A TED-Talk on Moral Subjectivism. Cultural Relativism, and the Religious Monopoly on Ethics.

I came across this Talk at www.ted.com/talks and was pleased to hear that the concept of moral objectivity and the courage to have it are being advocated in the world, and ESPECIALLY in such a prestigious venue as a TED conference.



While Sam at several points betrays a decidedly Liberal bias along with his - laudable - secularism, I agree whole-heartedly with his premise: that in order to advance humanity, we must overcome our irrational and potentially dangerous fear of judging and condemning deleterious behaviors and beliefs. Adherence to subjective morality or moral relativism are cop-outs which permit evil to exist, thrive, and eventually prey upon those around and not just within it.

Sam Harris is the author of 2004's "The End of Faith" and 2007's "Letter To A Christian Nation."

Ethical Survey

Some weeks ago I was invited to partake in a survey of Ethics by a student in a college psychology program. The survey presented many questions without simple answers in a format which required a simple (multiple choice) answer. Because I found the questions intriguing, and because I didn't wish to misrepresent my answers due to semantic vagaries (a phrase, by the way, which I used with some frequency in my answers to the administrator), I wrote out answers and included them in an attachment to the student for her review. Below are the questions and my answers thereto.

---

1. I believe all people can generally be described as either good or evil.

This one suffers a semantic issue: Are ALL people generally good or evil; or does each individual fall to one side of the spectrum or the other, with no neutrality?

The first interpretation is one of the great philosophical questions. What is the nature of man? This question leads to innumerable sub-questions: Is a person who acts in a "Good" way for "Evil" reasons good or evil? Without getting further into these quandaries, and because of them, I will answer your query as though your intention was the second interpretation.

To become an important and meaningful example of good or evil requires a willful effort which most people are simply incapable of. The world is full of people too stupid, lazy, or apathetic to take any meaningful control of their lives and have willful purpose and direction. In an instance where they are provided with an ethical problem, two responses arise: thoughtless expression of obedience to a societal standard of behavior, or stubborn refusal to confront the dillema. This second response becomes more prevalent as the difficulty of the ethical problem increases. For instance, most people SAY they will pull over and help an old lady on the side of the road change a tire. When the opportunity presents itself to actually ACT on that statement these same people suddenly have a hundred and one reasons why it WOULDN'T be a good idea to stop, ranging from "I'm late" to "It's dark and dangerous and I might get hurt". Anyone who has seen a person stranded on the side of the road, even if they are not an old lady, or anyone who has themselves been stranded, has borne witness to this discrepancy.

The fact is, it is always percieved to be easier to avoid these difficult decisions and so most people will do everything possible to avoid them. As such, the circumstances of the world around them color what little morals and ethics they have. Can we call these people good or evil?

In the case of evil, I say yes. In the case of good, I say no. Evil is always easier, and a person can simply float into such behavior without willfulness. Being Good without willfulness arises universally out of fear of punitive action. A person can easily become immersed in the violent and shady world of drug dealing without a second thought. Are they evil? Certainly. Are they willful? No. But good Samaritans, pillars of the community, even students who don't cheat on tests - if the motivation is not pure, or lacks even a touch of an honest desire to do the right thing, then the person is not actually good, they are simply interested in the benefits of being good.

Therefore, I "Somewhat agree"


2. There are people in this world who are completely incapable of any type of goodness.

This one warrants a slightly shorter explanation, as I established most of my premises in the previous answer. Good requires thought, honesty, and will, and there are doubtless people in the world without the intelligence to consider an ethical choice, the honesty to appraise the situation accurately, and the will to act upon the conclusions or to follow through with a difficult course of action.

