Ethics is more elusive than neutrinos
Introduction to Ethical Complexity
Historical Perspective on Ethics
In the chronicles of philosophical inquiry, the quest to understand the nature of ethics has perennially perplexed thinkers. Our narrative begins in ancient Greece, the land of ancient Western philosophy, where some students, including Aristotle, are introduced to a lesson that challenges their knowledge about ethics. The traditional view that ethics is understood through judgments and opinions is questioned, and instead, a logical and mathematical approach to ethical reasoning is proposed.
The scene took place in the Academy, where the air is thick with the spirit of inquiry and debate. The teacher of this lesson was the philosopher Plato. The students, expecting a discourse on virtues and the good life, are instead confronted with an unexpected proposition: that the discourse on the good, in its logical and ontological sense, must be apprehended through calculations, measurements, and mathematical ratios. This radical idea upends the conventional knowledge that ethical understanding is captured through moral teachings — be it the religious morality accepted by faith, the personal and thus fragmented morality that is an expression of the individual, or the conflict of millions of differing moralities.
The proposed shift is towards an ethics of reasoning, not blind faith in something superior and elusive, nor the absence of morality, nor the ceaseless conflict of myriad moral codes. Through correct reasoning, irrespective of the steps employed, one arrives at the same solution . This ethics addresses problems as they arise, without the need for written laws or impositions.
If reality can be translated into terms of measures and calculations, the argument goes, then perhaps the same could be attempted (or at least endeavored) for the concept of the Good, which is not something debatable or imposed, but is attained through reasoning and the correct reasoning method.
Yet, today we know that the matter is not so simple.
The question of the impossibility of creating a scientific and rigorous ethics, akin to a discipline grounded in logical and mathematical principles similar to those of physics, is rooted in several fundamental considerations about the nature of ethics and the exact sciences. The complexity of ethical issues defies a straightforward translation into a scientific paradigm, revealing the profound challenges that arise when attempting to reconcile the abstract, subjective realm of ethics with the concrete, objective domain of the physical sciences.
The Nature of Ethics
Ethics, a branch of philosophy dealing with what is morally right and wrong, is fundamentally concerned with abstract concepts such as values, duties, rights, good and evil, justice, and injustice. Unlike the physical sciences, which revel in the quantifiable and the measurable — mass, velocity, and force — ethics grapples with notions that are not only abstract but also subjectively interpreted. This subjective interpretation is a critical aspect of ethical inquiry, as it reflects the diverse perspectives and experiences that individuals bring to moral discussions.
The study of ethics is deeply intertwined with human conduct and interpersonal relationships, which are characterized by their inherent variability and context-dependence. This variability is not a flaw but a feature of the ethical landscape; it recognizes that human actions and interactions are influenced by a multitude of factors, including cultural norms, personal beliefs, and situational nuances. As such, ethical principles cannot be applied with the same predictive precision as the laws of physics, which often operate independently of human interpretation.
The pursuit of ethics, therefore, is not a quest for a universal equation or a one-size-fits-all formula but a continuous engagement with the complex tapestry of human life. It requires a nuanced understanding of the myriad ways in which moral principles manifest in the real world, as well as the wisdom to navigate the often-murky waters of moral decision-making.
In this light, the task of ethics is not to eliminate moral ambiguity but to provide a framework through which individuals and societies can reflect on and refine their moral intuitions and judgments.
Challenges in Ethical Formalization
Methodological Differences
The pursuit of a scientific and rigorous ethics, akin to the precision found in the physical sciences, encounters significant methodological challenges. Exact sciences such as physics thrive on the pillars of observation, experimentation, and reproducibility. These disciplines seek to describe the universe through laws that are consistent and predictable, allowing for hypotheses to be tested and either verified or falsified in controlled conditions. The scientific method, therefore, relies heavily on empirical data and the ability to isolate variables in order to understand causal relationships.
In stark contrast, the domain of ethics is characterized by normative approach. Ethical theories and principles are not derived from empirical observations but from philosophical arguments about how we ought to live and what constitutes right and wrong.
Ethical propositions, unlike scientific hypotheses, cannot be subjected to controlled experiments to test their validity.
For instance, one cannot empirically verify the ethical principle that one should act in a way that treats humanity, either in oneself or in another, always as an end and never merely as a means to an end, as proposed by Immanuel Kant.
The complexity of human behavior and the context-dependent nature of ethical decisions further complicate the application of a scientific approach to ethics. While a physicist can isolate electrons in a vacuum to study their properties, an ethicist cannot isolate moral agents from the myriad of social, cultural, and personal factors that influence their decisions. Ethical reasoning often involves considering a multitude of scenarios and outcomes, many of which are unpredictable or subjective in nature.
