Science and ethics can coexist perfectly in a single space. There are two points: the first is what ethics can give to science, and the second is what science brings to ethics. Science is moving forward, and we are always dealing with new problems that we have not thought about before — for example, the ethical perfection of a human. About 20 years ago, we could not even think that some pills could improve the functioning of our brain. Moreover, with the help of surgeries and medicine nowadays we can become more attractive. All this affects a variety of moral disputes: does it not contradict human nature, and where is the border that we cannot cross in such interventions in the human body? On top of that, we can now decide how our children will look like or even be like – character, temperament, personality.
In the past, it was a kind of lottery, but now there are more and more opportunities to influence the development of the embryo. These are the problems that science throws into the public field. However, can we answer these questions, we still lack adequate ethical arguments. So far these are just interesting topics for discussion. It is challenging to move from science to morality, from facts to values. However, in theory, there is one way to do this. Suppose we all agree that option A is better than option B in the moral dilemma. Suppose now that we are faced with a new moral dilemma and two other solutions: X and Y. We do not know which of them is right. Science, namely the same decision-making process, which leads us to the conclusion that option A is better than option B, will likewise help decide that X in the second situation is better than Y. Also, this gives us some evidence (fragile, of course) that X is better than Y.
Neurobiology is the brainchild of the scientific field because MRI scanners and similar technologies have become available to researchers relatively recently. On the one hand, of course, we knew even without them that when we make moral decisions, something happens in the brain. Decision-making is not the product of some mysterious, illusory and intangible processes. Can science tell us something about morality? My answer is yes. Empirical disciplines give us some insight that most of us are right.
127 our experts are availableright now
I’m assuming that some psychologists will support the idea that if a person grew up in lack of love and attention, then he will probably have a shortage of high moral values in adulthood. But if a person has a basic upbringing (and, as a result, a basic set of values), he will most likely become a follower of morality, close in its aspects to the concept of the morality of all people, regardless of whether they live in London, Moscow or the middle of Africa. At the same time, that kind of moral grammar exists within us, which is not activated if a person does not have an adequate upbringing. I want to say that most people grow up believing (with some variations) about the same things.
I believe that morality can be objective. I think the best analogy is the color. If we look at a red object, such as a tomato, it is objectively red – unless we are color blind or do not look at it through sunglasses. However, for the realization of color, a person is needed and his experience: if no one is looking at this tomato, it makes no sense to say that it is red. That is, the color will be real only if there is someone who looks at it, but this subjective experience does not make the color less objective. If a color-blind person says that a tomato is orange or purple, he will be mistaken. So, I think that color is objective, and that morality is objective in a similar way: it needs a person.
Interestingly, most likely people assume morality as something subjective – because It is just an opinion. However, the same people are outraged by something that someone did wrong. Anger is meaningless if the whole thing is just opinions. It makes no sense to get annoyed at someone’s behavior if all this is relative. Therefore, morality is objective. Modern Australian philosopher Peter Singer – a well-known activist of the animal rights movement and an adherent of utilitarianism – believes that we should always act from the best consequences of these actions.
Singer believes that neuroscience will help us with this. The emotional part of the brain gives a person some useful skills, such as the ability to make decisions very quickly. However, he believes that quick decisions are often wrong. One of the central beliefs of Singer is that nature has not provided us with everything necessary for modern life. For example, we evolved in small groups, and we know most of the people in this group. However, we have not evolved in a globalized world in which we can influence human life on the other side of the earth. We believe that we must jump into the lake to save a drowning child, even if it costs us a pair of shoes for $300. However, we do not consider ourselves obliged to spend the same $300 on charity in order to save one life in a country full of poverty and disease.
