Intuitions Volume XVI: Issue 2

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 INTUITIONS: An Undergraduate Journal of Philosophy VOLUME XVI: Issue 2 i University of California, San Diego May, 2019

_____________________________ INTUITIONS, Vol. XVI: Issue 2 An Undergraduate Journal of Philosophy 2019 Cover Art: “Serenity at Sunset\" Clouds not only bring rain but add color to a sunset to be enjoyed. It is easy and rewarding to find beauty in nature. Credited to Jerry Walter

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 I know it sounds crazy, but if it weren’t crazy, they wouldn’t call it a leap of faith. They’d call it a sit of doubting. — Eleanor Shellstrop (Kristen Bell), The Good Place, Season 2: Leap to Faith I had a friend that said whenever she was doing something bad, she’d hear this little voice in her head… Distant little voice, saying, ‘Oh, come on now. You know this is wrong.’ And then when she started doing good things, that voice went away. It was a relief. — Michael (Ted Danson), The Good Place, Season 2, Somewhere Else What if lying is ethical in this situation? What if certain actions aren't universally good or bad? — Eleanor Shellstrop (Kristen Bell), The Good Place, Season 2: The Burrito I argue that we choose to be good because of our bonds with other people and our innate desire to treat them with dignity. Simply put, we are not in this alone. – Chidi Anagonye (William Jackson Harper), ‘The Good Place’ Season 2, Somewhere Else iii

iv

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 Chief Editor: Robert Walter - University of California, San Diego Production Editors: Prof. Soon-Ah Fadness - San Diego City College Prof. Lucia Foglia - San Diego City College Nancy Guerrero – University of California, San Diego Faculty Reviewers: Prof. Soon-Ah Fadness - San Diego City College Prof. Lucia Foglia - San Diego City College Student Reviewers: Isiah Aceves – University of California, San Diego Carter Davies - San Diego City College Alex Eyman – San Diego City College Jesus Lopez – San Diego City College Tremaine George Harvey – University of California, San Diego August McKenzie – San Diego Mesa College Catelyn Millar – San Diego City College Rameses Neale – San Diego Mesa College Ross Shelton – San Diego Mesa College Robert Walter – University of California, San Diego Renee Williams – San Diego City College v

vi

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 From the Editors The papers that appear in this special edition of Intuitions are ones submitted to The Good Place: Philosophy in the World, a city-wide undergraduate conference coordinated by faculty and students from the Philosophy Departments of UC San Diego, San Diego City and Mesa College. The conference was one of several initiatives that the Philosophy Departments of UCSD, City and Mesa cooperated on developing and administering, as a part of PATH (Preparing Accomplished Transfers in the Humanities). PATH is collaborative effort between the San Diego Community College District and UC San Diego Division of Arts and Humanities, and is made possible by a generous grant funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. It aims to educate a new generation of thoughtful leaders who will reshape the value and meaning of the humanities in the twenty-first century by (a) identifying potential transfer students in the humanities, (b) providing supportive services during their transition, and (c) ensuring that they graduate with appropriate skills to successfully enter the work force. As Conference Coordinators, we would like to thank UCSD Philosophy faculty, undergraduate students, and Philosophy Department administration, the students on the review committee, all the students who submitted papers, and Laura Martin and Joelle Fusaro from UCSD PATH for the administrative and logistical support. We’d also like to thank Professor Monique Wonderly for agreeing to provide the keynote address. Finally, we’d like to thank all the conference attendees for their participation and interest in exploring how Philosophy as a discipline and action intersects with every day experience. Lucia Foglia Soon-Ah K. Fadness Adjunct Professor City College Assistant Professor City College vii

viii

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 INTUITIONS, Vol. XVI 2019 Table of Contents Q&A with Bud Ira Bong 71 “The Good Place”: What Makes Something a God? 73 83 Q&A with Luis R. Alvarez 85 Can Modern Science Help Advance Ethics? 99 Q&A with Aaron Chipp-Miller 101 The Hopelessness of Infinity 109 Q&A with Jeremy Moore The Importance of True Friendship in Forming a Full Understanding of 111 and Participation in Morality 121 123 Q&A with Kelly N. Giang Motivation Matters: Strawson, The Good Place and Moral Responsibility 131 133 Q&A with Robert Walter Metaethical Utilitarianism is Best Served Through Normative Virtue Ethics ix

x

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 ________________ Introducing Bud Ira Bong A Q&A with the author of “The Good Place”: What Makes Something a God? What is your major and why did you choose to study philosophy? - I am a Philosophy major. My interest in philosophy has existed as long as I can remember but the choice to advance those studies in higher education is thanks to, in large part, the amazing professors I have encountered on my journey. I have found that philosophy greatly influences the direction and advancement of society, particularly in areas that so often get overlooked by different disciplines. I see studying and understanding philosophy as a great way to broach difficult topics and help people grasp the issues they might otherwise avoid or struggle with. What are your interests within the field of philosophy? - I have found that philosophy has a great deal of overlap with psychology(another subject I have great interest in). I am interested in examining where morals and ethics intersect with cognitive function, in particular what parts of the brain go to work when dealing with ethical dilemmas. What was your favorite philosophy class and what did you get out of it? - Morals and Ethics has been the branch of philosophy that really gets my gears churning. Before being introduced to ethical theory I didn’t give much thought to how people decide between right and wrong - it has helped me understand the decisions people make and the motives behind them. Finally, I would be remiss if I did not at least mention symbolic logic, the construction and mapping of arguments is crazy fun and extremely practical! What are your future hopes with your philosophy degree? - I hope to eventually go on to a PhD in Psychology and believe philosophy is a solid foundation for understanding and presenting arguments that will come in great handy in graduate school. Which school and program are you hoping to transfer to? - UCSD, yay! What inspired you to come up with the topic for this paper? - Honestly the metaphysics branch of philosophy hasn’t been my strong suit so I chose a topic that would challenge me and help me get better in an area I don’t consider my best. 71

72

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 “The Good Place”: What Makes Something a God? Bud Ira Bong, San Diego City College This paper offers an analysis of the conceptions of God presented in the NBC television show “The Good Place.” I argue that traditional Western conceptions of God, such as those offered by Anselm, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Judeo-Christian tradition are inadequate to understand the archetypes of god presented in ““The Good Place.” Instead, the deities of “The Good Place” are better understood as manifestations of Brahman, the Hindu deity. “The Good Place” is a hit television definitions of God are too narrow and how the show that has made classic philosophical God-like beings portrayed in ““The Good quandaries fun to ponder and easy to grasp Place”” are better understood as aspects of the thanks to its comedic presentation. Among Hindu deity, Brahman. these ponderings is the question what exactly is it that makes something a God? “The Good Western Conceptions of God and “The Place” presents God-like beings in what can Good Place” be viewed as a classic Western/Judeo- Christian notion. The Western idea of God is In the show “The Good Place,” we are historically a supreme entity, ruler and creator introduced to a band of human cohorts who of the world who is worshiped and praised as have entered an afterlife that is hosted and all powerful, all knowing and morally perfect governed by beings who display various - but is this what truly makes a God? I argue degrees of power that are often associated with that classically Western definitions of God are godliness. Michael is an immortal being and too restrictive, and that God is less a singular an architect - one who designs and constructs being but an omnipresent principle of order afterlife neighborhoods for humans who have closer to the Hindu concept of God, Brahman. died to reside in. Michael also wields a host of Using western ontological arguments and other powers ranging from extra-dimensional NBC’s television show “The Good Place,” I vision and the ability to warp reality -molding will demonstrate why these common Western neighborhoods to any type of design he can imagine instantly. Michael, as powerful as he 73

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 is, is also deeply flawed. Michael is eventually God exists as an idea in our minds, and that if revealed to be an agent of the bad place whose something can exist in our minds alone - like mission is to construct a neighborhood where a painter having an idea for a masterpiece but the human residence torture each other simply never painting it – it is inferior to something by virtue of their negative characteristics and that exists in our minds and in reality. Anselm how they intermingle with each other. explains “But clearly that than which a greater Eventually Michael has a change of heart and cannot be thought to exist in the understanding wants to help the residents of his experimental alone. For if it actually in understanding alone, neighborhood escape from the fake good place it can be thought of as existing also in reality, to the real good place. As he improves and this is greater”(Anselm, 1, 1965). That is morally, Michael faces a midlife crisis-like to say, a being that exists in both our minds meltdown when realizing the possible and reality is simply greater than one that consequences of his actions. exists only in our minds. “Therefore, if that than which a greater cannot be thought is in For many Michael displays the God- the understanding alone, this same thing than like attributes described by Anselm of which a greater cannot be thought is that than Canterbury who deductively derives the which a greater can be thought”(Anselm, 1, existence of God based on the necessary 1965). In other words, if God exists only in our nature of supreme being. St. Anselm, in his minds, then a greater being can be conceived, classic work the Prosologion, begins by a being that exists both in our minds and in asserting that God is “a being than which none reality. Since conceptually there cannot be greater can be thought”(Anselm, 1, 1965). anything greater than a supreme being (God), That is to say God is the greatest thing, one it must exist in our minds and in reality. that no greater being can be conceived. Therefore, God exists. Anselm believes this to be conceptually true. One could not be a supreme being, a God, if Michael is an alluring candidate for one were not the greatest being. If there was a godhood according to St. Anselm's being that was greater, then it would be ontological argument however when delving supreme, and thus, the greater being would be in to his character a little deeper we find he God. Anselm then asserts that even a fool has falls short. Michael falls short of omnipotence an idea of God. That is to say the concept of and omniscience as his powers of creation are 74

What Makes Something a God? limited to the afterlife neighborhoods he is subject to the morality of whoever it is she oversees and, while highly knowledgeable, is serving - for instance if she were assigned Michael does not hold supreme knowledge. to the bad place, she would be bad. Again, for Most pronounced of Michael's shortcomings Anselm, Janet falls well short of being a God, as they pertain to Anselm's standards are his particularly the omni-benevolence extremely questionable morals(as evidenced requirement. by his creation of a \"bad place\" neighborhood with the purpose of eternal torture), while he Even though Janet does not neatly fit does learn and develop what it is to be \"good\" Anselm’s conception of God, she does seem he falls well short of Anselm's need for omni- to embody other aspects of the Western benevolence. conception of God. In the classical text Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Another God-like character in “The Aquinas(1981) presents 5 proofs for the Good Place” is Janet, a genderless entity that existence of God. I will focus on Aquinas’ serves as an anthropomorphized database cosmological arguments (the first 3 of charged with the management of afterlife Aquinas’ proofs), which the Roman Catholic neighborhoods. Janet can make any desired Church considers conclusive evidence for item appear instantaneously, can construct establishing the existence of God. In the first neighborhoods as directed, and can teleport proof, referred to as “The First Way: God, the instantly around her assigned neighborhood. Prime Mover”, Aquinas asserts that “It is Most impressively Janet appears nigh certain, and evident to our senses that in the omniscient as she is a walking database of all world some things are in motion. Now earthly knowledge. whatever is moved is moved by another, for nothing can be moved except it is in Using Anselm’s conception of God, potentiality to that towards which it is moved; Janet could be a supreme being because she is whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in omniscient and seemingly omnipotent. act”(Aquinas, 1, 1981). This proof, simply However, like Michael, once we analyze her put, offers that every moving thing needs an character she falls well short. Janet, essentially original mover, and that God is the original being a tool for the overseers of the afterlife, mover. In Aquinas’ second proof, “The uses her powers only as instructed. Also, Second Way: God, The First Cause”, he posits while not an inherently immoral being, Janet 75

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 that “In the world of sensible things we find existence there must be a first thing in there is an order of efficient causes. There is existence and that thing must be a necessary no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) being; God. in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause in itself; for so it would be prior to itself, On the surface Janet looks like she which is impossible”(Aquinas, 1, 1981). could be the prime mover, the first cause and Aquinas’ purpose can be summed up by his could be the necessary being but when we take usage; efficient cause. He is essentially saying into account Janet's nature of servitude and that for every action and event we witness in that there are many Janet's, that thwarts the the world there has to have been a first cause necessary being qualifier. to set everything into motion and God is that first cause. The final God-like character in “The Good Place” is Judge Gen (short for The third of Aquinas’ proofs is Hydrogen). Judge Gen is an immortal being referred to as “The Third Way: God, the and an afterlife Judge, assigned to rule on Necessary Being.” Aquinas explains, “We which neighborhood the deceased should be find in nature things that are possible to be and assigned to. Gen’s host of powers are similar not to be, since they are found to be generated, to Michael’s but with one unique addition – and to be corrupted, and consequently, it is Judgment. As a Judge, Gen is the moral possible for them to be or not to be. But it is authority in the afterlife and has complete impossible for these always to exist, for that control over where residents will spend which can not-be, at some time is not. eternity. Gen’s authority on morality however Therefore, if everything can not-be, then at does not necessarily mean moral perfection one time there was nothing in and for that reason Gen would fall short of existence”(Aquinas, 1, 1981). In other words, being named God by Anselm and Aquinas. every existing thing owes its existence to Gen suffer's from similar shortcomings that something other than itself. If all existence is Michael and Janet do when it comes to contingent on something existing prior to it, Anselm and Aquinas parameters for Godhood, then there must have been a point of non- her powers are limited to the \"medium existence. But nothing can come from non- place\"(a sort of middle ground between the existence, so to account for all things in good/heaven and bad/hell places) and while 76

What Makes Something a God? being an authority on matters of morality that are to be destroyed for their wickedness. does not make her omni-benevolent. Abraham pleads with God to spare the lives of the righteous in these cities(including his One way that Judge Gen does seem family) and God agrees, on the condition that like traditional western conceptions of God is 10 righteous inhabitants can be found. None in her position: she is a judge that determines but Abraham’s family are deemed righteous the fate of the deceased. This idea of God as so God destroys the cities. Throughout the Judge is representative of the Judeo-Christian Abrahamic religions variations of these tales God. are shared along with numerous others all sharing the theme of God as supreme moral In Judeo-Christian religions, a authority and the ultimate judge of humanity. common theme concerning morality is that morality is somehow dependent upon God, For Anselm and Aquinas God is the and that moral obligation consists in prime mover and supreme being. God is obedience to God’s commands. God then uncreated and has always existed and must be judges humans based on their adherence to his omni-benevolent, omnipotent and omniscient. commands and based on this, decides their To Anselm and Aquinas God is also the fate. A prime example of God as judge can supreme moral authority and through his be found in the Book of Genesis in the flood greatness rightly reigns as judge over all narrative. In this narrative, God judges that mankind. In fact, these themes are found to be earth is riddled with violence and corruption consistent across all of the Judeo-Christian and is in need of a reset, in which God deems religions. This western definition of God is too a great flood as the mechanism for this reset. restrictive and is particularly susceptible to God then instructs Noah, to construct an ark criticism - namely the problem of evil. If God and, along with his family, gather a male and knows evil exists (omniscience), has the female of every living creature to eventually power to stop evil from happening serve as a starting point for all life after the (omnipotence) and is inclined to do so (omni- flood. Another example of the Judeo-Christian benevolence) but evil does exist therefore this theme of God as judge can be found again in concept of God cannot. Essentially, the Judeo- the Book of Genesis in the account of Sodom Christian concept of God leaves no room to and Gomorrah. In the Book of Genesis, God explain evil and its place in the world. judges that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah 77

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 Brahman and “The Good Place” both of which form much of the foundation for Judeo-Christian concepts of God, The god-like characters of understanding and having a relationship with “The Good Place” can only be gods God begins with the mind. Hindus assert that if we cherry pick the greatest of the mind is the wrong kind of instrument to each of these characters powers, use when in pursuit of understanding combine them and then toss out Brahman, likening it to “...trying to ladle the their numerous flaws. ocean with a net, or lasso the wind with a rope” (Smith, 2017, 60). This is because the But it is not clear that because these characters human mind “...has evolved to facilitate do not fit neatly into the Western conception survival in the natural world. It is adapted to of God that it means these characters are not deal with finite objects. God, on the contrary meant to be understood as gods. While is infinite and of a completely different order Anselm, Aquinas and the Judeo-Christian of being from what our minds can grasp” tradition may be the most familiar to Western (Smith, 2017, 60). In other words, we attempt readers, I argue that these conceptions of God to know or experience God in the same way are too narrow and restrictive. Instead, I argue we know or experience everyday life. But that Michael, Janet and Judge Gen are deities, God, a being supreme and infinite, is simply but are better represented as aspects of the unknowable through these means. However, Hindu deity Brahman. since our minds are all we have to attempt to reach an understanding we must endeavor to Brahman, the Hindu concept of god, use them as best as possible. can be described as the all-encompassing essence of reality or the supreme cosmic spirit. So what is Brahman? Brahman’s fundamental attributes are being, awareness Understanding a concept of god and bliss or “...utter reality, utter within your mind and being able to consciousness and utterly beyond all communicate that idea with words possibility of frustration” (Smith, 2017, 60). is so often fundamental for other As corporeal beings, people have little to no religions and cultures that when way to relate to the ideas of infinite being and seeking to grasp Brahman, western infinite consciousness so the hesitance to thinkers are left baffled. As we’ve seen demonstrated with both Anselm and Aquinas’ ontological arguments, 78

What Makes Something a God? confine the concept of god to what our minds finite forms back into the primordial nature can conceive and to the words we use to from which they sprang” (Smith, 2017, 62). describe and relate to God is understandable. In other words, Saguna Brahman is closer to It is better, however, to attempt to know God Anselm’s and Aquinas’ notion of god as than not to know God, as the attempt to benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient but, understand helps direct people toward and this is a key difference, in the end Brahman rather than away from Brahman. unknowable and ungraspable with the tools While Brahman is fundamentally we as humans are most apt to employ. unknowable and un-graspable by human minds, we do try to “know” Brahman. The So we’ve established that Michael, first (and most difficult) way to know Janet and Judge Gen would not be gods Brahman is Nirguna Brahman, a trans- according to classic western notions of God personal god without attributes. Nirguna being a benevolent, omniscient and Brahman “Holds god above the struggle, omnipotent being. But they do wield powers aloof from the finite in every respect”(Smith, and display characteristics that are commonly 2017, 60). The transpersonal Brahman did associated with the western notion of not “intentionally will” the world into godhood, just not of the ultimate variety. existence and is unaffected by its flaws and However, in terms of Brahman, we can finite nature. Nirguna Brahman is infinite, understand Michael, Janet and Judge Gen as unknowable, ungraspable, reality. Because avatars or deities representing different this aspect of Brahman is so difficult for us to aspects of Brahman. conceptualize, the most common way to understand Brahman is as Saguna Brahman: Michael can easily be likened to the a personal God, with attributes. Saguna Saguna Brahman personal god known as Brahman helps us conceptualize Brahman as Brahma(the creator god). Brahma the creator a supreme being, so that we can actually is the personified manifestation of Brahman grasp a tiny part of its infinite reality. Thus, that created the universe and Michael’s role as Saguna Brahman can be thought of as the Architect is very similar as he is the designer creator, the preserver and the destroyer or the and creator of afterlife neighborhoods and deities Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva responsible for the governance of these respectively who “...in the end resolves all neighborhoods. Michael is essentially the personified creator aspect of Brahma existing 79

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 to help people understand, as best they can, the understand the world, consequences and right neighborhood(world) they now reside in. from wrong. Janet, like Michael, can be likened to Lastly, it may be best to relate a Saguna Brahman personal conception of Michael, Janet and Judge Gen together as God as well. Janet shares many parallels with Nirguna Brahman - the transpersonal Vishnu, the preserver. Vishnu protects the conception of god. Combining these three world from evil and takes on many forms achieves omniscience, omnipotence and when doing so. Janet protects her omni-benevolence while any of their neighborhood by summoning the items that perceived flaws or failings could be aspects of Michael and the residents request in an effort Brahman that our minds simply can’t grasp to save themselves from the harms that would the meaning of. Brahman allows for “The be inflicted upon them by agents of the bad Good Place” immortals to represent what little place(evil). Janet is the personified protector we can grasp of the nature of god and does not and provider aspect of Brahman existing to limit god to whatever the greatest things our help people prosper and protect themselves minds can conceive of as the western concept and could be viewed as a new form(one of of God would restrict us to. many) that Vishnu has taken on. Concluding Remarks Judge Gen does not fit as closely as Michael and Janet do to any of the three \"The Good Place\", being a series on Saguna Brahman personal gods - Brahma, American television and having to do with Vishnu and Shiva. However, because personal the afterlife, I imagine the average watcher as gods are the embodiment of Brahman meant viewing this show through a Western lens to help humans relate to and understand and when thinking of the scenarios presented Brahman (as best they can) it could be argued in the show it is probably the Western all the same that Judge Gen, short for conception of God guiding their hydrogen - the most abundant element in the interpretation of the shows fun premises. universe and necessary component for life, However, when seeking to understand the represents the rule of law in nature. Judge Gen deities presented in \"The Good Place\" the is the personified balance and natural order Western approach is found to be inadequate. aspects of Brahman existing to help people Viewing the deities from a Hindu concept of 80

What Makes Something a God? Brahman perspective allows for a better Westminster, Md. :Christian Classics, understanding of these characters and provides for an interesting viewing Britannica, T. E. (2018, January 14). experience. Noah. Retrieved April 12, 2019, from Acknowledgments: https://www.britannica.com/top ic/Noah Special thanks to my MOM, Jill Bong!(for putting up with me) Miss you Britannica, T. E. (2018, November 22). Sodom and everyday! And the San Diego City College Gomorrah. Retrieved April 12, 2019, from Philosophy Department. Love to KB, JB, https://www.britannica.com/place/Sodom- BBB, PPP & MB. and-Gomorrah References: Janet. (n.d.). Retrieved April 12, 2019, from https://thegoodplace.fandom.com/wiki/Janet Anselm, Saint, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1033-1109. (1965). St. Judge Gen. (n.d.). Retrieved April 12, 2019, from https://thegoodplace.fandom.com/wiki/Judge Anselm's Proslogion. Oxford :Clarendon Press, _G en Aquinas, Thomas, Saint, 1225?-1274. (1981). Summa Michael. (n.d.). Retrieved April 12, 2019, from theologica. https://thegoodplace.fandom.com/wiki/Micha el Schur, M. (Writer). (n.d.). The Good Place [Television series]. NBC. Smith, H. (2017). The worlds religions. Bronx, NY: Ishi Press International. 81

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 82

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 ________________ Introducing Luis R. Alvarez A Q&A with the author of Can Modern Science Help Advance Ethics? What is your major and why did you choose to study philosophy? - My intended major is Cognitive Neuroscience. However, I decided to work toward an Associate’s Degree in Philosophy while finishing the course credits I need to transfer. I find Philosophy to be a deeply interesting subject that can enrich a person on a personal and academic level. I like to challenge my beliefs; that is why I got more involved in Philosophy. What are your interests within the field of philosophy? - My main interests in philosophy are ethics, philosophy of religion, and theory of mind. I am very intrigued by the way in which people acquire beliefs, and how these influence their personhood and behavior. It is something I would really want to research in the future. What was your favorite philosophy class and what did you get out of it? - The philosophy class I most enjoyed was PHIL 103 Historical Introduction to Philosophy by Dr. Duckles. Over this class, we covered the major philosophical figures of the Western tradition. What I liked about the course is that it showed how the philosophical thought has evolved, as well as how it has permeated through history. From this course, I got introduced to some philosophical figures and ideas I did not know, plus, I got a solid understanding of the importance of Philosophy. Which school and program are you hoping to transfer to? - I am hoping to transfer to UCSD program of Cognitive and Behavioral Neuroscience. I want my research to focus on decision making. If I had the opportunity, I would also like to minor in philosophy. What inspired you to come up with the topic for this paper? - I am currently taking an Ethics as honors. For my honors project, I decided to research the current models of moral decision making, and how they relate to the theories we are reviewing in class. It was from there that I decided to write a paper on the subject. 83

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 84

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 Can Modern Science Help Advance Ethics? Luis R. Alvarez, San Diego Mesa College This paper can be seen as having two parts. The first part discusses one of the principal issues that have limited science from collaborating with ethics, the Is/Ought distinction, and some arguments that show how this collaboration is possible. The second part presents two of the leading theories of how people make moral judgments, the social intuitionist, and the dual- process theory, and discusses their relation and implications to classical ethical theories.: In the TV show the Good Place, developments in cognitive science have been Eleanor Shellstrop lands by mistake in able to shed some light on the previous heaven. In an attempt to remain unnoticed, mystery of human behavior and cognition. she asks her friend Chidi, a moral This could be a valuable resource for the field philosopher, to help her become a good of ethics. Throughout this essay, I will person. Philosophers have pondered about discuss the principle obstacles that have this over many centuries. Since science is one hindered the cooperation between science of the most useful tools humanity has ever and ethics, how they can be resolved, the two encountered, it is worth wondering if it could leading scientific models of moral judgment, help Eleanor’s pursuit. After all, some fields along with how they relate to classical ethical in philosophy, like metaphysics and theory of theories, and their implications. All this mind, have collaborated with scientific information will converge at the conclusion inquiry giving valuable results. Despite this, that science can help advance ethics. as mentioned by A. Rini in her entry on The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Ethics Before any statement is made in is a field where cooperation with science, regard to how information yielded from particularly cognitive science, has been science can be useful for ethics, there is an controversial. To be fair, throughout most of issue that needs to be addressed. In 1739, history the contents of the human brain have David Hume published A Treatise of Human been a black box. However, recent Nature. In it, is found one of the greatest 85

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 sources of controversy in the field of ethics. One of the most popular proposed Hume described that there are authors that ways in which science can be influential for when building their moral theories, place ethics was made by Joshua Greene. He is a empirical, descriptive or is-statements, and philosopher and scientist that works at the then, without an explicit justification, tie psychology department at Harvard those with normative or ought-statements. University. His work has focused on What Hume observed is now known as the revealing the neural underpinnings of moral Is/Ought problem which, briefly stated, judgment. Greene (2016) argues that science asserts that one cannot merely derive ought- can help ethics achieve new moral statements from is-statements. conclusions; conclusions that otherwise, it would not be able to attain. This is done by From this observation stems the main combining an \"old\" ought assumption with a obstacle that restrains some philosophers new \"is\" scientific discovery. To illustrate from seeing how science can be useful for this method consider the following example ethics. As A. Rini has described, some he makes considering the performance of philosophers have taken the is/ought capital jurors. He starts by placing the distinction to imply that is-statements are question \"Do capital jurors make good always normatively insignificant, and thus, decisions?\" Then, he asks, to imagine that discard the offerings of science as a whole. there was a piece of research showing that However, this isolationist view misrepresents capital jurors are sometimes sensitive to race. Hume's observation; it extrapolates the This is a piece of information that might is/ought distinction to a distant conclusion otherwise not be known. We can then ask, that, bluntly stated, does not follow. Various \"Ought capital jurors be sensitive to race?\" philosophers have stepped forward into the Any reasonable person will certainly agree debate providing different, some more that this should not be the case. Finally, we convincing than others, paths to show the might draw the new normative conclusion usefulness of science. The following that sometimes capital jurors make bad paragraphs discuss some of the numerous decisions (Greene, 2016, p. 128-130). Here is attempts, the type of arguments given, as well the simplified version of the argument: as the implications of them. 86

Can Modern Science Help Advance Ethics? Q: Do capital jurors make good the participants moral judgments more decisions? severe. So, it seems that sometimes moral judgments can be sensitive to morally P1. Empirical: Capital jurors are irrelevant factors. If it can be shown that sometimes sensitive to race. judgment was made under such conditions, then, the argument could be made that such P2. Normative: Capital jurors ought judgment lacks a proper justification. Here is not to be sensitive to race. the previous example in its argument form: C3. Normative: Capital jurors P1. Empirical: The smell of the sometimes make bad decisions. environment influenced the judgment of whether it was right for a film Another type of argument that can be studio to release a controversial made, one that has been proposed by Greene documentary. (2016) as well as by Kahane (2016), focuses on what our moral intuitions track. P2. Normative: The smell of the Throughout the years, psychology has shown environment is a morally irrelevant that seemingly trivial factors can bias factor. judgment; unsurprisingly, moral judgments are not immune to this kind of disturbances. C2. Normative: The judgment made In an experiment by Schnall, Haidt, Clore, lacks a proper justification. and Jordan (2008) participants were presented and asked to judge some brief It is worth noting what this type of stories involving morally dubious actions argument implies. Since this argument arrive while there was an artificially induced at a normative conclusion, a conclusion that disgusting smell on the environment. An could not be attained without the empirical example of the scenarios presented is information, it would follow, that the idea whether it would be right for a film studio to that is-statements are always normatively release a documentary that filmed some insignificant is simply false. Now, while this people without their consent. The results of type of argument are interesting, there are this team of researchers showed that the other more intriguing types of arguments that presence of the disgusting smell would make can push the point even further. These 87

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 arguments make use exclusively of non- P2: Teleological. In a legal case, the normative statements to arrive at normative courts objective is to take the conclusions. information that best represents reality to determine if the law was As an example, consider the broken. following type of argument, as suggested by Kahane (2016), which is derived from an P3: Empirical. Eyewitness memory observation by Immanuel Kant. In 1793, portrays a poor picture of reality Kant published Religion Within the because it is easily distorted. Boundaries of Mere Reason, in it he stated: \"For if the moral law commands that we C4. Normative. A court should not ought to be better human beings now, it use eyewitness memory in trying to inescapably follows that we must be capable represent reality. of being better human beings\" (p. 94). From Kant's observation, ethicist derived the These types of arguments are principle Ought implies can; which, briefly extremely interesting because of their stated, proposes that saying that a person components, and implications. The argument ought to do something implicitly asserts that uses merely non-normative premises and the person must be capable of doing so. Using arrives at a normative conclusion. While not the rule of transposition from propositional all are empirical premises, it is worth noting Logic with this principle will allow us to that the crux of the argument is its empirical derive its negative form; if it were possible to statement, without it the argument no longer prove that it is impossible for someone to do works. So, it would seem that, in contrast to something, it follows, that person it is not the prevailing view, there are ways of obliged to do that thing. Here is an example deriving an ought from an is. of an argument using the Ought implies can principle: Now that the path is clear of how science can be useful for ethics, it would be P1: Conceptual. Ought implies can, opportune to see what are the main moral and cannot implies ought not. theories that science has developed, how they relate to classical ethical theories, and the 88 implications they bring to the table.

Can Modern Science Help Advance Ethics? One of the first moral theories that The diagram shows that an intuition emerged out of cognitive science is the social directly follows an event. This intuition is the intuitionist theory. The American root of a judgment which will be psychologist Jonathan Haidt first proposed spontaneously produced (link 1). Haidt holds this theory after he studied the phenomenon that the agent will be aware of the intuition known as moral dumbfounding. In their and the judgment, but not of how one derived research, Haidt, Björklund, and Murphy the other. After the judgment is made, the (2000) presented participants with moral person will justify it with the use of reasoning dilemmas that involved victimless and taboo in a post hoc fashion (link 2). Agent A will situations, as eating one’s dead pet dog (as share his reasoning (link 3) and judgment cited in Haidt, 2001, p. 814). They found that (link 4) with Agent B which will trigger an people who condemned such actions intuition that will follow the same process. struggled to give justifications for their Haidt maintains that these four links are the condemnation; they were morally core of the social intuitionist theory. dumbfounded. This first research got Haidt However, he mentions that there are other thinking that moral judgments had to be two additional links that involve the use of grounded on something other than reason. reasoning, but these are rarely used. A person After further research, he concluded it had to could arrive at judgment by the mere use of be intuition (Haidt, 2001). reason (link 5). Haidt stresses that these situations tend to be illusions for regular The core of the social intuitionist individuals. However, there are certain theory is that moral judgments are derived groups of people who are able to engage in from intuitions. Reasoning, usually, takes the this type of reflection, philosophers among secondary role of justifying the judgments that are made. It is worth noting that for Haidt, moral judgment is, regularly, an interpersonal phenomenon involving at least two agents that influence one another. To give a detailed description of his model, Haidt (2001) presents the following diagram: 89

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 them. A less rare situation, though still presentation of emotionally charged stimuli, uncommon, is when people use reasoning to regardless of hitting or not the awareness of a trigger a new intuition that is later used to subject, will alter the time it takes him to derive a new judgment (link 6) (Haidt, 2001, evaluate an object (as cited in Haidt, 2001, p. p. 818-819). 819). Moreover, first impression research, by Albright, Kenny, and Malloy (1988); The social intuitionism theory works Ambady and Rosenthal (1992); Dion under two intriguing propositions: first, Berscheid, and Walster (1972); and Devine intuitions are enough to trigger a moral (1989), showed that first impressions made judgment; second, reason tends to work as a out of sight and out of briefly observing subordinate of the former (Haidt, 2001). Such another individual's behavior were highly compelling claims deserve equally similar to the impressions made after a much compelling evidence. longer observation (as cited in Haidt, 2001, p. 820-821). These first impressions made Haidt's supports the claim that included stereotypes and moral traits. Lastly, intuitions are enough to produce a moral Haidt cites research from Chaiken (1980; judgment by citing different lines of research. 1987) on persuasion, which showed that if a One such line of research is on emotional friend of the participant made a judgment, induction. Batson, Engel, and Fridell (1999) this was enough to trigger an intuition that used false physiological feedback, and would lead to a judgment agreement (as cited Wheatley and Haidt (2001) used hypnosis, in Haidt, 2001, p. 820). both groups of researchers induced different emotional states on their subjects Haidt (2001) supports his claim that demonstrating that the emotions elicited had reason is the subordinate of emotions by a specific influence on the moral judgments citing research on relatedness motives, made by the subjects (as cited in Haidt, 2001, coherence motives, hypnosis, and split-brain p. 825). In addition, he cites a large body of patients. Relatedness motives research research by Bargh, Chaiken, