individual conscious creature’s well-being?
I think any WBCC scale has to take into account both positive and negative affects i.e. -1 - 0 - +1 as any action can be a plus or minus not just a neutral or plus. For example, if gay PDA’s were a negative for say 20% of the pop then that is greater then the estimated 10% of the pop who are gay, therefore the greatest WBCC would be no gay PDA’s. I wonder how many of our gay friends will support that if science determines that that promotes the most harmony in society. I wonder how many will think this is a real issue who thought the length of women skirts was not…...........
Yes, I agree that any action can have a positive or negative effect on an individual’s well-being. Watching me eat the whole pie probably would have a negative effect on your well-being. The point is, even if we could objectively quantify that effect, it still wouldn’t tell us whether it’s immoral (as in, not maximizing WBCC) for me to eat the whole pie in front of you. For that we’d need to know our relative contributions to WBCC. The Well-Being-O-Meter by itself isn’t sufficient for science to determine human values.
In your example, the implicit assumption is that the well-being of gays and the well-being of homophobes counts equally in their contribution to WBCC. But if gays’ well-being counts triple that of homophobes’ then the impact of gay PDAs on WBCC is positive.
I think any WBCC scale has to take into account both positive and negative affects i.e. -1 - 0 - +1 as any action can be a plus or minus not just a neutral or plus. For example, if gay PDA’s were a negative for say 20% of the pop then that is greater then the estimated 10% of the pop who are gay, therefore the greatest WBCC would be no gay PDA’s. I wonder how many of our gay friends will support that if science determines that that promotes the most harmony in society. I wonder how many will think this is a real issue who thought the length of women skirts was not…...........
Yes, I agree that any action can have a positive or negative effect on an individual’s well-being. Watching me eat the whole pie probably would have a negative effect on your well-being. The point is, even if we could objectively quantify that effect, it still wouldn’t tell us whether it’s immoral (as in, not maximizing WBCC) for me to eat the whole pie in front of you. For that we’d need to know our relative contributions to WBCC. The Well-Being-O-Meter by itself isn’t sufficient for science to determine human values.
In your example, the implicit assumption is that the well-being of gays and the well-being of homophobes counts equally in their contribution to WBCC. But if gays’ well-being counts triple that of homophobes’ then the impact of gay PDAs on WBCC is positive.
What’s a gay PDA?
PDA = Public Display of Affection (holding hands, kissing etc).
Being uncomfortable seeing two guys/girls making out on a street corner, park, movie etc doesn’t make you a homophobe.
Yes my assumption in the example is that well-being is equal and you should too otherwise you will never get past proving the unequal.
Not even going to take a stab at convincing me that science can determine the relative contribution to WBCC of any individual conscious creature’s well-being?
Not when I’m being presented with a formula for the theory that world peace is dependent on women voluntarily initiating the reward of sexual intercourse to nice horny guys whenever they get a hard on, while at the same time withholding it from meanies.
Not even going to take a stab at convincing me that science can determine the relative contribution to WBCC of any individual conscious creature’s well-being?
Not when I’m being presented with a formula for the theory that world peace is dependent on women voluntarily initiating the reward of sexual intercourse to nice horny guys whenever they get a hard on, while at the same time withholding it from meanies.
That’s smart if you are a meanie but not so smart if you are “nice” horny guy.
I think any WBCC scale has to take into account both positive and negative affects i.e. -1 - 0 - +1 as any action can be a plus or minus not just a neutral or plus. For example, if gay PDA’s were a negative for say 20% of the pop then that is greater then the estimated 10% of the pop who are gay, therefore the greatest WBCC would be no gay PDA’s. I wonder how many of our gay friends will support that if science determines that that promotes the most harmony in society. I wonder how many will think this is a real issue who thought the length of women skirts was not…...........
Yes, I agree that any action can have a positive or negative effect on an individual’s well-being. Watching me eat the whole pie probably would have a negative effect on your well-being. The point is, even if we could objectively quantify that effect, it still wouldn’t tell us whether it’s immoral (as in, not maximizing WBCC) for me to eat the whole pie in front of you. For that we’d need to know our relative contributions to WBCC. The Well-Being-O-Meter by itself isn’t sufficient for science to determine human values.
In your example, the implicit assumption is that the well-being of gays and the well-being of homophobes counts equally in their contribution to WBCC. But if gays’ well-being counts triple that of homophobes’ then the impact of gay PDAs on WBCC is positive.
What’s a gay PDA?
PDA = Public Display of Affection (holding hands, kissing etc).
Being uncomfortable seeing two guys/girls making out on a street corner, park, movie etc doesn’t make you a homophobe.
Yes my assumption in the example is that well-being is equal and you should too otherwise you will never get past proving the unequal.
Ha ha I was thinking Personal Digital Assistant.
My point is not what you should assume regarding the contribution of well-being or what I think it should be. It’s that science can’t determine what it is. And if science can’t determine what it is, then science can’t determine human values.
