Tag Archives: morality

A Place for Philosophy

In 2004, the city of Memphis celebrated the “50th Anniversary of Rock ‘n’ Roll,” attributing the roots of rock to Elvis Presley’s 1954 recording of That’s All Right. Some have rightly taken issue with this; black artists were playing what sounded like rock music for years before Elvis. Perhaps the origin of rock music is better attributed to Jackie Brenston’s Rocket 88, recorded in 1951. This event seems to be just one in music history where white artists capitalize on the talent of lesser-known black artists. Still today, some argue that white artists are more successful at pushing boundaries simply because they are white.

Just as the achievements of black artists sometimes go unacknowledged, philosophers are often not acknowledged for their past and ongoing contributions to furthering knowledge (scientific or otherwise). Moreover, scientists rely on philosophical thinking in their work but often don’t acknowledge it as such. In what follows, I hope to convince the reader that philosophical thinking has a central place in modern science and academia and that we ought not marginalize philosophy in favor of pure scientism.

Science as we know it today developed out of philosophy. Galileo and Isaac Newton were known as “natural philosophers.” It was not until the modern period that science began to separate from philosophy. Even after this separation, there was plenty of interaction between the two disciplines. The formalization of calculus was occasioned by a philosopher and many philosophers made contributions to modern mathematics.  However, science does not just owe a tip of the hat to philosophy for its origins; many modern scientific theories, such as string theory, rely on reasoning that goes beyond physically observable phenomena–what I think of as philosophical reasoning.

This past week, I attended Denver’s third Nerd Nite. Kayla Knopp, Rachel Miller, and Lane Nesbitt, clinical psychology students at the University of Denver, spoke about the way in which both biology and culture influence our understanding of sexual behavior. Although they didn’t state their conclusions explicitly (more on this below!), I take one of their main conclusions to be that (C) the set of all morally permissible sexual activities is larger than the set of all culturally accepted sexually activities. After what I think was an honest assessment of their talk, I took the argument for (C) to be the following:

P1. In nonhuman animals, there exists a set of sexual activities that our culture would find unacceptable if practiced by humans (e.g., one member of this set is deer threesomes!).
P2. We have evolved to enjoy (some) activities in this set.
P3. Since these activities are part of our natural evolutionary heritage, we ought to explore them (i.e., they are not immoral).
C. The set of all morally permissible sexually activities–i.e., the set of culturally acceptable activities plus the set of “natural-yet-culturally-unacceptable” activities that we ought to explore–is larger than the set of all culturally accepted sexually activities.

To be clear, I agree with (C); it is the argument for (C) that I take issue with.The problem with this argument–as many philosophy students may pick up on–is that P3 is fallacious: just because an act is natural doesn’t mean that that act is right, moral, or ethical. There are many examples that illustrate this fact. For one, we have evolved to eat meat—i.e., it is natural—but it’s not at all clear that eating meat is ethical; there are very strong arguments that support the claim that eating meat is unethical. To consider a more relevant example, sex between adult and juvenile animals occurs naturally among certain types of weasels and primates. But, among humans, such acts are considered immoral by most (and for good reason, since these relationships in humans often cause significant harm to at least one party, they are often non-consensual, etc.).

I notice this fallacy often in scientific discussion, and it is sometimes made by scientists. But philosophers have been warning us about making this mistake so much that they’ve given it a name: the appeal to nature fallacy. Generally speaking, my (admittedly anecdotal) experience suggests that philosophers are more careful with the form of their reasoning than scientists are. As further evidence for this claim, philosophers are notorious for writing their arguments and conclusions explicitly and very carefully; they sometimes even number their premises in the way that I did above. Philosophers follow this practice because they think it removes a lot of potential ambiguity and misinterpretation. Scientists follow this practice less often but I think that, in many instances, doing so would make their work more clear. After all, if explicitly outlining arguments was a standard scientific practice, then I wouldn’t have had to create my own (possibly misinterpreted!) outline of the sex-talk argument above. The point here is that, in so far as scientists use arguments in their work, they are doing philosophy in some sense, and that scientists may have something to learn from philosophers about how to present their arguments more effectively.

This week’s Radiolab provides another example of how philosophical thinking fails to get the credit that it deserves. It’s worth looking at the description of the episode:

The “mind” and “self” were formerly the domain of philosophers and priests. But in this hour of Radiolab, neurologists lead the charge on profound questions like “How does the brain make me?”

The connotation here (if I’m not being overly sensitive to the science-philosophy tension) seems to be that, for centuries, philosophers have spun their wheels with the question of personal identity, but that no serious work has been done until brain scientists caught on to the question. This kind of thinking is problematic for a number of reasons. For one, in an incredibly complicated area such as personal identity, just formulating the right set of questions is difficult. In many areas, philosophers deserve credit for formulating the right questions. Second, as philosopher Alva Noë has argued, neuroscience operates under the philosophical assumption that consciousness and the self are cognitive phenomena that are to be found by studying neural activity in the brain. This assumption is not empirical or “scientific”; it has roots in Cartesian philosophy (and I don’t think it is at all obviously true). Noë’s position, which builds upon work by Martin Heidegger and Maurice Merleau-Ponty, is that we are missing something of fundamental importance if we do not try to understand the self in terms of our embodied existence. Finally, the idea that discoveries in neuroscience (and many other disciplines) are reliable has been called into question by epidemiologist John P. A. Ioannidis. Ioannidis, in the celebrated paper, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” argues that, in “hot” fields where there are small studies, small effect sizes, or great financial interest, many findings are likely to be false (arguably, neuroscience falls into each of these categories). While Ioannidis is not a philosopher, his arguments attack the (poor) statistical reasoning of some scientists. Since statistics is really a formalization of inductive reasoning, it can be understood as a sub-discipline of philosophy. Thus, I think Ioanidis’s criticism of scientific findings is largely a philosophical criticism.

