To Be Objective or Not to Be
The purpose of scientific research is to determine what is objectively true. At any one time, the goal is to seek objective truth, even while realizing that subsequent work may supersede earlier efforts. Subjective experiences cannot be confirmed through scientific methods and are not normally within the scope of science. In moral philosophy, the distinction between “objective” and “subjective” is not immediately meaningful. Objectivity is about an assessment of what “is.” Morality is about what “ought” to be. Moral philosophies can be absolutist or relativist. The term moral absolutism implies that at least one moral rule holds universally, regardless of culture, time or place.
It may be tempting to draw comparisons about universality in science and moral philosophy. Science’s search for objective truth seeks universal statements at some level. Absolutist moralities look for universal moral guidance. However, the justifications for universality in moral philosophy do not normally satisfy scientific expectations. In science, any claims of universality are tied to observations. In moral philosophy absolute rules can be the result of divine revelation, which cannot be tested objectively. Encounters with deities are inherently unverifiable. Science expects that predictions can be subjected to testing in some form. Others can attempt to repeat experiments. Even when controlled experiments are impossible, such as in astronomy, observations can be tested for consistency.
Some moral statements can be tied to objective truth. If all life on Earth were to be eradicated, we could consider the outcome to be morally wrong with some level of objectivity (https://annedenton.substack.com/p/the-science-versus-morality-conundrum). Decisions that cause the eradication of life can thereby also be viewed as morally wrong. In moral philosophy, this could be considered an absolutist rule. It is derived by reasoning based on a premise that can be considered unambiguous.
The objective nature of some moral statements that involve science creates paradoxes not only in the context of doomsday scenarios. The swapping of perspectives is a technique used in science and moral philosophy that can result in paradoxical conclusions as well. We will discuss scientific contexts first before combining reasoning based on science and moral philosophy. The scientific expectation of verifiability is a form of comparing perspectives. The outcome of an experiment cannot depend on who conducted it. A result that no one else can confirm will not be accepted as scientific. In 1989 two researchers claimed they could produce nuclear fusion near room temperature. Other groups were not able to confirm the result. The observations of cold fusion are now viewed as objectively invalid.
The idea of asking someone else to check one’s conclusions exists in moral philosophy as well. One of the oldest rules of morality depends on swapping perspectives. To imagine the impact of your actions on another person, try to put yourself into their position. This swap of perspectives is central to the Golden Rule of morality. The Golden Rule is part of religious and secular moralities alike. The phrasing may differ depending on whether we are expected to take action or refrain from it. The general idea remains that taking the perspective of someone else provides us with moral guidance.
Swapping perspectives is also part of the emotion of empathy. Like many nonhuman animals, humans instinctively swap perspectives with other individuals and act on their needs. Instinctual empathy is not the same as a reasoned application of the Golden Rule. Instinctive responses are fast, and slower reasoned evaluations may result in different conclusions. Empathy might lead a person to give coins to someone who begs for money. A reasoned application of the Golden Rule may rather suggest donating to a food bank. Both actions help one or more persons in need.
So what does perspective swapping say about the moral concepts of absolutism and relativism? There is no simple answer. We could use the Golden Rule to support moral relativism as much as absolutism. To argue for an absolutist interpretation consider two characters Alice and Bob. Assume that Alice examines the moral implications of punching Bob. Without reference to belief systems, we can note that the positions could be flipped. If it was acceptable for Alice to punch Bob, Bob could similarly punch Alice. If Alice wants to prevent being hurt by Bob, it would be advisable to respect Bob’s right to remain unhurt. This type of logic is sometimes used to argue for considering the rule “Do not kill” as an absolute rule. Assuming no one wants to be killed, no one should kill.
The Golden Rule can be equally used to argue for a relativist morality. Consider a mother and daughter immersed in a society, in which women are expected to wear a veil. The mother may offer advice that is consistent with their culture. She may know or believe that it would be unsafe or morally wrong for her daughter not to wear a veil. The advice is what the mother would have wanted to receive from her own mother. The mother evaluates the situation from her recollection of being in the position of the daughter. Yet, the same advice may seem unacceptable to a mother and daughter in a society that considers veils as means of discriminating against women. Moral relativism could conclude that both mothers behave morally right, even while the advice to their daughters is incompatible. When multiple cultures are involved, the Golden Rule may be less strict than absolute moralities. We might conclude that the Golden Rule is intermediate between relativism and absolutism.
This is where things get paradoxical. In some scientific scenarios the Golden Rule can be more objective and universal than typical absolutist moralities. Consider the prevention of a doomsday due to climate change. Swapping perspectives with a future person, suggests that we have a moral obligation to prevent a doomsday. We know the limits to sustainable resource consumption. Environmental footprints were derived for this purpose. They offer objective and quantitative guidance for our behavior. We can quantitatively determine the maximum resource consumption for any one of us to be consistent with moral expectations. Not even the most absolutist moralities discussed in moral philosophy are as quantitative.
To be sure, few other aspects of morality are as open to quantitative arguments as resource consumption. The quantitative results of footprint analysis do not even strictly produce actionable guidance to individuals. Someone living in the developed world has almost no way to meet the constraints. Even if such a person were to give up a normal lifestyle to live sustainably, there is no obvious path by which that would change the projected global outcome. Greta Thunberg is among the most effective people trying to create change. Yet, her impact is the result of political action more than her lifestyle alone.
Resource overconsumption and its resulting climate impacts are inherently more quantifiable than most moral problems. The Golden Rule is less precise when applied to traditional moral dilemmas. Individuals can differ in their moral values. A rancher may conclude that because he would like to be served steak, his guests will too. A vegetarian or vegan guest will probably disagree. Alice might appreciate honest feedback on clothing, but Bob may not like to have his outfit criticized. Even the mother-daughter example becomes less clear when a family moves to a country with a different culture.
The philosopher John Rawls proposed a more robust prescription for testing the moral consistency of rules. His “veil of ignorance” recognizes that different people can have different cultures, beliefs, livelihoods, and financial means. Rawls recommended that a lawmaker should imagine experiencing a proposed law from any station in society and only enact it if it appears appropriate from each of them. This phrasing resembles ideas scientists use for testing the soundness of hypotheses. Consider talking with someone who believes that Earth is flat. A simple question to ask is what happens at the edge. The perspective of a hypothetical sailor sailing off the edge of the Earth is not plausible.
Scientists use changes in perspectives in much of what they do. Calculating even basic mechanical properties of objects is much easier when switching to a convenient coordinate system. The basis for changing reference frames is that, under certain conditions, the results remain the same. The condition for allowing a change is called “invariance.” A scientist or engineer can convert a problem to any reference frame if the laws of motion are invariant under that change. In mechanics, this is the case for inertial frames.
Typical conclusions from Rawls’ veil of ignorance would not qualify as objective by scientific or moral standards. Any moral reasoning involves values. Apart from an eradication of all life on Earth, values are not normally objective. Even the death of an individual person may involve context. If the shooter in a mass shooting is killed, few people consider that death as morally equivalent to that of one of the victims. Most values are subjective or culturally dependent at some level. Other aspects of Rawls’ philosophy, such as the idea of a social contract or the principles he derived, are even less grounded in science.
The paradox of objectivity is not that classic moral dilemmas can be solved by science. Normally they cannot. The paradox is rather that there are some aspects of moral philosophy that allow scientific reasoning and deriving quantitative results by means of swapping perspectives. The most directly relevant examples are adherence to resource consumption limits given by environmental footprints. Paradoxically, those are barely considered to be within the scope of moral philosophy. Few introductory moral philosophy texts as much as mention them. Some of the most serious paradoxes between science and moral philosophy involve the scope of reasoning as much as the conclusions.