The fact is: hardly anyone values all conscious creatures’ well-being equally, despite claims to the contrary. Huge disparities in well-being among humans are all the evidence I need to claim that, not to mention the fact that most people eat animals. I think you’d have a much harder time proving the equal than the unequal.
Not even going to take a stab at convincing me that science can determine the relative contribution to WBCC of any individual conscious creature’s well-being?
Not when I’m being presented with a formula for the theory that world peace is dependent on women voluntarily initiating the reward of sexual intercourse to nice horny guys whenever they get a hard on, while at the same time withholding it from meanies.
You lost me there. I thought we were talking about sharing an apple pie.
Not even going to take a stab at convincing me that science can determine the relative contribution to WBCC of any individual conscious creature’s well-being?
Not when I’m being presented with a formula for the theory that world peace is dependent on women voluntarily initiating the reward of sexual intercourse to nice horny guys whenever they get a hard on, while at the same time withholding it from meanies.
You lost me there. I thought we were talking about sharing an apple pie.
Remind me not to dine with you. The experience doesn’t appear it will be appealing to my sense of enjoyment, thus well-being.
I think any WBCC scale has to take into account both positive and negative affects i.e. -1 - 0 - +1 as any action can be a plus or minus not just a neutral or plus. For example, if gay PDA’s were a negative for say 20% of the pop then that is greater then the estimated 10% of the pop who are gay, therefore the greatest WBCC would be no gay PDA’s. I wonder how many of our gay friends will support that if science determines that that promotes the most harmony in society. I wonder how many will think this is a real issue who thought the length of women skirts was not…...........
Yes, I agree that any action can have a positive or negative effect on an individual’s well-being. Watching me eat the whole pie probably would have a negative effect on your well-being. The point is, even if we could objectively quantify that effect, it still wouldn’t tell us whether it’s immoral (as in, not maximizing WBCC) for me to eat the whole pie in front of you. For that we’d need to know our relative contributions to WBCC. The Well-Being-O-Meter by itself isn’t sufficient for science to determine human values.
In your example, the implicit assumption is that the well-being of gays and the well-being of homophobes counts equally in their contribution to WBCC. But if gays’ well-being counts triple that of homophobes’ then the impact of gay PDAs on WBCC is positive.
What’s a gay PDA?
PDA = Public Display of Affection (holding hands, kissing etc).
Being uncomfortable seeing two guys/girls making out on a street corner, park, movie etc doesn’t make you a homophobe.
Yes my assumption in the example is that well-being is equal and you should too otherwise you will never get past proving the unequal.
Seems like you may be overlooking the difference between immediate gratification and long-term cumulative benefits - specifically in the Gay PDA example, for instance, what if making that 20% uncomfortable for a short time led to a greater overall WBCC through greater acceptance and less uncomfortableness with PDA’s?
Further, there seems to be lack of ‘degree’ in assessing the PDA vs Uncomfortability. Is holding hands PDA ok for gays? It is for Heteros, so shouldn’t it be for gays? Is a hug and kiss PDA ok for gays? It is for heteros, so shouldn’t it be for gays?
Shouldn’t the threshold for PDA’s be universal acceptance regardless of race, religion, orientation etc… (as a starting point?)
Not even going to take a stab at convincing me that science can determine the relative contribution to WBCC of any individual conscious creature’s well-being?
Not when I’m being presented with a formula for the theory that world peace is dependent on women voluntarily initiating the reward of sexual intercourse to nice horny guys whenever they get a hard on, while at the same time withholding it from meanies.
You lost me there. I thought we were talking about sharing an apple pie.
Remind me not to dine with you. The experience doesn’t appear it will be appealing to my sense of enjoyment, thus well-being.
Ah, but maximizing WBCC isn’t necessarily about maximizing your well-being. Or is it?
I think any WBCC scale has to take into account both positive and negative affects i.e. -1 - 0 - +1 as any action can be a plus or minus not just a neutral or plus. For example, if gay PDA’s were a negative for say 20% of the pop then that is greater then the estimated 10% of the pop who are gay, therefore the greatest WBCC would be no gay PDA’s. I wonder how many of our gay friends will support that if science determines that that promotes the most harmony in society. I wonder how many will think this is a real issue who thought the length of women skirts was not…...........
Yes, I agree that any action can have a positive or negative effect on an individual’s well-being. Watching me eat the whole pie probably would have a negative effect on your well-being. The point is, even if we could objectively quantify that effect, it still wouldn’t tell us whether it’s immoral (as in, not maximizing WBCC) for me to eat the whole pie in front of you. For that we’d need to know our relative contributions to WBCC. The Well-Being-O-Meter by itself isn’t sufficient for science to determine human values.
In your example, the implicit assumption is that the well-being of gays and the well-being of homophobes counts equally in their contribution to WBCC. But if gays’ well-being counts triple that of homophobes’ then the impact of gay PDAs on WBCC is positive.
