Atheist Mind, Humanist Heart

by Lex Bayer

  Let’s say one common preference is a desire not to be lied to by others. It would be beneficial for most members of the society to promote this value to others to reinforce and strengthen its influence—not least because a few others might not agree with this value in the first place, and even those who do might decide not to always adhere to it.

  So how might members of this society decide to promote such a value? They might tell each other directly how they feel about that value and share anecdotes about the bad things that happened to people when they were lied to. Members might shame and reprimand a person who transgresses or actively spread information about a person’s reputation as a liar. They might teach this value directly to children in schools through fables and stories. They might even create laws to punish people who tell particularly destructive types of lies such as libel and slander.

  Through these various methods, it soon will become widely known in this society that telling a lie is wrong, and sometimes even criminal.

  By doing this, the society will have established an ethical norm. A norm can have a strong influence on individuals within a society. Suppose that you are a citizen in this society and didn’t originally have the preference for not lying as one of your five moral preferences. You will soon find that when you lie to other people, they rebuke and shun you because truthfulness is one of their preferences. It won’t be long before you come to realize that by adopting the moral norm of not lying, you can increase your personal life-happiness because other members of the society will treat you better, and you’ll feel more socially accepted.

  That’s how basic ethical norms have emerged. But we’re not saying that the majority perspective is automatically moral. After all, a majority of Americans at one point incorrectly thought women should not be allowed to vote. What we are saying is that societal norms can have a great influence on the moral preferences of individuals in any society. This influence, together with a person’s upbringing and life experiences, will contribute to the way that person forms moral preferences.

  How Ethical Norms Evolve Over Time

  Before we explore how members in a society debate ethical perspectives and how we value the strength of one person’s perspective to another’s, let’s explore a little deeper into how ethical norms develop within societies.

  Societal ethics are behavioral systems espoused by a group of individuals who combine in a society. As such, they are man-made constructs that reflect the happiness preferences of each person as they relate to themselves and to other members of society. To better understand how these systems emerge, we can draw an analogy with another form of man-made societal construct—systems of government.

  Over the centuries, various types of government have been tried as a way to create cohesive societies. For example, since ancient Greece, there have been numerous experiments in democracy—electoral democracies, parliamentary democracies, multiparty democracies, and democratic republics, to name a few. Democracies themselves have evolved over the centuries in response to the many adjustments to the laws and constitutions of these democracies. Today’s democracies are the product of much refinement, and they rest on the collective wisdom of many societies, thinkers, and politicians.

  Consider for example how democracy in the United States changed the process for electing the vice president. Before 1803, the runner-up in the election of the president became the vice president. In the elections of 1796 and 1800, it became evident that this system had serious flaws—not least that the new vice president was as much an opponent as an ally of the president.

  To fix this, the Twelfth Amendment was passed by Congress in 1803, requiring that votes for the president and vice president be distinct. The system evolved even further in 1940 when Franklin Delano Roosevelt became the first presidential candidate to name a running mate before the election. The system we now have in place for electing the president and vice president is the product of adjustments made over more than two centuries in response to flaws in the system.

  If we examine the various forms of democracies that have existed, certain concepts have consistently emerged, such as the concepts of tallying votes and collecting taxes. Others vary more widely, such as the role of representatives in government. Compare the presidential republic form of democracy in the United States with the parliamentary form of democracy in the United Kingdom. Both systems tally votes, and both systems tax their populations, but their electoral processes differ. The U.S. president is elected by popular vote, whereas the British prime minister is the leader of the winning party.1

  When looking at the formation of systems of government, two key insights emerge:

  Systems of government evolve over time, and

  They trend toward common practices, such as the collection of taxes.

  Let’s apply each of these ideas to ethical systems.

  Unlike objective moral views, which would remain constant throughout time, subjective ethics evolve in light of the changing viewpoints of the citizens of a given society. At the same time, society’s views on ethics have emerged over time through the contemplation and experimentation of many generations of societies and thinkers.

  What this means is that modern views about societal ethics don’t exist in isolation. Rather, they are the product of observations, trends, and debate over millennia. In the near term, governments evolve when new laws are passed or when new officials are elected. Our happiness preferences may evolve as we experience or learn about new things. So too may commonly accepted ethical standards change over time as people try new things, observe the results of certain systems and behaviors, and embrace new concepts and technologies.