Therefore, I "Agree"


3. There are people in this world who are completely incapable of committing any evil

Evil choices are easier to make because they often provide an immediate benefit directly to a person, even if that benefit is simply a path of least resistance. If it is discovered that a friend is the most reprehensible sort of person (fill in your own blank), is it easier to write that person off or inform his family or the police, risking many of your own friendships in the process, or is it easier to shrug it off, ignore it, make excuses, and continue with life as usual? This is how cults begin, this is why abused spouses often return to the source of their agony, and this is how actively, willfully evil people take power.

Therefore, because of the magnitude of my answer to the previous question, and the militating factors on the other side of the spectrum, I "Strongly Disagree"


4. Each of us must internally struggle with good and evil.

I disagree with the language used in this question because I believe the intention of the question is more to the effect of "Each of us struggles internally with good and evil in the course of determining our lives," or more simply perhaps the intention is "Each of us should internally struggle with good and evil". "Must" is an imperative, it commands, it is absolute. Should each of us struggle? Yes, if it is accepted that being a good person is a desirable thing. Such a quality, as I have stated, does not simply arise through desire, or mere perception of oneself as a "good person". It requires willful action and many, many hard choices. There is a reason such a path is called the "Strait and Narrow"

Obviously, however, nobody is forced to make such a decision, and most people don't. Even when forced to confront a difficult decision, it is not "good and evil" or "right and wrong" that a person struggles with, but the far weaker question of "why me?"

Therefore, due to the language used in the phrasing of this question, and my reluctance to misrepresent my beliefs over an interpretive issue that may not exist, I "Disagree"


5. There are people in the world who are evil

The structure, nature, and order of these questions seems to imply that the goal of this survey is to establish the existence and gestalt of an "objective" morality. To that end, I will simply state that even if there is not an "objective" morality, it is irrelevant. I will not address, at this point, those who do not take time and effort to study ethics. Any person who adopts or crafts a system of ethics and then adheres thereto does not do so in a vacuum. Subjective ideas still have objective effects upon society at large. Ethical behavior is not relevant without society, with occassional exception. A vegan, for instance, still has ethical concerns about the proper treatment of animals regardless of the presence or absence of society. It could be argued that in such systems this ethical concern creates a society of animals, with rights that must be respected, and thus defeats any argument of ethics being a private matter of no consequence to the world at large.

I will discuss this subject further in the next question.

As for the question asked of me, my previous statements make it clear that I will "Strongly agree"


6. There are societies in this world that are evil.

We finally arrive at a question with some substance. Given that the world as a whole can be viewed as the interactions of many societies much as a society can be viewed as the interactions of the people within that society, it is certainly plausible that there are evil societies. Subjectivists will argue that ethical behavior depends on the society in which we live, but these people are fools. Stoning an adulteress is the "Right" thing to do in fundamental Judeo-Christian-Muslim society; mandatory female circumcision is "Right" in parts of Africa and the Middle East; killing Jews was "Right" in Czarist Russia, Nazi Germany, and many parts of the modern Middle East; yet all of these behaviors are viewed as reprehensible in almost all cultures except those which advocate them. The fact of the matter is that there are societies in the world, just as there are people within those societies, which engage in behaviors which cause inequality of opportunity, unjustly take lives, and endanger those around them. These things are unequivocally evil.

We cannot judge a society by the people within it. To do so is to ignore the structure and tenets of that society as there are always deviants and dissidents. The society, instead, must be judged by its structure and tenets.

Therefore, I "Strongly Agree"


7. There are political leaders in this world who are evil.

Given that a person is more likely to be evil than not, it is reasonable to assume that there are political leaders who are evil.

Therefore, I "Agree"


8. Most people have a chance of growing morally in character.

Another question of substance. The world presents us with innumerable opportunities to do the right or wrong thing. At any point a person may begin to take willful action and interest in their own moral and ethical structure and being, and thus begin moral development. This does not automatically mean that a person becomes a good person - moral growth and development of character can easily lead down evil paths, or simply be an understanding of the "Why" of an action - or even that they succeed in continual growth. Regardless, anyone can attempt ethical development and the attempt itself will affect a persons aspect, even if the growth does not continue.

