On Wednesday, 11 June 2014, Today newspaper ran a story about the Land Transport Authority (LTA) classification for Renault's new vehicle, the Twizy, a "two-seater electric vehicle".
Notice the description does not state what type of vehicle. That exactly is the (alleged) puzzle.
The Twizy has four wheels, a cabin, seats for two persons (one behind the other), a 17hp engine (one-tenth the power of an average car), a top speed of 80kph, two doors, no airconditioning, no proper window, and weighs 450kg.
The current LTA definition of a motorcycle requires the vehicle to have fewer than four wheels, and weigh below 400 kg. On this definition, the Twizy is clearly not a motorcycle. But is it a car?
The story does not provide LTA's definition of a car.
So I visited the LTA website. It says: "The new categorisation will retain the existing Cat A criterion that the engine capacity of the car should not exceed 1,600cc for Cat A, and add a new criterion that the engine power of the car should not exceed 97kW (equivalent to about 130 bhp)."
On this description, the Twizy could be classified as a Category A car.
But let me quote from the story.
"In a statement to TODAY, the LTA said initial evaluation showed the vehicle does not fall within the classification for motorcycles that Renault had applied for." Then later: "...the distributor's spokesperson said its application categorised the Twizy as a car". So it is unclear which category Renault had applied for.
But here is my clincher criterion: How is the vehicle to be operated?
A car must be operated via a steering wheel; and a motorcycle must be operated via handlebar controls. This is the only definition that is consistent with the intentions of the Class Three and Class Two driving licences -- because the respective methods are how learners are trained to operate the respective vehicles. We cannot have someone holding only a Class Two driving licence operating a vehicle with steering wheel control.
The accompanying picture of the Twizy clearly shows that it is operated via a steering wheel, not via handlebar controls.
The story says LTA is seeking "more information from Renault" over this matter. This is not necessary. Once we clarify the definitions (a major function of philosophy), it becomes clear.
The Renault Twizy is a car.
Cheers.
Thursday, 12 June 2014
Wednesday, 11 June 2014
The rights of Eugene Goostman
On 10 June 2014, The Straits Times reported that "a Russian supercomputer posing as a 13-year-old boy has convinced judges that it is human, being the first to pass the 'Turing Test' in a historic moment in artificial intelligence". This is a very big deal.
In 1950, pioneer of computer science Alan Turing published a journal article in which he set out the now famous Turing Test -- a test to establish whether a machine can think. The criterion is whether, in the words of Professor Kevin Warwick of the University of Reading, "a computer convinces a sufficient number of interrogators into believing that it is not a machine but rather is a human." Any machine that passes this test is deemed to be able to think.
At a competition on 7 June 2014 at Royal Society in London, the Russian supercomputer simulated the responses of a 13-year-old boy named Eugene Goostman -- and persuaded the judges 33 percent of the time that it was human.
This is a remarkable engineering achievement. It is more than an engineering achievement.
Rene Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, founded his philosophy on his realisation that "Cogito, ergo sum" -- usually translated as "I exist, therefore I am". The presence of thought proves the existence of a thinker.
Eugene Goostman thinks. Therefore, Eugene Goostman exists. Eugene Goostman is human.
Visit any divorce or child abuse case, and one will immediately be informed that children have rights -- the rights to food, shelter, clothing, security, education etc. When a child reaches maturity, that child will acquire adult rights -- freedom of speech, freedom of association and assembly, freedom of religion, freedom to work and leisure etc.
How many of these rights are we prepared to extend to Eugene Goostman?
Scientists often claim that science is amoral, that science is neither intrinsically good nor evil, and that only people can be said to be good or evil, morally right or morally wrong. This seems to hold the door open for scientists to further believe that "if it can be done, therefore, it must be done." Well, now it has been done.
When Eugene Goostman demands his rights, are we still going to insist: "No, you are just a machine"?
Cheers.
In 1950, pioneer of computer science Alan Turing published a journal article in which he set out the now famous Turing Test -- a test to establish whether a machine can think. The criterion is whether, in the words of Professor Kevin Warwick of the University of Reading, "a computer convinces a sufficient number of interrogators into believing that it is not a machine but rather is a human." Any machine that passes this test is deemed to be able to think.