What’s a gay PDA?
PDA = Public Display of Affection (holding hands, kissing etc).
Being uncomfortable seeing two guys/girls making out on a street corner, park, movie etc doesn’t make you a homophobe.
Yes my assumption in the example is that well-being is equal and you should too otherwise you will never get past proving the unequal.
Seems like you may be overlooking the difference between immediate gratification and long-term cumulative benefits - specifically in the Gay PDA example, for instance, what if making that 20% uncomfortable for a short time led to a greater overall WBCC through greater acceptance and less uncomfortableness with PDA’s?
That only begs the question of whether future and present well-being contribute equally to WBCC. Or, more precisely, whether science can determine whether future and present well-being contribute equally to WBCC.
I think any WBCC scale has to take into account both positive and negative affects i.e. -1 - 0 - +1 as any action can be a plus or minus not just a neutral or plus. For example, if gay PDA’s were a negative for say 20% of the pop then that is greater then the estimated 10% of the pop who are gay, therefore the greatest WBCC would be no gay PDA’s. I wonder how many of our gay friends will support that if science determines that that promotes the most harmony in society. I wonder how many will think this is a real issue who thought the length of women skirts was not…...........
Yes, I agree that any action can have a positive or negative effect on an individual’s well-being. Watching me eat the whole pie probably would have a negative effect on your well-being. The point is, even if we could objectively quantify that effect, it still wouldn’t tell us whether it’s immoral (as in, not maximizing WBCC) for me to eat the whole pie in front of you. For that we’d need to know our relative contributions to WBCC. The Well-Being-O-Meter by itself isn’t sufficient for science to determine human values.
In your example, the implicit assumption is that the well-being of gays and the well-being of homophobes counts equally in their contribution to WBCC. But if gays’ well-being counts triple that of homophobes’ then the impact of gay PDAs on WBCC is positive.
What’s a gay PDA?
PDA = Public Display of Affection (holding hands, kissing etc).
Being uncomfortable seeing two guys/girls making out on a street corner, park, movie etc doesn’t make you a homophobe.
Yes my assumption in the example is that well-being is equal and you should too otherwise you will never get past proving the unequal.
Seems like you may be overlooking the difference between immediate gratification and long-term cumulative benefits - specifically in the Gay PDA example, for instance, what if making that 20% uncomfortable for a short time led to a greater overall WBCC through greater acceptance and less uncomfortableness with PDA’s?
That only begs the question of whether future and present well-being contribute equally to WBCC. Or, more precisely, whether science can determine whether future and present well-being contribute equally to WBCC.
I’m not sure the question is so begging..
You’ll have a hard time finding parents who disagree that disciplining children for bad behaviour may encourage better behaviour in the future - and that this behavioural conditioning is ‘usually’ aimed at increasing their well-being as adults by minimizing adverse responses to unaccepted behaviour. However, at the moment the discipline is issued, there is a momentary or short-term decrease in the WBCC of the child being disciplined.
So similar behavioural conditioning aimed at increasing WBCC should (clinically) be acceptable for adults, and is, if we stop and think about it a bit.
Society issues reprimands to adults behaving contrary to rules and conditions of society all the time. (speeding tickets, parking tickets, loss of jobs for inappropriate behaviour, etc…) All we need is observable evidence that less discrimination increases WBCC overall and we should then be able to see the correlation between increased universal WBCC and decreased discriminatory practices/attitudes.
Now if we look at recent studies that compared quality of life in a variety of countries, those rated in the top 10 generally were less discriminatory cultures (among a variety of other factors), which provides us with a start toward correlation (though we have to be careful of the old correlation/causation conundrum). (We also have to acknowledge, or decide, whether these measures relate to or act as an indication of WBCC or not.) If these trends are ongoing and continuing in countries/cultures where less discrimination continues to occur, then we can build a hypothesis from which to make predictions and run observations and data collection around.
Then, really the only question becomes: IF subsiding discriminatory cultural attitudes are consistently linked to higher quality of life measures (WBCC) ought a society work toward reducing those discriminatory cultural practices as a means of pursuing an expected increase in WBCC.
AND-we have to be aware that though this outcome may sound desirable to some of us, there may be different outcomes or different answers found through prediction and observation.
Cultures can choose not to pursue the expected increase of WBCC, but with the data available, I think they pretty much have to acknowledge that this is a choice they’ve made. Demographics inside cultures also may have the choice of following the data or not, but again with the data available, it will be clear that this is a choice that is not aimed at a general increase of WBCC.
Some demographics may indeed choose the preservation of tradition over following the data, and I would be surprised if this were not the case.
But it certainly makes a cause/effect statement like “If we desire a net increase in WBCC we should (ought) to do these things.” possible.
Any way we look at it, however, there is a decision point as to whether or not we wish to pursue expected increases in WBCC by following a particular set of data. (...and this decision point should be helpful in avoiding utilitarian badness, and also allow a cost/benefit analysis.)