Therefore, I "Strongly agree"


9. It is difficult for me to imagine good in a person who has done something evil.

This is another semantically clumsy statement. Immediately, to "imagine" something is to state that it does not exist in the first place. Does the administrator refer to empathy? Perhaps the intention is to establish whether or not I can accept that a person who has acted evilly can be or become good. Is the "good" that theoretically exists here an intrinsic "goodness" in a person, a figurative "angel on the shoulder" which engages in - and has here lost - battle with a person's demons? Or is this an allusion to the popular proverb "The path to hell is paved with good intentions"?

In the first instance, we are presented with two options: The evil is willful, or the evil is a result of apathy and inaction. If the evil is willful, then the person has committed themselves to evil action. Even if that person can act well in some other arena of their existence, this willful action to evil once demonstrates a proclivity to such actions. It is dangerous and foolhardy to seek good in such a person. This person can be expected to act evilly again. The burden of proof is upon them should they desire to be seen as good. This is called "atonement" or "penance".

If the evil is the result of apathy and inaction, then it is equally likely that a person will be just as careless again, whether in the same way or in another arena of their lives. It is acceptable, however, to seek good in such a person, and to actively encourage that behavior. Good action must become the path of least resistance. This does not make a good person of the apathist, but it mitigates the danger they would otherwise represent.

In the second instance, where a person commits an evil act with the intention of good, an examination of their definition of good is in order. As illustrated above, there are many reprehensible actions accepted in many societies. If the person is acting in accord with their social sphere, and that society is evil, then the only course of action is conversion. Since many of these dangerous societies encourage and shelter fanatics and simultaneously condemn apostacy or heresy, this course of action is not without risk. No matter what, a conversion cannot occur without atonement - that is, the burden of proving a persons good will and good action falls upon the person.

Therfore, as the statement asked after my capabilities of imagination, and seeing many qualifications for imagining such a happenstance, and I further believe that to "imagine" such a thing is dangerous and foolhardy, I "Somewhat agree"


10. It is impossible to classify people as essentially good or evil.

Once again this suffers from a semantic difficulty in whether we reference people as a whole or as individuals. As I have dealt with people as individuals, I will address them as a whole.

Given that willful people may be actively good or evil, and that the apathetic, stupid, careless, and lazy will tend towards evil, I would classify people as a whole as evil if forced to a binary choice. This, of course, carries many caveats and qualifications: I do not mean life-threatening or reprehensible, clear evil in all cases, in fact, such extreme evil is almost as rare as noble, pure good. Further, a great many people will have an approximately even balance of good and evil acts in their lives. But I repeat that, because being good both requires intelligence, integrity, and will, and because it often forces a person to unpleasant decisions and actions, most people will never be truly good.

Therefore, I "Somewhat disagree"


11. Even so-called evil people have the potential to be good.

This is essentially the same as the statement about character growth. At any point a person may experience a "change of heart" and make a willful decision to change the course of their lives, their behavior, and their moral being. This is just as true for "evil" persons as it is for "good" persons, though I would expect that it is much rarer for a person who is willfully good or evil to change given the amount of thought and the personal committment that is required. Such circumstances as bring about a change in evil people are likely extraordinary. Disappointment, disillusion, and despair can often weaken a good persons resolve sufficiently to cause them to abandon their strait paths.

Therefore, I "Agree"


12. All of us can act evilly under certain circumstances

This comes across almost as an attempt at apologetics for evil people. To put it simply: as I believe I have established here, the temptation and opportunity to do evil is omnipresent. Even a person who has made an intelligent, thorough committment to right action must constantly re-affirm their course in the face of these temptations. It is always easier to do nothing, and such apathy tends invariably to evil.