At a competition on 7 June 2014 at Royal Society in London, the Russian supercomputer simulated the responses of a 13-year-old boy named Eugene Goostman -- and persuaded the judges 33 percent of the time that it was human.
This is a remarkable engineering achievement. It is more than an engineering achievement.
Rene Descartes, the father of modern philosophy, founded his philosophy on his realisation that "Cogito, ergo sum" -- usually translated as "I exist, therefore I am". The presence of thought proves the existence of a thinker.
Eugene Goostman thinks. Therefore, Eugene Goostman exists. Eugene Goostman is human.
Visit any divorce or child abuse case, and one will immediately be informed that children have rights -- the rights to food, shelter, clothing, security, education etc. When a child reaches maturity, that child will acquire adult rights -- freedom of speech, freedom of association and assembly, freedom of religion, freedom to work and leisure etc.
How many of these rights are we prepared to extend to Eugene Goostman?
Scientists often claim that science is amoral, that science is neither intrinsically good nor evil, and that only people can be said to be good or evil, morally right or morally wrong. This seems to hold the door open for scientists to further believe that "if it can be done, therefore, it must be done." Well, now it has been done.
When Eugene Goostman demands his rights, are we still going to insist: "No, you are just a machine"?
Cheers.
Tuesday, 10 June 2014
No chance for climate salvage
On Monday, 9 June 2014, Jeffrey D Sachs wrote an article published in Today newspaper. In it, he says December 2015 will be when the world will have its "last chance for action" on climate change. Why December 2015? Because that is when the next United Nations climate change meeting will take place. But what will happen if January 2016 rolls around, and no firm action is taken on global warming? Big Business will carry on as usual. That is all.
The world will get hotter. The weather will worsen. Species will die. Coastal lands will get wiped out. Some people will die. But the profit motive will continue to prevail over all these. There are two main reasons for this. First, the meaningful horizon. Profit is seen over a horizon of months and quarters, climate change is seen over a horizon of decades and centuries. It is clear that the profit motive will prevail. The second reason is that "profit" as a more strongly held philosophy than "ecology". Why this is so is another question, but it is so.
In his opening paragraph, Professor Sachs says "scientists have pointed out that a rise in temperature of two degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels will put the Earth in dangerous, uncharted territory.
I query the word "dangerous". We need to know: dangerous for whom? For Earth, as the sentence suggests? Absolutely not. Planet Earth is in no danger. Planet Earth will continue to orbit its sun for millions of years after Planet Earth has become devoid of life -- of any kind. It will just become like all the other planets we know of so far. No big deal, cosmically speaking.
The big deal is that climate change is dangerous for mankind. But here we run up against Profit Motive -- and Profit Motive will win. Realisation will finally sink in only when Big Business starts to run out of slaves (because of climate induced illness and death) to produce profits for its leisure-enjoying owners. But by then it will really be too late to reverse climate change. December 2015 will have come and been long gone.
So what should helpless minions (that is, not Big Business owners) do? Enjoy the time we have left. That is all we can do. Oh, and try not to produce any grandchildren, for they shall not inherit the Earth.
Cheers.
The world will get hotter. The weather will worsen. Species will die. Coastal lands will get wiped out. Some people will die. But the profit motive will continue to prevail over all these. There are two main reasons for this. First, the meaningful horizon. Profit is seen over a horizon of months and quarters, climate change is seen over a horizon of decades and centuries. It is clear that the profit motive will prevail. The second reason is that "profit" as a more strongly held philosophy than "ecology". Why this is so is another question, but it is so.
In his opening paragraph, Professor Sachs says "scientists have pointed out that a rise in temperature of two degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels will put the Earth in dangerous, uncharted territory.
I query the word "dangerous". We need to know: dangerous for whom? For Earth, as the sentence suggests? Absolutely not. Planet Earth is in no danger. Planet Earth will continue to orbit its sun for millions of years after Planet Earth has become devoid of life -- of any kind. It will just become like all the other planets we know of so far. No big deal, cosmically speaking.