There are many other examples of the importance of philosophy in scientific practice: disputes in the foundations of statistics, the interpretation of probability in modern physics, the definition of life in biology, and the understanding of measurements and mathematical models are all inherently philosophical. We ought to  acknowledge that philosophy place such an important role.




1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Environmental Impacts of Meat-Eating

Climate change—which is thought to be anthropogenic (human-caused) by the vast majority of climate scientists—is projected to have serious impacts on the environment that we depend on, and thus, on our health. For example, it is projected that climate change will increase the frequency of major storms like Hurricane Katrina and Super Storm Sandy; cause sea level rise, and thus serious suffering, in many areas including very rich (New York City) and very poor (Bangladesh) areas; cause water scarcity (this is particularly relevant to Colorado); and increase the prevalence of many diseases and disorders, including malaria, diarrhea, and asthma. An incredibly important question that we now face is, what, if anything, can we do to slow the effects of climate change?

On my most optimistic days, I tend to think that there are things that we can do to slow the effects of climate change (on pessimistic days, I tend to think we’re in serious trouble no matter what). I do my best to take up some of these actions: for example, I try to compost and recycle what I can; this semester, I didn’t buy a parking permit to coerce myself into biking to campus more often; for recent home renovations, I tried my best to buy environmentally friendly items like energy star appliances and recycled materials. While I think that these actions are beneficial if repeated on a large-scale, there’s one action that, if we’re serious about slowing the effects of climate change, we ought to do: reduce our consumption of, or cease all together, eating meat.

I know how bad that sounds. For most Americans, including me, eating meat is a deeply engrained piece of our culture. Even if one is convinced that meat-eating is, in most cases, wrong (and I’m thoroughly convinced that it is), ceasing something so central to our culture is difficult. But we ought not let what is difficult stand on the way of what is right. After all, no one would be convinced that, since ending institutional slavery in the US in the 19th century was difficult, we might as well not have bothered. Instead, we ought to try, as much as we can, to do what is right, independent of how hard it is. That being clear, now comes the difficult part: arguing convincingly that eating meat is wrong.

There are very convincing reasons to believe that eating meat is wrong, especially in the fashion that we produce it, because it causes extreme suffering. My goal is not to make this argument here; rather, I hope to argue that it is wrong because the negative environmental impacts of producing meat are great. Consider some facts about the way that we produce food:

(1) It is estimated that one pound of beef uses between 2500 and 5000 gallons of water; a pound of chicken requires 815 gallons of water. If you know anything about water issues, especially in the western US, you see how much of an issue this is. By contrast a pound of rice requires 400 gallons of water, a pound of potatoes requires 30 gallons and a pound of lettuce requires 15 gallons.

(2) It is estimated that one pound of beef requires almost a quarter of a gallon of oil. A full sized cow requires almost 300 gallons.

(3) The emissions produced by an 8 oz. steak are equivalent to the emissions produced by driving 14 miles.

(4) Since most of the cows that we eat are fed an unnatural diet of corn and grains (rather than grass), they tend to be very gassy (that’s right—they fart a lot). The methane released from cows is thought to be a significant contributor to climate change.

(5) The waste from concentrated animal feeding operations produces some nasty waste, which includes antibiotics, hormones, chemicals, and ammonia and heavy metals. This waste is known to pollute waterways and drinking water.

These facts lend a lot of support to the following claim: Meat production is detrimental to the environment, is a contributor to climate change, and thus, is detrimental to human health. Since it is plausible that we ought not support what is detrimental to human health, if follows that we ought not eat meat (or, at least we ought to greatly reduce our consumption).

What do you think of this argument? Are you convinced of the conclusion? If not, then it must be that, either some claims are false or the argument form is bad. Which is it? Feel free to share by emailing me at bzaharat@mines.edu.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Decisions and Reasons

This morning on Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer discussed Ohio Senator Rob Portman’s change in position on gay marriage. Portman, a Republican, was opposed to same sex marriage until he discovered that his son is gay. Now, he is the only Republican Senator to be in favor of same sex marriage. Schieffer’s editorial seemed to laud, not only Portman’s decision, but also the reason for his decision: “People can have differing views on what constitutes marriage, but wanting a fair shake for your kid is about as good a reason to take a public position as any I can think of. It is after all, the principle on which this nation was founded.”

I also praise Portman’s decision to support gay marriage; there is nothing wrong with being gay, and gay people ought to be afforded the same rights as anyone else. But, unlike Scheiffer, I do not praise Portman’s reasons for supporting gay marriage. I believe this is true because, at its core, the decision to support gay marriage is an ethical decision and requires ethical reasoning.  In general, choosing to support an ethical position simply because the position affects me (or because it affects my family) constitutes a bad reason for supporting it. We ought to consider how our positions would affect anyone, not just those we know or are close to. Ethical reasoning requires  that we detach ourselves from our particular situation and consider what might be best, not just for us and ‘our own’, but for everyone (or everything) involved in the decision.

Whether or not your son is gay should have no bearing on whether or not being gay is wrong. Perhaps if conservatives and Republicans had a better idea of what it means to reason ethically, we might not have to wait until their family members to come out of the closet in order to extend rights to everyone that deserves them.

1 Comment

March 17, 2013 · 12:27 pm

A Season for Giving

And another…

Leave a comment

February 5, 2013 · 8:33 pm