Therefore, I "Agree"


13. We are morally responsible for eradicating evil by any means necessary

Evil will never be wholly eradicated. The proclivity to avoid effort is too strong in the human condition and this tends to corruption and evil. It is easier to steal than to earn, to rape than seduce, to kill than to show mercy. However, it does behoove a good person to do good things, and when an evil person represents a physical threat, that person must be destroyed to prevent harm.

Therefore, I "Somewhat agree"


14. The use of violence is justified when it allows good to prevail over evil.

The use of violence is only justified to stop further violence. The marginal evil of someone copying a test warrants no violence, the automatic failure of the test is just and appropriate punishment. A mugger may be resisted by any means at ones disposal so long as the mugger is a threat - once the danger is past, the mugger's life is no longer forfeit. In this way, evil people MUST bring their own punishments upon themselves.

Therefore, I "Somewhat agree"


15. An orderly and safe world can only be obtained through the use of morally righteous violence.

The key words here are "morally righteous". An act of violence is only morally righteous if it addresses an immediate threat. However, an "orderly and safe" world is an impossible standard. This actually strengthens the necessity for violence rather than weakening it: A person must be permitted to meet violence with violence and bring immediate retribution upon violent evil. Absent this, evil will always prevail.

Therefore, I "Agree"


16. It is our duty to deal with the evil in the world, even if it means using force and violence.

This is a simple matter. It is not a tenable position to have a murderer arrested, held for years, and then subjected to the violence of execution with no opportunity of defense. The fight against evil must be conducted without undue bloodshed - the death of a murderer is only justified when the only choice is between the murderer and his victim. It is absolutely necessary for a person to be permitted to defend against violence with violence. It must be further understood that once there is no further danger, the violence must cease.

Therefore, I "Strongly agree"


17. Sometimes violence is necessary in order to get rid of evil leaders and political systems.

Leaders and political systems are only capable of immoral violence if they are permitted by their constituents to be. A society that does nothing to resist an evil leader or system is complicit in that evil. Without action against these violent people and systems it can be expected that the evil will continue. Absent non-violent methods of removal (elections, impeachment), or once they have failed, violence is demanded.

Therefore, I "Strongly agree"


18. The moral people in this world are responsible for eliminating moral corruption, even if it requires brute force.

All people are responsible for meeting evil and moral corruption with appropriate action, up to and including brute force. The difference in good and evil is in who has initiated that force. Moral people will not initiate force against evil people in the world. Rather, they will meet any force or violence with whatever is necessary to stop the evil action.

Therefore, due to the semantic vagaries, I "Somewhat agree"


19. The use of violence is commendable what its purpose is improved conditions for people.

The use of violence is commendable only when it stops a violent act.

Therefore, I "Somewhat disagree"


20. Morally justifiable violence is the natural way for humans to deal with evil in the world

Violence is certainly natural in the human condition. However, such as is the case with lynch mobs, violence initiated, even for an arguable good or if it results in the death of an evil person, the violence is disproportionate. It is imperative that a good person not become the monsters to which they are opposed. All punishment must be appropriate. Violence is only warranted in cases where violence has already been brought into play.

Therefore, I "Somewhat disagree"


21. There are adversaries in this world that must be totally annihilated; it would be immoral to negotiate with them.

There are doubtless evils in this world that warrant annihilation - serial killers, sexual predators, militant authoritarian theocracies - but the decision to annihilate must only be made after careful consideration and clear demonstration of the danger posed. Neville Chamberlain did the right thing by attempting to mitigate the German threat and avoid unnecessary bloodshed. Once it became clear that the danger was not going to subside, that bloodshed would not be avoided, it was justice to destroy the threat utterly.

If negotiation is an option, it must be explored, even if perfunctorily.

Therefore, I "Somewhat agree"


22. There are people who deserve to die because the world would be a better place without them.

Such an argument is without merit. There are people who deserve to die because they are an otherwise unmitigable danger.