The big deal is that climate change is dangerous for mankind. But here we run up against Profit Motive -- and Profit Motive will win. Realisation will finally sink in only when Big Business starts to run out of slaves (because of climate induced illness and death) to produce profits for its leisure-enjoying owners. But by then it will really be too late to reverse climate change. December 2015 will have come and been long gone.
So what should helpless minions (that is, not Big Business owners) do? Enjoy the time we have left. That is all we can do. Oh, and try not to produce any grandchildren, for they shall not inherit the Earth.
Cheers.
Thursday, 29 May 2014
Flaw in X-men Days of Future Past
I found a philosophical flaw in X-men: Days of
Future Past.
The world is caught up in an all-out war of
Sentinels vs mutants. Wolverine and company decide that the historical event
that triggered this timeline was Mystique’s killing Trask. To avert this
all-out war, Wolverine and company send Wolverine’s consciousness back in time to
take over the mind of the younger Wolverine, so he can persuade the younger
Professor X and the younger Magneto to help him prevent Mystique killing Trask.
Events then unfold. When the critical killing moment comes, Professor X has
control of Mystique’s mind, and is in a position to force her body to walk away
from the opportunity to kill Trask. Instead of doing that, Professor X releases
Mystique’s mind, saying she must make that decision for herself. He gives her
free will.
There are of course the philosophical questions of
(1) whether consciousness exists apart from body, (2) whether consciousness can
travel through time, and (3) whether consciousness can be transplanted into
another body. But let’s allow all these as literary licence. There is still a
philosophical flaw, and it’s a logical flaw – which is very much harder to “literary
licence” away.
To say that one specific historical event triggers a
given timeline, and further to say that changing that one specific historical
event will change the eventual outcome many years hence presumes the
philosophical doctrine known as determinism – which says that every event is
caused, and that, given complete information, every event can be predicted. There
is no freedom in the causal chain. Let me be specific: there is no free will in
the causal chain.
Giving Mystique the free will to decide whether to
kill Trask contradicts this philosophical presumption. If Mystique has free
will, then so does everyone else along that timeline. There is then no guarantee
that the war will be averted.
This is the philosophical flaw in the movie. But it
is, nonetheless, a wonderfully entertaining movie.
END
Tuesday, 27 May 2014
Philosophy dispute in Thailand
The current political impasse in Thailand is actually a philosophical dispute -- between democracy and aristocracy; between "government by all" and "government by some". For there to be a rational resolution, there must first be common ground between these two political philosophies. So far as I can see, the only common ground is that there not be a "state of nature". Martial law has achieved this. However, if the military persists in governing, then that will be also a form of aristocracy -- which those preferring democracy will not like. A military-imposed "state of peace" is not a viable long-term solution. History tells us how this philosophical dispute will be resolved. It will not be pretty.
Monday, 22 August 2011
Whom shall we vote for president? Part 3
A dreadful thought just occurred to me: We must not cast a negative vote -- it may become self-defeating. Let me explain.
There are four presidential candidates. Let us call them A, B, C and D. We decide we do not want A to be president. Hence, we decide to not vote for A. This is what I call a negative vote -- a vote we will not cast. We then randomly cast our vote for one of the other three candidates. Our positive votes therefore will be split among B, C and D. In this way, the result can be A: 30%, B: 25%, C: 25%, D: 20%. Even though A polls a mere 30%, A becomes president! Instead of ensuring that A does not become president, this way of voting could positively make him president! Our negative vote has become self-defeating.
There may be some who would say a candidate garnering such a low percentage of the valid votes does not have the mandate of the population. I disagree. The mandate of the population arises from the fact that the entire population was polled, and not from the percentage of the polled population which voted for the candidate. A winner with 30% of the valid votes does have the mandate of the population.
Thus, we must instead cast a positive vote. We must vote for the candidate whom we think will best be able to block any (in his view) bad decisions of the PAP government -- at least those within his power to veto. (I specify the PAP government only because that happens to be the present government. In principle, it could be government by any political party.) I have in my first post on this topic specified the questions we should ask and answer in determining our personal best candidates.
Let us all cast positive votes, not negative ones.
