Science Based Morality?

A common argument I hear is that we can not use science to define or set human values, nor tell us what we “should” do. Why not? In a very basic example, let’s split society in half, have one of them punish criminals in a traditional sense and the other one restoratively rehabilitate those who trespass. Then we can measure crime rates and rates of reintegration into society. We might then have evidence to suggest a path forward, depending on what we care about. Do we care about making sure people get what they deserve, or do we care about lowering crime rates and making more people have tax paying jobs?

We are wired to care about our immediate state of physical sensations and emotions, in fact these are expressions of the most basic of survival mechanisms. Additionally, the human mind generates a sense of meaning, a more long-term sense of our integration with the world that may require short term sacrifices. Our organisms’ survival mechanisms and abstracted motivations exist inside of us at the exact same time and if we do not actively cultivate meaning we will by default care about and seek activities that maximize immediate gratification.

But how to know what we should care about at all? ”Science can’t tell us what to care about!” To be alive is to care and to not care is merely the velocity to which we approach an early demise. Subconsciously we have neurologic cares baked into us about food, air, water, and social contact. We can use science to explore ourselves to better understand our physiological, social, and spiritual needs, the bases for which we construct meaning.

Science based morality acknowledges that as a function of merely being alive we have to care, otherwise we will cease to exist. We have some degree to choose what to care about and how to cultivate meaning. We can use evidence and science to help us achieve goals as they align with the meaning we construct. When we use transparent scientific tools to help us clarify our values, and hence morals, we don’t have to rely on moral structures that ignore what we really are and where we’ve come from. What’s more meaningful than teaching this to children in a safe environment?

If this intrigues you, check you Sam Harris’ Moral Landscape.