A SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TO MORALITY
p If a person has done some harm, he is likely to be asked: "How could you do such a thing?" He might justify himself: "I wanted things to turn out better.” To this the retort is bound to follow: "It doesn’t matter what you wanted—you should have thought about it!”
p In this demand to "not only wish, but also think" is expressed that which we call the scientific approach to morality. It concerns morality inasmuch as our focus is upon moral evaluation (“I wanted things to turn out better”) and is called “scientific” because it is necessary to think not in a random fashion but so that thoughts correspond with reality and lead to effective solutions. In moral questions, that about which it is "necessary to think" concerns not only the external situation surrounding the person making the decision and acting, but also the authentic meaning underlying his intent to act so that "things turn out better”. It might seem somewhat bombastic to raise to the level of “scientific” the simple requirement that "one must think”. But the scientific approach is only a more developed form of such an approach to a subject which leads to understanding, guides practical activity and offers the possibility of prediction.
p Given the various possible shadings one may give to the notions “ethics” and “morality”, the most important meaning remains to give guidance to the behaviour of a person. Remaining in the sphere of judgements, evaluations and intentions alone and not finding embodiment in real activities, ethics in substance remains empty, unreal. One’s intentions are not enough. The moral intent becomes real only when something is done for the better. But the recognition of this fact leads logically to the necessity of giving a scientific approach to morality.
22p In point of fact intentions are materialized as a result of the activities completed by a given individual. The ensuing material process is dependent not only on the wishes of the individual. There are real conditions underlying such a process and the possibility of action by the individual. Further, there is the logical and necessary inter-connectedness of events, limiting the range of the possible and determining the inevitable consequences. If all of this remains unknown, there . are no guarantees that even the best of intentions can be carried through. To insure a correspondence between intent and result, knowledge and understanding are required. But in any complex situation, knowledge and understanding are not immediately accessible; they have to be sought out. The search for true knowledge is precisely the path of science. Consequently the necessary prerequisite for a true morality is a scientific approach to the problems of morality.
p A scientific approach means, fundamentally, nothing more than to endeavour to investigate, learn about, comprehend and take into consideration that which makes up the reality. In the final analysis, this is simply conscientiousness. There is no gulf between the actions of a scientist and those of a conscientious layman. The only difference is that science operates with a whole arsenal of specialized methods and theoretical constructions while in everyday life people are forced to be guided by worldly observations, common sense and their past experience.
p Thus a scientific approach presupposes a developed sense of moral responsibility which does not allow an individual to restrict himself to subjective opinions of "what is best”. Rather it demands that he come to terms with objectivity, with that which does not hinge upon the opinions and desires of the individual.
p Of course, people are often forced to make decisions and act without being given time to reflect or investigate the circumstances. In these instances a conscientious person will at least try to understand the implications of given actions and decisions, to take mistakes into account and, if possible, to correct them. In this manner we accumulate moral experience which in the future permits us to guess the correct decision even when we lack the necessary knowledge or time to examine in full. We might call such guesswork "moral intuition”. But just as scientific intuition devoid of verification doesn’t give reliable knowledge, so moral intuition requires verification and develops on the basis of comprehension of life and social experience.
23p In speaking of a scientific approach to ethics we take for eranted the existence of at least some morality. In those instances where the choice of decisions is dictated by unmediated feeling or when this choice requires no more than experience, common sense, tradition, the example, or directions provided by someone else—in a word, in the most simple of situations—it is sufficient to follow elementary ethical prescriptions without any scientific approach. For the immoral individual the scientific approach is just as useless as it is for the ignorant who does not want to know and evinces no desire to make use of knowledge.
p In the contemporary world a scientific approach to morality is of particular import since the individual is often confronted with complex moral questions. The requirement to "not only want but also think" becomes ever more important as the volume and depth of the problems facing the individual grow. If an individual makes a judgement without full understanding—for example, if an innocent person is convicted without the proper evidence—this judgement could be in direct contradiction to his personal moral principles. In acting without adequate knowledge, one may in all possibility not achieve the desired result and his moral intentions will remain unrealized. What is worse, he may come to regret the consequences of what he has done. People who give instructions without the necessary expertise or interfere blindly in what they don’t understand, often bring about great harm despite their good intentions. Objectively speaking, they place themselves in a position of moral irresponsibility (as, for example, the manager who doesn’t take the time to examine the task at hand, or the instructor who doesn’t want to understand his students).