END
There are four presidential candidates. Let us call them A, B, C and D. We decide we do not want A to be president. Hence, we decide to not vote for A. This is what I call a negative vote -- a vote we will not cast. We then randomly cast our vote for one of the other three candidates. Our positive votes therefore will be split among B, C and D. In this way, the result can be A: 30%, B: 25%, C: 25%, D: 20%. Even though A polls a mere 30%, A becomes president! Instead of ensuring that A does not become president, this way of voting could positively make him president! Our negative vote has become self-defeating.
There may be some who would say a candidate garnering such a low percentage of the valid votes does not have the mandate of the population. I disagree. The mandate of the population arises from the fact that the entire population was polled, and not from the percentage of the polled population which voted for the candidate. A winner with 30% of the valid votes does have the mandate of the population.
Thus, we must instead cast a positive vote. We must vote for the candidate whom we think will best be able to block any (in his view) bad decisions of the PAP government -- at least those within his power to veto. (I specify the PAP government only because that happens to be the present government. In principle, it could be government by any political party.) I have in my first post on this topic specified the questions we should ask and answer in determining our personal best candidates.
Let us all cast positive votes, not negative ones.
END
Friday, 19 August 2011
Whom shall we vote for president? Part 2
I said in my previous post on this topic: "The originating principle behind the Elected Presidency is to have someone in place who can veto government proposals should the day come when the government makes a poor decision on certain specified matters."
Veto power is a negative power, a blocking power. It is the power to prevent something from happening -- quite different from the power to make something happen.
The candidates' respective campaigns are underway. Some candidates are telling us what they would do if they are elected president. These are indications of how they would exercise positive power, creative power. These are not indications of how they would exercise veto power.
What we need to hear from the respective candidates are what they would block the PAP government from doing should they feel such initiatives inappropriate or unwise. We need to hear from the respective candidates how they are prepared to exercise negative power should the need arise.
So far as I recall, only one candidate has said he is prepared to exercise negative power. But he has not yet indicated the kind of government initiatives he is prepared to veto. (Note that no initiative is in principle precluded from a veto, since reserves may be drawn upon for any purpose.)
In the days to follow, I shall be listening out for the respective candidates' thoughts on their prospective use of veto power. And so should every voter.
END
Veto power is a negative power, a blocking power. It is the power to prevent something from happening -- quite different from the power to make something happen.
The candidates' respective campaigns are underway. Some candidates are telling us what they would do if they are elected president. These are indications of how they would exercise positive power, creative power. These are not indications of how they would exercise veto power.
What we need to hear from the respective candidates are what they would block the PAP government from doing should they feel such initiatives inappropriate or unwise. We need to hear from the respective candidates how they are prepared to exercise negative power should the need arise.
So far as I recall, only one candidate has said he is prepared to exercise negative power. But he has not yet indicated the kind of government initiatives he is prepared to veto. (Note that no initiative is in principle precluded from a veto, since reserves may be drawn upon for any purpose.)
In the days to follow, I shall be listening out for the respective candidates' thoughts on their prospective use of veto power. And so should every voter.
END
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
Whom shall we vote for president?
I have some thoughts on Singapore's upcoming election for president.
The originating principle behind the Elected Presidency is to have someone in place who can veto government proposals should the day come when the government makes a poor decision on certain specified matters. We in Singapore call this the "second key". It is to confer such a mandate that the president is nationally elected. Following from the originating principle, the electorate should therefore choose someone who has the nerve to defy the government should the need arise. Would a candidate who had risen to the top in the PAP government have the nerve? Would a candidate with close ties to the PAP have the nerve? Would a candidate from outside the PAP have the nerve? Is nerve a function of party affiliation? Voters must ask themselves these questions, and answer them to their own satisfaction before they cast their votes.
Second, on the matter of a "silent" president. Let us assume that a day comes when the president deems a government proposal worthy of a veto. Should the president silently veto the proposal, or should the president publicly defend and justify his veto? Perhaps Singapore's Constitution does allow the president to speak on the certain specified matters listed in the Constitution. But the present debate focuses on matters outside this list. Should the president remain silent on those other matters?
Let us modify the above scenario. Let us assume that the government makes a proposal to draw on the reserves for a purpose outside the certain matters specified in the Constitution as pertaining to the role of the president. In such a case, should the president silently veto the proposal, or should the president publicly defend and justify his veto? Should the president remain silent on such matters until a related draw on the reserves is proposed? Should the president speak up as soon as he begins to feel uncomfortable about some policy directions? Which candidate can best keep silent or speak up? Voters must ask themselves these questions, and answer them to their own satisfaction before they cast their votes.