Therefore, I "Disagree"


23. Destruction of evil people is necessary to preserve what is good in the world.

What is good in the world is created by good people. Destruction of evil people is necessary to prevent evil from being meaningful, practical, profitable, or otherwise appealing as a life choice.

Therefore, I "Disagree"


24. On November 5, 2009, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an army psychiatrist, opened fire at Fort Hood, killing 13 people and wounding over 2 dozen. Military prosecutors plan to seek the death penalty for Hasan. Do you support the use of the death penalty in this instance?

Murder is the unjustified taking of human life. It must occur unprovoked, absent any external threat. There is no question that Major Hasan's actions warranted lethal force, but he is no longer engaged in those actions. If violence is to be met with violence, it must be done immediately. Further bloodshed serves no purpose at this point, and is murderous and immoral in and of itself.

Therefore, I "Oppose"


25. There is currently a bill to establish a US Department of Peace. The proposed Department of Peace would supplement our current problem solving system by working to establish non-violent solutions to both international and domestic conflicts. Do you support the creation of a Department of Peace?

It is the purpose of the Secretary of State and the Ambassadors of the State Department to pursue peaceful or non-violent resolutions. Creation of another Department represents an unnecessary expansion of bureaucracy, a waste of tax dollars, a redundancy of purpose, and can do nothing but oppose the actions of the Department of Defense. If and when violence becomes necessary in diplomatic conflict, it can only cost lives to delay action.

Therefore, I "Oppose"


26. The US army launched Operation Enduring Freedom in October of 2001 with the invasion of Afghanistan. The aims of this ongoing operation are to find and try high ranking Al Qaeda officials, destroy the Al Qaeda organization, remove the Taliban regime from power and spread democracy. Currently, the US government is planning on sending more troops into Afghanistan. Do you support additional US troops being sent to Afghanistan?

Al Qaeda represents a constant and unmitigable threat to our society. Their existence serves no purpose other than to threaten the world at large. As such, lethal force against them in order to prevent the continuation of their agenda.

The Taliban is an evil society dedicated to the subjugation of women and the spreading of an intolerant, violent, fanatic theocracy. They represent an uncompromising threat to the world at large and violence is justified in their removal.

The Taliban has been reduced to little more than a few loyal soldiers. Unless they are able to regain control in Afganistan, continued violence is not necessary.

Al Qaeda is an organization without borders. Its structure permits even a small number of operatives to be effectively dangerous. I do not have the appropriate information to assess whether their activities in Afganistan are of sufficient magnitude to warrant a troop surge, and will defer to the judgement of the higher military officials.

Therefore, I am "Neutral"


27. Some people believe that the US possession of nuclear weapons serves as a deterrent to escalated violence and a means of promoting stability in the world. Others argue that because the US is part of not allowing some other nations to possess nuclear arms that it is hypocritical for the US government to maintain their own nuclear weapons. Do you support the US possession and maintenance of nuclear weapons?

Now that the capabilities of nuclear weaponry are known, universal disarmament is impossible. To pursue it is as dangerous as giving your gun to a mugger and then resisting the mugging.

Therefore, I "Strongly support"


28. Guantanamo Bay is a US detainment facility in Cuba which has held many people suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. Interrogation techniques have been used on detainees to obtain information and/or confessions, including sleep deprivation, stress positions, semi-starvation, and exploitation of wounds. Do you support the techniques used at Guantanamo Bay?

The purpose of imprisonment is punitive. These individuals are accused of engaging in hostile actions against our society. Justice demands that they be formally tried and subjected to an appropriate punishment.

Force is only justified when force is being actively employed against us. War creates a different paradigm wherein a person withholding information can, in and of itself, be a dangerous and hostile act.

These individuals are no longer at war. If it is the desire of the US Military to interrogate these individuals, they should do so in the field. Once turned over to the Government, they should enjoy the rights and comforts afforded to all prisoners and be permitted to atone.

Therefore, I "Strongly oppose"