To Be Happy

A few weeks ago I said that those of us who don’t believe in the supernatural really need to get our act together and discuss our own moral philosophy, given that we don’t have one handed down to us on tablets of stone. We are often charged by “believers” as being immoral or amoral, as if the only alternative to Christian or any other religious doctrine is bestial anarchy. So today I thought I’d air my own moral philosophy for your examination. It’s very simple to state and very hard to implement, and it goes like this:

Each of us should strive to create the most happiness, for the most ‘people’, for the longest time.

That’s it. No detailed list of commandments; no Heaven or Hell as incentives; no advice as to how to go about it, even. But there are several things I need to explain:

First, it’s a variant on something that the philosopher Jeremy Bentham once said, and hence is a form of Utilitarianism. Someone very close to me once described this as “a bleak philosophy”, and maybe she’s right, although at the time she was the innocent victim of my best attempt to stick to it, so it’s not easy to tell. However, just because Bentham and I had a similar idea this doesn’t mean I believe everything Bentham believed. For one thing I don’t think that you can quantify happiness (or pleasure), as he attempted to do, and create definitive rules about it; for another I have absolutely no plans to have myself embalmed and stuck in a glass case.

Perhaps the most important difference from Bentham is that I’ve added “for the longest time” to the end, because without this it is an incitement to Hedonism. He did include this in his “Felicific Calculus” but I think it needs emphasising. In Bentham’s time, global warming, the loss of natural resources to human-induced entropy, and the threat to humanity caused by weapons whose force exceeds our competence, were not recognised issues. But now we can see that we have often given ourselves happiness at the expense of those yet to be born. This is not a good thing. Obviously we can’t account for the consequences of our actions millions of years into the future. Also, our own happiness today is a vital part of future generations’ happiness – if we don’t thrive and prosper then they may not even come to exist, or they may not get a good and enlightened head start in life. Nevertheless, “party, party, party!” is not a good basis for a moral philosophy. In general, there are always more people yet to be born than are existing today, and so future generations must count very highly in our choices.

Notice also that I’ve put “people” in quotes. This is because I don’t know who counts as a person. It’s clearly nonsense to presume that personhood extends evenly thoughout the human species but nowhere beyond. For one thing we don’t even know how to define the human species as it stands today (let alone in the past and future). It seems equally nonsensical to me to go to the other extreme and include all living systems in the category of personhood, for much the same reasons. A bacterium can “experience pain and pleasure”, in the sense that some things that happen to it provide a threat or advantage to its survival, and hence alter its behaviour. But I think few of us would suggest that a bacterium can be happy or unhappy in the sense we mean it for ourselves. To be happy, it seems to me you need to be conscious. Not all living things are conscious. But we don’t know what consciousness is, or which creatures have it. This is why neuroscience, psychology, comparative anatomy, artificial intelligence and artificial life are such important subjects. We need to work this out.

Happiness is also different from pleasure, and pleasure is not always the same as survivability. So why happiness? It seems such a nebulous and selfish beast. But it’s what you want, isn’t it? You want to be happy. You don’t want to be unhappy. I’m the same. I can’t imagine anyone who wants anything different. Some people may say that they want to be unhappy, but in that case the opportunity and right to be miserable is what makes them happy, almost by definition. And happiness is relative. There are millions of poor people, living life on the edge, who nevertheless are happy. There are many rich people, who have all that money can buy, who are desperately unhappy. We should feel as sorry for them as anyone else who is unhappy. We should feel as pleased for the happy poor as we do for the happy rich. Happpiness is what we all want. Wealth, security, comfort and peace are more likely to make us happy, but those aren’t the ultimate goal. Happiness is a strange and ill-defined concept, but it’s overwhelmingly important for the conscious mind. If we aren’t happy then we are suffering, and it seems to me that suffering is self-evidently bad.

But the most important thing about this “most happiness” philosophy is that we simply don’t know how to adhere to it, and almost certainly never will. Even if I knew for sure which organisms can experience happiness, there’s no way I can be confident about which actions will maximise that happiness. You can’t (as Bentham attempted to) measure happiness, and you can’t be certain how any action you take will pan out. Sometimes we do our utmost to make everyone happy and end up making them miserable, because things pan out in a different way than we could have foreseen. But the point is, we should TRY to foresee. It should guide our actions and intentions. And we should be judged according to our intentions and efforts – there’s a big difference between misery caused by malice and misery caused by an honest mistake.

This is where my form of utilitarianism is radically different from, say, the Ten Commandments (it’s far more similar to the “Do as you would be done by” Christian moral principle that I wrote about a few weeks ago). Moral codes like those in the Old Testament and Koran tell people exactly what they should do under specific circumstances. They are definitive. Jews even know for sure when it is “wrong” to turn on a light switch. Sometimes it takes some deep and meaningful discussion to figure out the details but they can rely on clerics to debate stuff like that (and anyway they can usually find a Gentile to switch it on for them). Moral CODES like this are very comforting: you know what you’re supposed to do and you don’t have to think too hard about it. But such codes are also ludicrous. They are absurd. They are often very counterproductive. What we need is not codes but moral PRINCIPLES.