Third, on the matter of institutional support for candidates. Institutions and organisations do not have a vote in the election for president. No person, organisation or institution can instruct anyone how to vote in the election. Our votes are secret. Given these, "institutional support" is an oxymoron.
Finally, I have heard some people say they will vote for so-and-so because he is their relation or friend. Of course, people do behave in this way. This is the wrong way. We must vote for whomever among the candidates we think will do the job best.
These are my thoughts on our upcoming election. I hope we choose the best person from among the candidates.
END
The originating principle behind the Elected Presidency is to have someone in place who can veto government proposals should the day come when the government makes a poor decision on certain specified matters. We in Singapore call this the "second key". It is to confer such a mandate that the president is nationally elected. Following from the originating principle, the electorate should therefore choose someone who has the nerve to defy the government should the need arise. Would a candidate who had risen to the top in the PAP government have the nerve? Would a candidate with close ties to the PAP have the nerve? Would a candidate from outside the PAP have the nerve? Is nerve a function of party affiliation? Voters must ask themselves these questions, and answer them to their own satisfaction before they cast their votes.
Second, on the matter of a "silent" president. Let us assume that a day comes when the president deems a government proposal worthy of a veto. Should the president silently veto the proposal, or should the president publicly defend and justify his veto? Perhaps Singapore's Constitution does allow the president to speak on the certain specified matters listed in the Constitution. But the present debate focuses on matters outside this list. Should the president remain silent on those other matters?
Let us modify the above scenario. Let us assume that the government makes a proposal to draw on the reserves for a purpose outside the certain matters specified in the Constitution as pertaining to the role of the president. In such a case, should the president silently veto the proposal, or should the president publicly defend and justify his veto? Should the president remain silent on such matters until a related draw on the reserves is proposed? Should the president speak up as soon as he begins to feel uncomfortable about some policy directions? Which candidate can best keep silent or speak up? Voters must ask themselves these questions, and answer them to their own satisfaction before they cast their votes.
Third, on the matter of institutional support for candidates. Institutions and organisations do not have a vote in the election for president. No person, organisation or institution can instruct anyone how to vote in the election. Our votes are secret. Given these, "institutional support" is an oxymoron.
Finally, I have heard some people say they will vote for so-and-so because he is their relation or friend. Of course, people do behave in this way. This is the wrong way. We must vote for whomever among the candidates we think will do the job best.
These are my thoughts on our upcoming election. I hope we choose the best person from among the candidates.
END
Monday, 15 August 2011
What death do you prefer?
Recently, I helped facilitate a philosophy dialogue at a local secondary school. The students were given the following scenario. Count Dracula makes an offer to a man: Remain mortal (and someday die) or remain at his present age immortally.
The discussion came down to a choice between length of life and meaning of life. Clearly, there are four combinations: a long and meaningful life, a short and meaningful life, a long and meaningless life, or a short and meaningless life. I asked the students to rank these four combinations. The first and last came readily. The most preferred is a long and meaningful life, and the least preferred is a short and meaningless life. I expected there to be vigorous debate over positions two and three. To my surprise, that did not happen. The unanimous preference was a short and meaningful life at position two, then a long and meaningless life at position three. Thus, we drew the philosophical conclusion that meaning in life is more important than longevity of life.
On another occasion, I encountered someone soliciting pledges for a cancer charity. I told this person that while it is good to try to help others in need, we must accept that people will die. The only questions are when and how – never whether.
Which brings us to another ranking, that of the manner of death. I rank (and I think most people would agree with me here) the top three as:
1. To die in one’s sleep.
2. To die under general anesthesia.
3. To die as a result of sudden trauma eg. an airplane crash, gunshot.
After these come the combinations of time, pain, debilitation, and dependence. There are 16 combinations. Readers are invited to ponder how to rank them.
But beware: Today’s society considers such a ranking exercise as politically incorrect – and hence irrelevant.