  An example of a behavior whose ethical status has seen a dramatic change is slavery, which was commonplace three centuries ago but now is almost universally condemned as unethical. Many advocates for slavery promoted the financial benefits of slave ownership. Others would stand on religious authority and cite Biblical verses such as, “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything you do.”2 Over time, the tide turned, and antislavery reformers like William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, and Harriet Beecher Stowe were ultimately successful in making the case that we would be better off extending basic human rights to all people. Over time, growing moral and political support for the abolition of slavery persuaded enough Americans, each with his or her own particular experiences and preferences, and the ethical landscape shifted. Eventually the laws themselves were changed to forbid slavery. We can see from this example how societal ethics can evolve over time.

  How to Debate Ethics

  Now let’s look at the way societal ethics trend toward specific practices. Just as features like taxation have become almost universally accepted in democracies of all kinds, certain common features have emerged in societal ethics over time and have become almost universally accepted. For example, it’s hard to find a modern society without prohibitions against murder, rape, and theft. While there are significant differences between the ethical frameworks in these societies, all tend to agree that these crimes are unacceptable. Granted, each may have different reasons for holding these positions, but the fact that they all get there one way or another reinforces the validity of these concepts. Despite all the experimentation with ethical frameworks and attempts at living pleasurable lives within societies, no practical ethical system has emerged that negates these basic prohibitions. That’s when you know you must be doing something right.

  Some people who argue against subjective ethics claim that if ethics are only subjective, there’s no way to debate ethical standards with others (or, stated differently, that all opinions on ethics would be meaningless). Clearly, this is not the case. The mere fact that our opinions and your opinions are both subjective doesn’t mean we can’t sensibly debate between the two. Subjective doesn’t mean “without reasons.” You might just convince us that your reasons are a better fit even for our own self-interests.r />
  Just as we can intelligently and meaningfully debate about different forms of government, we also can thoughtfully discuss different opinions on ethics. While it might be unclear whether a parliamentary system is intrinsically more beneficial to its citizens than a presidential republic, both would seem to be more beneficial than, say, a totalitarian dictatorship or a government that arbitrarily assigns roles via a lottery system.3

  Sam Harris makes a similar point in his book The Moral Landscape, using the example of how we think about food. No one would claim that there must be one objectively correct food to eat. Yet, as Harris explains, we can still discuss the differences between foods, both in terms of their effects on our health and in terms of which foods might taste the best. So why would we think there has to be one objectively correct moral action in any given circumstance for us to have a discussion about morality? Just as there are different tastes in food, so too are there different tastes in morality—even though some may conflict with the collective good.4 We aren’t committing ourselves to the absurd perspective that all moral views are equal, only admitting that there isn’t one absolute moral option.

  So if we can meaningfully debate ethical questions in a society, how do we go about doing so? One path may be discussing the way a given ethical standard is likely to affect the future life-happiness of the members of the society. A discussion of societal ethics is basically a conversation about hypothetical worlds governed by certain principles and rules, one that speculates on how such worlds would appeal to our own happiness and to the happiness of others. We can debate the likely consequences of a particular system and guess which systems would create the greatest life-happiness for people in the society. But we start with a clear assumption that each person wants to live in a society that will enhance his or her own happiness as well as that of others.

  You may recall that one of Pete’s five desires is to have multiple wives. He mentions this to a few prospective wives and tells them why he thinks this will lead to greater life-happiness for both himself and for them. He tells them of all the joys they can expect to experience being married to him, as well as the shared benefits they can have from multiple mothers looking after their communal children.

  The prospective wives beg to differ. They tell Pete that such a concept doesn’t appeal to them. They point out to Pete that whenever polygamy has been tried throughout history, it has never turned out very well for the women involved. They tell Pete that, in their opinion, their life-happiness will be most enhanced through a committed, monogamous relationship with a faithful husband. They tell Pete that they have no interest in marrying a man with such antiquated moral preferences. Finally, they tell Pete to “take a hike.”

  Taken aback, Pete considers his options and the effect they might have on his own life-happiness. He decides he can:

  Continue to approach other women until he finds some who are more amenable to polygamy.

  Deceive women into thinking he would be faithful.

  Move to another society where attitudes toward marriage are different.

  Actively try to reform his existing society by convincing others of the benefits of polygamy.

  Change his view of polygamy.

  After pondering these various options, Pete realizes that making polygamy a high priority will require him to sacrifice many other happiness preferences. He might have to compromise on the type of women he could be with, because the requirement “fine with polygamy” will seriously reduce the pool of candidates. He might have to compromise on the type of society he’d like to live in.

  Ultimately, Pete decides that his personal life-happiness is most likely optimized by repressing his desire to have multiple wives and conforming to the prevailing moral wisdom that monogamous marriages are conducive to optimizing the life-happiness of members of this society.

  Is Pete’s conclusion reasonable? There’s no absolute moral truth to whether monogamy is moral, but there are definitely more or less reasonable perspectives. For example, it would be unreasonable for Pete to espouse polygamy just because he thinks he’s a superior lover compared to other males and so has a moral obligation to take multiple wives.