Everyone should know by now how stupid it is to follow the letter of the law and flout its spirit. But detailed laws actually encourage people to act that way. It was a good compromise in the days before education, but now many of us have no such excuse. No codified law can possibly account for every circumstance, and often the letter of the law has the opposite effect to its spirit. The European Union is stuffed full of attempts to codify detailed exceptions to laws that clearly don’t always make sense. And the more exceptions the lawmakers include, the more loopholes and absurdities they actually create.

Sometimes this has only silly consequences. If people really want to adhere to anachronistic rules about eating pork, even after the advent of refrigeration and food hygeine standards, then that’s up to them. But sometimes it’s very, very dangerous. Many young men are killing themselves and innocent bystanders every day because they believe they’re adhering to religious law. Whole wars have been fought because one society’s little rituals don’t agree with someone else’s. Strict adherence to laws, regardless of logic or compassion is what puts the “dog” in “dogma”. It is what gives people excuses to do harm while claiming to do good. It is a dirty, shameful COP-OUT on the part of ordinary people.

The advantage of my approach is that I don’t have a clue how to implement it. I can’t look down a list to find my answers. I don’t have the comfort of pointing at a rule to excuse myself for making a mistake and causing unwarranted grief. I have to think very hard all the time, to work out to the best of my ability what I should do to make the most people happiest, because sometimes that involves deliberately making myself or other people unhappy. It makes it clear to me that every decision I take has consequences, and so, for that matter, do the times when I fail to take a decision. It puts the onus on me to think, instead of acting like an automaton.

But it’s a guide. It’s a goal. It’s something to measure my progress by. And the sheer lack of definitive rules means that I have to be constantly aware that sometimes what seems on first glance to be the right thing to do can actually be the worst thing. It keeps me on my toes and reminds me that the responsibility is all mine and I can’t pass it off onto someone else. I think that’s a good thing. I think that makes me MORE moral than someone who just does what he’s told.

And finally it really screws up some of our cosy little assumptions, and that’s a good thing too. Many jurisdictions, for instance, punish a drunk driver who kills someone by a long prison sentence, but a drunk driver who doesn’t kill someone just gets a fine. How is the latter any less guilty than the former? He just got away with it, that’s all. One caused more unhappiness than the other, but both had the same intentions; the same disregard of other people’s feelings. Surely the punishment should be identical in either case? But what? It’s issues like these that require us all to think a great deal harder about culpability and morality than we currently do, because we’re so used to being able to palm the problem off onto someone else.

Who is more guilty in this example: Person A has been abused by her husband for years, sees him hit their child and later that night stabs him to death as he sleeps. Person B fails to indicate when changing lanes on a freeway, causing an accident that may or may not kill someone. I’d suggest that the second person is more guilty than the first, because the cost to oneself, in terms of happiness, of habitually lifting one finger to indicate is ridiculously trivial compared to the potential cost to others of not doing so, whereas the first person had to go through moral torture to make that decision and carry it out. So how should we punish them? It’s not obvious, is it? Introduce the death penalty for failure to use your indicators?

The more we have to think for ourselves instead of relying on someone else (especially someone living in a completely different kind of society, thousands of years ago), the more we are likely to end up making ourselves and everyone else happy. Even if we’re not so clever as the expert moral philosopher. The important thing is our intention – the intention to make people happy is called kindness and kindness is something we can all understand and recognise. Sometimes we’ll get it horribly wrong despite our best efforts – to my shame I know that I have – but the important thing is to try. Morality is about being responsible, not hiding behind religious dogma.

Advertisements

Mystic Pizza

Norm Nason and Paul Almond, over at Machines Like Us, have managed to pull quite a coup and conduct a long and fascinating interview with the philosopher John Searle, on his Chinese Room argument and others.

As anyone who’s read my books may have surmised, I don’t agree with all of Searle’s arguments and I don’t share his disbelief in the possibility of Strong AI (even though I doubt very much that a digital computer is a practical medium for such a thing, long-term). But rather than discuss it here I’ve posted a long comment on the original site. It’s too big a subject to tackle in a blog post really, let alone a comment to one, so maybe I’ll have to write another book. I can’t make up my mind whether I next want to write a book called “Machines like us” (Norm borrowed the title for his site from one of my talks), about mechanism and the human condition, or whether to write one about “Un-physics” – a more general elucidation of a process-oriented view of nature, the behavior of complex feedback systems and self-organization. Does anyone care either way? I don’t suppose so.

Anyway, Paul’s excellent interview with John Searle can be found here, and my somewhat inept and hurried attempts to put forward an alternative view are here. Enjoy.