Moreover, the reproducibility that is central to the scientific method is problematic when applied to ethics. While a physical experiment can be repeated under the same conditions to yield the same results, ethical dilemmas are often unique and their resolutions can vary based on the perspectives and values of those involved. The idea of reproducibility in ethics would imply that there is a single correct answer to every moral question, which neglects the pluralism and diversity of moral thought.
The challenges in applying a scientific approach to ethical reasoning are not merely technical but also philosophical. They highlight the limitations of experiments and controlled conditions in ethical inquiries. The subjective nature of ethical judgments, the influence of cultural and societal norms, and the inherent value-laden aspect of ethical discourse resist the objectivity and detachment sought by the exact sciences.
As such, while the methodologies of the exact sciences have brought about remarkable understanding and control over the physical world, the quest for a scientific ethics that mirrors this level of rigor remains elusive due to these fundamental methodological differences.
Cultural and Subjective Values
Ethics, as a branch of philosophy dealing with morality, is deeply intertwined with cultural norms and values. These norms and values are not static; they vary widely across societies and historical periods, making the task of establishing a universal ethical framework exceptionally challenging. Unlike the exact sciences, which strive for universality and objectivity, ethics must grapple with the relativity inherent in moral judgments.
In the realm of ethics, what one culture deems as morally acceptable, another may view as reprehensible. For instance, practices such as polygamy or arranged marriages are considered ethical in some cultures but unethical in others. This variability is not merely a modern phenomenon but has been a constant throughout history. Slavery, once widely accepted, is now universally condemned. Such examples highlight the dynamic nature of ethical standards, which evolve as societies progress and as their collective understanding of morality deepens.
This cultural relativity stands in stark contrast to the goals of the exact sciences. Physics, for example, seeks to discover laws that are consistent and applicable across the universe, irrespective of human opinion or societal norms. A physical law, like gravity, does not change based on cultural beliefs or historical context. It is this search for independent and universal truths that distinguishes the sciences from the study of ethics.
Moreover, ethics is not only about societal norms but also about individual subjectivity. People within the same culture can have vastly different moral intuitions and judgments. These subjective interpretations of what is right or wrong are informed by personal experiences, emotions, and individual reasoning. The subjective nature of ethics adds another layer of complexity to the challenge of formalizing it in a scientific manner.
The historical variability of ethics also poses a significant challenge. As societies evolve, so do their ethical standards. What was once considered ethical may no longer be so, and vice versa. This evolution reflects changes in societal values, knowledge, and beliefs. It is a process that is continuous and unpredictable, further complicating the quest for a static and universally applicable ethical code.
In conclusion, the challenge of cultural relativity and historical variability in ethics is a formidable barrier to the creation of a scientific and rigorous ethical system. The subjective interpretation of moral concepts and the dynamic nature of cultural norms defy the objectivity and consistency that are the hallmarks of the exact sciences.
Ethics, therefore, remains a field that is fundamentally different from physics, one that requires a different approach to understanding and application.
Computational Problems in Ethics
The aspiration to formalize ethics into a scientific framework often stumbles upon the computational complexity inherent in moral decision-making. Theories such as utilitarianism have indeed attempted to distil ethical decisions into a form of calculus, aiming to maximize happiness or utility across a population. Yet, the ambition to quantify and compute ethical decisions encounters formidable obstacles.
Firstly, the multitude of variables affecting human well-being and societal interactions is vast and often intangible. Unlike physical entities that can be measured with precision, human emotions, experiences, and the resulting utilities are subjective and resist quantification. The interpersonal variations in values and preferences further exacerbate the difficulty of establishing a universal metric for happiness or utility.
Secondly, the unpredictability of human behavior and the consequences of actions add layers of complexity to ethical computations. In physics, controlled experiments and observations can lead to predictable outcomes governed by natural laws. In contrast, ethical outcomes are influenced by a web of social dynamics, psychological factors, and unforeseen events. The butterfly effect, where small changes can lead to vastly different outcomes, is particularly pertinent in the realm of ethics, where a single action can ripple through society in unpredictable ways.
Moreover, ethical theories that rely on computations must grapple with the non-linearity of moral considerations. The moral weight of an action may not scale linearly with its consequences, and the interplay between different moral principles can lead to paradoxes and dilemmas that defy straightforward calculation.
Lastly, the real-time application of ethical calculus in practical decision-making is hindered by the speed at which computations must be made. Ethical decisions often need to be taken swiftly, in the heat of the moment, without the luxury of extensive deliberation and calculation that scientific or mathematical problems might allow.