p What events are taking place in the world? What is the meaning of these events? What is the meaning of our life activities? These questions are posed, in one form or another, by everyone who leaves the confines of daily routine and tries to define his own moral position. If an individual doesn’t accept everything on faitn, he inevitably confronts these Questions and looks for the necessary knowledge. If the demand for information is not dictated by simple curiosity, it is always underpinned by a moral inquiry. However information in itself yields little, it must be comprehended. In turn, comprehension without serious conceptualization and thought is inconceivable. For this reason factual knowledge and scientific understanding are imperative for the truly thoughtful individual who tries to come to grips with important moral 24 problems. It would be naive to demand that science "explain everything" and provide answers for each and every problem. Nevertheless, science is capable of much and, what is more important, it is the only way to a profound understanding. Without it one is left with only subjective opinion and unfounded assumptions.
p It could be objected that the question of the meaning of life does not fall within the domain of science. But if the answer is not to be sought in the "other world" it must be looked for in the world of reality. It is only through knowledge of the real content of life that a reasonable answer can be given to this question. Thus, even if science does not resolve ethical problems, it does give the individual support and guidance in his quests and his decision-making.
p When we speak of science, we often have in mind mathematics, physics, chemistry and seem to forget the sciences of society and of man. But it is precisely these sciences which are of overriding importance for ethics inasmuch as they study human and social problems and unveil, in particular, the nature of morality itself. These sciences bear upon the inner world of man and, endeavouring to live up to the ancient philosophical maxim: "Know thyself”, they examine man in the unity of his internal and external, objective and subjective, individual and social being. The metaphysical juxtaposition of these aspects of being serves as a source of the gap between science and ethics (when the first is regarded to be directed at the external and the second, at the internal world of the individual). However, since man maintains conscious control over his actions, by virtue of this he becomes an object to himself, not to mention that in the eyes of another person he is something “external”, that the subjective is founded in the objective.
p Those who object against the ties between science and ethics generally point to the fact that science can engender evil and calamities. This, however, is imprecise. Science only discovers that which exists—be it good or bad—or establishes what is possible or impossible according to the laws of nature. New scientific discoveries turn out to be evil or menacing not ipso facto, but only as a consequence of their application when people either fail to foresee or comprehend the results, or consciously utilize the achievements of technology as a source of profit, repression, extortion or murder. Therefore the only possible means to combat the “dangers” of science are a higher :vel of knowledge and an effort, based upon this knowledge, directed against those social forces which would exploit 25 science. Moral indignation must be supported by knowledge to become effective and purposeful.
p When the significance of science for morality comes under discussion, it sometimes happens that misunderstandings arise because science is often regarded as strictly a system of knowledge. Scientific knowledge emerges from the cognitive activities of people who are guided by their efforts to ascertain the" truth. These efforts are submitted to the dictates of experiment and logic and are in fact at the heart of science, without which the latter could not exist. The scientific spirit, with the demands that it entails, namely to examine the facts objectively, to hunt out and to pursue the truth, is important for morality.
p Explanations of the significance of science for morality sometimes are regarded as attempts to “reduce” the latter to a science. But the spirit of science striving towards the truth is incapable of exhausting morality if only because the choice of decisions and actions depends not only upon knowledge and not even upon moral principles in isolation. It happens that people bring harm upon themselves; they are completely aware of this but unable to restrain themselves from such actions. Narcotics control, for example, would be impossible without an explanation of the harm wrought by drugs. To deny this by referring to the insufficiency of explanation by itself would be absurd. It would be just as absurd to deny a scientific approach to morality by declaring that this approach in itself cannot ensure a high level of morals.
p Again, it would be no less absurd to accuse of trying to reduce morality to knowledge alone those who underscore the importance of science for the resolution of problems of morality. Indeed, knowledge states that which is, was and will be; correspondingly, it speaks in the indicative mood. Ethics, on the other hand, command. But from a simple statement of facts no imperatives can be logically adduced. For example, from the statement "you are sick" the imperative "cure yourself" doesn’t necessarily follow. Therefore the reduction of ethics to knowledge or the deduction of ethics from the latter is quite impossible. They are organically interconnected. These interconnections, incidentally, are evident in the example of the sick man, for there is an obvious connection between science (medicine), the instruction to recover and the possibility of effecting a cure.
p Ethics is also expressed in evaluations bearing the form of a statement (for example, "theft is evil”). But in this context an 26 imperative is always taken as a given (“don’t steal”). Thus in the example above the reduction of morality to knowledge is logically impossible, just as it is in the case of a direct moral imperative.
Thus the actual dependence of ethics upon science is not to be located in the reduction of the former to knowledge. The "scientific approach" would not be scientific if it placed its claim over the entire realm of ethics, in a word, if it tried to reduce the latter to a science. It merely emphasizes that a striving towards the knowledge of truth is essential for morality, that without it morality runs the risk of remaining simply that which is desirable, but not real.
Notes