END
The discussion came down to a choice between length of life and meaning of life. Clearly, there are four combinations: a long and meaningful life, a short and meaningful life, a long and meaningless life, or a short and meaningless life. I asked the students to rank these four combinations. The first and last came readily. The most preferred is a long and meaningful life, and the least preferred is a short and meaningless life. I expected there to be vigorous debate over positions two and three. To my surprise, that did not happen. The unanimous preference was a short and meaningful life at position two, then a long and meaningless life at position three. Thus, we drew the philosophical conclusion that meaning in life is more important than longevity of life.
On another occasion, I encountered someone soliciting pledges for a cancer charity. I told this person that while it is good to try to help others in need, we must accept that people will die. The only questions are when and how – never whether.
Which brings us to another ranking, that of the manner of death. I rank (and I think most people would agree with me here) the top three as:
1. To die in one’s sleep.
2. To die under general anesthesia.
3. To die as a result of sudden trauma eg. an airplane crash, gunshot.
After these come the combinations of time, pain, debilitation, and dependence. There are 16 combinations. Readers are invited to ponder how to rank them.
But beware: Today’s society considers such a ranking exercise as politically incorrect – and hence irrelevant.
END
Wednesday, 13 July 2011
Should we take the morality pill?
Headline: The moral dilemma
Author: Guy Kahane
Source: The Sunday Times, 10 July 2011
Quote1
Scientists have not only identified some of the brain pathways that shape our ethical decisions, but also the chemical substances that modulate this neural activity. … Of course, no one is developing a “moral pill” that will transform us into saints. But the research is advancing fast, and it is almost certain to suggest new ways to shape our moral intuitions, sentiments, and motivations.
Comment1
This sets out the background for what follows.
Quote2
Should we use our growing scientific understanding of the basis of human morality to try to make people morally better? …
Comment2
This presents the philosophically interesting question.
Quote3
Many will agree … that our ability to distinguish right from wrong is something precious that we should safeguard, not a broken clock that scientists should fix. …
Comment3
This is a premise in an incompletely presented argument (an enthymeme). Here is the complete argument:
Premise1: If (use science to make people morally better) then (we treat morality as a broken clock)
Premise2: Not-(we treat morality as a broken clock)
Conclusion: Hence, Not-(use science to make people morally better)
This is a Modus Tollens, a valid argument form. The only question then is: Are the premises true?
Quote4
Even in the most advanced and affluent societies, a vast concentrated effort is needed to preserve even minimal decency: think of locks, security alarms, police, courts and prisons. …
Comment4
This denies Premise2 in Comment3: We do treat morality as a broken clock – and we do try to fix it. The argument is rebutted. However, it does not follow from this that the conclusion is false. It is only that this conclusion cannot be reached via this argument.
Quote5
Humans are born with the capacity to be moral, but it is a limited capacity which is ill equipped to deal with the ethical complexities of the modern world.
Comment5
This makes a general statement, which I expect will be the premise to an argument. However, no argument is offered to support this general statement. We are left with intuition. I am not prepared to intuitively accept that “humans are born with the capacity to be moral”. I am also not prepared to intuitively accept that the human capacity to be moral is “a limited capacity which is ill equipped to deal with the ethical complexities of the modern world”.
Quote6
For thousands of years, humans have relied on education, persuasion, social institutions and the threat of real (or supernatural) punishment to make people behave decently. We could all be morally better, but it is clear that this traditional approach cannot take us further. It is not as if people would suddenly begin to behave better if we just gave them more facts and statistics, or better arguments.
Comment6
This is a different claim from Quote5. This says we have exhausted all the traditional ways of making people behave decently. This makes no claim on a limited congenital capacity for morality. This is also not yet an argument.
Quote7
So we should not be too quick to dismiss the suggestion that science might help – in the first instance, by helping us design more effective institutions, more inspiring moral education, or more persuasive ethical arguments.
Comment7
This contradicts Quote6, which said “education, persuasion … [and] institutions … cannot take us further”.
Quote8
But science might also offer more direct ways of influencing our brains. …
Comment8
Following from Quote6, if all the traditional means have been exhausted, science offers a new alternative. Should this alternative be taken? This repeats the question presented in Quote2.