In conclusion, while the allure of a scientifically rigorous ethics is understandable, the computational problems it faces are formidable.
The subjectivity of values, the complexity of human interactions, and the unpredictability of outcomes all contribute to the difficulty of formalizing ethics in a manner akin to the exact sciences. The quest for a scientific ethics, therefore, remains an intellectual challenge that continues to provoke thought and debate in the fields of philosophy and ethics.
The Role of Free Will in Ethics
Contrast with Deterministic Sciences
In the realm of ethics, the concept of free will is paramount. It is the bedrock upon which the entire edifice of moral responsibility is constructed. The presumption is that individuals possess the capacity to make choices autonomously, and it is these choices that are subject to moral scrutiny. This fundamental aspect of ethics stands in stark contrast to the deterministic or statistically predictable laws that are the focus of the physical sciences.
The physical sciences, including physics, seek to uncover the underlying mechanisms of the universe through laws that are either deterministic in nature or can be described by statistical probabilities. These laws aim to predict the behavior of physical systems with a high degree of certainty. In such a framework, every event is the inevitable result of preceding events, governed by the immutable laws of nature. This determinism implies that, given a complete understanding of the initial conditions of a system, one could foresee all subsequent states of that system.
However, when we turn our gaze to ethics, we encounter a different landscape. The ethical domain is concerned not with the predictable motions of particles but with the decisions of conscious agents. Here, the notion of free will asserts that individuals are not merely conduits for causal chains but are agents capable of influencing the course of events through their decisions and actions. The belief in free will underlies the idea that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions, as it is assumed that they could have acted otherwise.
The tension between the deterministic view of the sciences and the free will essential to ethics is not merely academic; it has profound implications for how we understand human behavior and morality.
If all actions were determined by prior causes, as in a physical system, the concept of moral responsibility would be undermined. We would no longer be able to justifiably praise or blame individuals for their actions, as they would have no real control over them.
Despite the challenges posed by determinism, many philosophers maintain that free will is compatible with a deterministic universe — a position known as compatibilism. Compatibilists argue that free will does not require the absence of causation but rather hinges on the nature of the causation involved. If an action is the result of an individual’s internal deliberations, desires, and intentions, rather than external coercion, it can be considered free.
In contrast, libertarianism in the philosophical sense posits that free will is incompatible with determinism, and that for an action to be free, it must not be determined by prior events. Libertarians argue that individuals have the power to initiate new causal chains that are not predetermined by the past.
The discourse on free will and determinism continues to be a central issue in ethics, as it touches upon our deepest intuitions about moral responsibility, justice, and the nature of human agency. The quest to reconcile the deterministic perspective of the sciences with the free will necessary for moral evaluation remains one of the most intriguing and enduring challenges in the field of philosophy.
Conclusion
While for Plato things seemed simple, we moderns must reckon with the complexity of ethics and the realization that it is entirely different from the rigorous sciences.
In Plato’s time, the philosophical endeavor sought to uncover universal truths that could govern both the cosmos and human conduct. However, our contemporary understanding has evolved, acknowledging the intricate nature of ethical considerations that resist reduction to simple formulas or universal laws.
This complexity arises from the diversity of human experiences, cultural norms, and the subjective interpretation of values, which starkly contrasts with the objective, quantifiable realm explored by the physical sciences.
Today, we recognize that ethics demands a nuanced approach, one that embraces the intricate paths of human life and the multifaceted challenges we face in trying to delineate what it means to live a good life.
Just as neutrinos, those ghostly particles known for their elusiveness, passing through matter almost undetected and challenging physicists to capture and understand their properties, so too does the nature of ethics weave through the core of human existence. It eludes easy capture, defying the kind of concrete detection and quantification that characterizes our understanding of the physical world. Neutrinos, with their weak interactions, remind us of the subtle yet profound influence ethics has on our lives — present yet often unnoticed, impactful yet challenging to measure.
Ethics runs on a level that intertwines with the very essence of being human, influenced by a myriad of factors that extend beyond clear-cut definitions and rigid frameworks. Like the attempts to detect and study neutrinos, which require intricate, sensitive apparatus and a great deal of patience and insight, engaging with ethics requires tools of introspection, empathy, and dialogue. These tools help us navigate the nuanced terrain of moral dilemmas, personal values, and societal norms.
Moreover, just as neutrinos oscillate, changing their identities among different types as they traverse the universe, ethical norms and values are not static; they transform and evolve over time and across cultures. This dynamic nature of ethics reflects the adaptability and diversity of human societies and their continuous quest for moral progress and understanding.
Translated from italian with the help of AI from L’Etica è Più Elusiva Dei Neutrini
Publication:
