Adapting Albert
Einstein’s 1941 speech, The Laws of Science and The Laws of Ethics
Starting at http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/my-friend-einstein/ but corrected to the referenced book. There are other essays that spring from this one; it's purpose is to stay close to Einstein's essay but add examples to interpret his statements, right or wrong. Be attentive to quotations and the warmth of Einstein's expressions.
Humankind employs a process for understanding,
which applies in both physics and ethics. Both each person and humankind seeks
comprehension of “relations which are thought to exist independently.” For
examples, extraterrestrial life either exists or not, regardless of humankind’s
expectations, and mutual appreciation is more satisfying than hate, regardless
of the civic culture.
In physics, statements of comprehension
may be cosmic discoveries, for example, that the universe is expanding.
There are equations or statements of equality, as in elementary
mathematics: 2+2=4, as 2 apples plus 2
oranges equals 4 fruit; contrary statements, like 2+2=5 (2 exceeds 2), occur in
games and art, for example, to metaphorically express the illusion that team
effort exceeds the sum of members’ contributions.
Comprehension is not “supposed to” apply
in the intellectual world or civic world (necessary human connections), such as ethics, but does. For
example, consider the conflicting 1+1=1; as in my god plus your god=my god or
your part of the summation is zero: 1=0, yielding "our" god. Together we consider “Your god is our god,” but recall we have differing traditions
and hold personal views, yet appreciate each other: We agree that 1+1=2 or 1=1.
On the other hand, the Dali Lama, I think erroneously, said, ““The law of action and reaction is not exclusively for
physics. It is also of human relations.
If I act with goodness, I will receive goodness.
If I act with evil, I will get evil.”[1]
However, in human relations, reciprocity often fails; the Dali himself is a forced exile. Thus, comprehensions have a common characteristic: each comprehension is “’true or false’ [or uncertain] (adequate or inadequate) . . . reaction . . . is ‘yes’ or ‘no’ [or ‘we do not know’].” Paraphrasing, each comprehension may be expressed: either true or false or we do not know.
However, in human relations, reciprocity often fails; the Dali himself is a forced exile. Thus, comprehensions have a common characteristic: each comprehension is “’true or false’ [or uncertain] (adequate or inadequate) . . . reaction . . . is ‘yes’ or ‘no’ [or ‘we do not know’].” Paraphrasing, each comprehension may be expressed: either true or false or we do not know.
The process for understanding “has a
further characteristic.” Comprehension does not express emotions. “For the [searcher],
there is only ‘being,’ but no wishing”; no praising; no agenda; no ideology; no
pride; no contradiction; no brutality; no goal beyond comprehension. Each individual who seeks
understanding perseveringly rejects coercion from anyone, yet also behaves so
as to not coerce anyone. When we recognize self-persuasion, we stop; we strive
to discover self-contradiction and eliminate it. Guided by understanding, we need
not respond to doctrine, like, “’Thou shalt not lie.’”
Yet, “we do not feel at all that it
is meaningless to ask such questions as: ‘Why should we not lie?’ We feel that
such questions are meaningful because in all [ethical considerations] some . .
. premises are tacitly taken for granted. We then feel satisfied when we
succeed in tracing back the ethical directive in question to these basic
premises. In the case of lying this might perhaps be done like this: Lying
destroys confidence in the statements of other people. Without such confidence,
social cooperation is made impossible or at least difficult.” For example,
after the lie, the liar may fear future dialogue with the deceived party, who,
in turn, may sense the liar’s apprehension. Or, judging from his own behavior,
the liar may suspect the deceived party is also a liar. “[C]ooperation,
however, is essential to make human life possible”, even worthy of appreciation.
Thus, our commitment, “‘[We shall] not lie,’ has been traced back to the
demands: ‘Human life shall be preserved’ and ‘Pain and sorrow shall be lessened
as much as possible.’” The civic person gravitates toward cooperative autonomy,
yet complete integrity.
Thus, it seems the process for
understanding can apply to ethics. “[E]thical
directives can be made rational and coherent by logical thinking and empirical
knowledge. If we can agree on some fundamental ethical propositions, then other
propositions can be derived from them, provided that the original premises are
stated with sufficient precision.” For example, persons expect appreciation
to overcome hatred. “Such ethical premises play a similar role in ethics,
to that played by axioms in mathematics.”
“But what is the origin of such
ethical axioms? Are they arbitrary? Are they based on mere authority? Do they
stem from [humankind’s experiences], and are they conditioned by such
experiences?”
“For pure logic all axioms seem
arbitrary, including the axioms of ethics. But they are by no means arbitrary
from a psychological and genetic point of view. They are derived from our
inborn tendencies to avoid pain and annihilation and from the accumulated . . .
reaction[s] of individuals to the behavior[s] of their neighbors.” Just as
physics exists and can only be discovered, ethics exists and can only be
discovered. Just as physics may be vainly denied, ethics may be immorally denied.
“It is the privilege of [humankind’s]
ethical genius . . . to advance ethical axioms which are so comprehensive and
so well founded that [persons accept] them as grounded in the vast mass of
their individual . . . experiences,” the accumulation of experiences from more
than 100 billion lives over some two million to three million years. For an individual to learn ethics
is a daunting quest, because humans are born totally uniformed. Nevertheless, each
person has the potential to enjoy some sixty years to mature and to help
fulfill and expand the ethical axioms of humankind. The gift of life presents
the opportunity and its potentials for joy.
“Ethical axioms are found and tested
not very differently from” the physical axioms. [Understanding] is what stands
the test of experience” and approaches the objective truth.
Addendum
Einstein’s discussion, I believe,
was for a cooperative audience, in which case even “white lies” merely prolong
the inevitable submission to the objective truth. Even the cancer patient’s
question, “Am I going to die,” may be answerable. For example, “We’re going to
do everything we can to prevent it,” or, “In time.” Even a child’s innocence
can be transitioned without mendacity. For example, a child wise enough to ask
if Santa is real gains confidence to hear something like, “Yes: Santa is a metaphor--an
annual reminder to maintain goodwill toward all people.”
The need to deceive the enemy is
obvious. However, the deceit must be carefully crafted and executed; obvious
deviations from established principles will be accepted by only the most
uninformed or gullible person.
Copyright: July 12, 2012. Phillip R. Beaver, author and
creator, revised February 20, 2014, July 24, 2015. Copy
only with permission.
No comments:
Post a Comment