Quote9
Governments must not be given the power to control its citizens’ moral code – we know that if they had such power, they would misuse it. …
Comment9
This scientific alternative cannot be presented to the government, because it would abuse the instrument. This is a modus tollens argument. Can the alternative then be presented to the people?
Quote10
It is not so obvious that people would really want to take pills that would make them morally better. It is not clear that people really want to be morally better. …
Comment10
Well, we cannot count on people to voluntarily take the scientific alternative.
Quote11
We do not yet know what is possible. But it is better to begin the ethical discussion too early than too late.
Comment11
The question remains open. But let’s talk about it (even if the traditional method of discussion has been exhausted?)
END
Author: Guy Kahane
Source: The Sunday Times, 10 July 2011
Quote1
Scientists have not only identified some of the brain pathways that shape our ethical decisions, but also the chemical substances that modulate this neural activity. … Of course, no one is developing a “moral pill” that will transform us into saints. But the research is advancing fast, and it is almost certain to suggest new ways to shape our moral intuitions, sentiments, and motivations.
Comment1
This sets out the background for what follows.
Quote2
Should we use our growing scientific understanding of the basis of human morality to try to make people morally better? …
Comment2
This presents the philosophically interesting question.
Quote3
Many will agree … that our ability to distinguish right from wrong is something precious that we should safeguard, not a broken clock that scientists should fix. …
Comment3
This is a premise in an incompletely presented argument (an enthymeme). Here is the complete argument:
Premise1: If (use science to make people morally better) then (we treat morality as a broken clock)
Premise2: Not-(we treat morality as a broken clock)
Conclusion: Hence, Not-(use science to make people morally better)
This is a Modus Tollens, a valid argument form. The only question then is: Are the premises true?
Quote4
Even in the most advanced and affluent societies, a vast concentrated effort is needed to preserve even minimal decency: think of locks, security alarms, police, courts and prisons. …
Comment4
This denies Premise2 in Comment3: We do treat morality as a broken clock – and we do try to fix it. The argument is rebutted. However, it does not follow from this that the conclusion is false. It is only that this conclusion cannot be reached via this argument.
Quote5
Humans are born with the capacity to be moral, but it is a limited capacity which is ill equipped to deal with the ethical complexities of the modern world.
Comment5
This makes a general statement, which I expect will be the premise to an argument. However, no argument is offered to support this general statement. We are left with intuition. I am not prepared to intuitively accept that “humans are born with the capacity to be moral”. I am also not prepared to intuitively accept that the human capacity to be moral is “a limited capacity which is ill equipped to deal with the ethical complexities of the modern world”.
Quote6
For thousands of years, humans have relied on education, persuasion, social institutions and the threat of real (or supernatural) punishment to make people behave decently. We could all be morally better, but it is clear that this traditional approach cannot take us further. It is not as if people would suddenly begin to behave better if we just gave them more facts and statistics, or better arguments.
Comment6
This is a different claim from Quote5. This says we have exhausted all the traditional ways of making people behave decently. This makes no claim on a limited congenital capacity for morality. This is also not yet an argument.
Quote7
So we should not be too quick to dismiss the suggestion that science might help – in the first instance, by helping us design more effective institutions, more inspiring moral education, or more persuasive ethical arguments.
Comment7
This contradicts Quote6, which said “education, persuasion … [and] institutions … cannot take us further”.
Quote8
But science might also offer more direct ways of influencing our brains. …
Comment8
Following from Quote6, if all the traditional means have been exhausted, science offers a new alternative. Should this alternative be taken? This repeats the question presented in Quote2.
Quote9
Governments must not be given the power to control its citizens’ moral code – we know that if they had such power, they would misuse it. …
Comment9
This scientific alternative cannot be presented to the government, because it would abuse the instrument. This is a modus tollens argument. Can the alternative then be presented to the people?
Quote10
It is not so obvious that people would really want to take pills that would make them morally better. It is not clear that people really want to be morally better. …
Comment10
Well, we cannot count on people to voluntarily take the scientific alternative.
Quote11
We do not yet know what is possible. But it is better to begin the ethical discussion too early than too late.
Comment11
The question remains open. But let’s talk about it (even if the traditional method of discussion has been exhausted?)
END
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)