Moral ergonomics

Perhaps it is because the physical differences are so easy to perceive that the above statement seems so obvious. However, rephrase the whole paragraph substituting systems of ethics for chair, and perhaps include something about moral feelings being at least as variable as our limb measurements and you’ve got a big philosophical argument on your hands. It appears that there is renewed interest in a formal study of morality, from many camps. People like Sam Harris are trying to say that science can say something about our moral urges. He is being fought by people that feel that a deity or a book should be the final authority. Whichever way we turn, however, I am sure that everyone has felt the feeling of conflict that arises when your stated ethics lead to an uncomfortable conclusion.

As a moral noncognitivist I hold that moral statements like “X is wrong” can most appropriately be interpreted in a similar way to “I do not like X”, perhaps with an additional “and I think you shouldn’t like X either” thrown in for good measure. To borrow from a recent Facebook argument on a similar topic, it means that at the bottom of each moral statement lies a feeling. If you hold that killing people is wrong, it may be because that thing in itself feels wrong or because you have some connection to doing things against people’s will. Keep asking yourself “and why is X wrong” for every answer like “X is wrong because Y is wrong, and X is like Y”, and you’ll end up saying “because Y feels wrong” at some point.

Of course, there are people who have tried to derive a consistent ethic. Is it so strange that none of them has really gained universal acceptance? Is it strange that no single chair design has been mass produced and rolled out all over the world? That our cars have adjustable seat backs? It’s a question of ergonomics, not of logic.

I believe that we have to admit two things to go forward in the scientific exploration of morality:

1. There is no universally acceptable set of moral rules. No, not even consequentialism or human rights or the golden rule or anything like that. People feel differently just like they have different sized feet.
2. It may be more prudent to work on systems that don’t terribly offend a critical number of people rather than to try to argue that they should just come around. I don’t mean that we should coddle the extremists, but I do think it could be more productive to understand which feelings are causing the problem rather than to try to employ logic.