  On the other hand, it seems reasonable for Pete to conclude that, although his sexual desires aren’t confined to a single woman, the commitment of marriage as understood by other members of society, including the women he would consider marrying, is a commitment to a monogamous relationship.

  In other words, we can expect that reasonable people living in a particular society will have certain basic moral preferences. Just because there’s no absolute moral code that dictates that murder is unethical doesn’t mean that we should be surprised when members of a society raised under similar circumstances come to the common conclusion that murder is immoral.

  The basic level of intelligence and social exposure that most kids have by the time they graduate high school would make certain shared moral views pretty likely. We can expect most rational young adults to conclude that murder is bad for societies. Any normally adjusted young adult will have learned enough about the way the world works to recognize and value the desire of others to live their lives unharmed.5 It’s hard to imagine any rational young person, much less an adult, who conceives of a society in which rampant murder would be a benefit. Or, that he or she might be able to convince others that such a society would be an improvement over the one they’ve got.

  Even in a system of subjective morality, certain fundamental morals will emerge almost universally, just as taxation has emerged almost universally in systems of government. This isn’t because some absolute order exists in the universe to dictate that it be this way. Rather, it’s the product of many rational people in a society who want to maximize their own life-happiness coming to similar reasonable conclusions based on life experiences, the teachings of previous generations, the lessons of history, and the simple benefits that come from societies that promote cooperation.

  Of course, so far we’ve focused our examples on clear-cut ethical issues like murder, rape, lying, and stealing. But a lot of morality falls across a spectrum in which the preferences of individuals are harder to predict. There’s no consensus on how much a person ought to donate to charity, for example. And should we regulate people’s eating habits with laws such as New York City’s effort to ban big soft drink servings or trans fats?

  The fact that some issues are less clear doesn’t change how we debate societal ethics. It just emphasizes that there are a lot of gray areas created when we try to make sense of the complex balance between our own life-happiness preferences as individuals and the preferences of others.

  We should also acknowledge the role of the environment or society in determining what ethical principles people can be expected to adopt. Consider how much easier it is to not steal when you live in a prosperous society where food is abundant. If you live in a deeply impoverished area and are constantly malnourished, you’re far more likely to abandon that particular moral principle in the presence of an unguarded loaf of bread.

  Laws and Morality

  No discussion about societal ethics is complete without some attention to the role of laws. Certain rules of behavior lead to more productive societies, so societies have decreed that some principles should be explicitly defined and enforced, not just left to the individual to come to rational conclusions. These rules are called laws. Laws or legal rules differ from moral rules in that they are narrowly prescribed and defined, and they carry clear penalties for people who violate them. Laws, together with government-sanctioned enforcement structures such as courts, police, and prisons, are used to promote certain types of behaviors and to discourage others.

  In most democracies, many of these laws coincide with moral sentiments and are removed or updated over time as society develops and ethical viewpoints evolve. There’s often an interesting time lag between the laws of a society and the moral perspectives
of the people living in that society. The members of each generation must assess the laws of the previous generation to decide if they want to continue with the same laws or change them. Consider the evolution of U.S. law with respect to interracial marriage. The United States Racial Integrity Act of 1924 banned interracial marriage between white people and black people. After time passed and American attitudes readjusted, the new electorate reconsidered the question and rejected the viewpoints of previous generations.

  It’s shocking to realize that the interracial marriage of the parents of Barack Obama, the president of the United States at this writing, was illegal in twenty-two U.S. states at the time of his birth.6

  Laws form a basic framework for the individuals of a society to function collectively. Punitive measures like monetary fines, public shaming, or prison time are designed to influence a person’s behavior. These punishments would clearly affect a person’s perceived life-happiness, so they act as a deterrent.

  It’s the interplay among laws, societal ethics, and our own life-happiness that we contemplate when facing ethical decisions. The choice to be a comparatively moral person is easier in the context of a society with well-considered ethical laws, since breaking these laws will usually fail to optimize a person’s life-happiness. In other words, laws often set up an incentive structure that aligns individual self-interest with behavior that benefits society at large.

  Modern elected governments adjust to the sentiments of the electorate, so over time the laws of these governments tend to line up with the views of the majority and, therefore, with popular ethics. That’s not to say that laws are a substitute for morality7 or that there won’t be certain laws that clash with an individual’s subjective morals (indeed, both authors of this book oppose the death penalty). But over the long term, the laws of a society tend to correlate with the moral perspectives of the majority. Many of the most fundamental and least controversial morals may well become enshrined as laws, which can make it that much easier for us to choose to act morally.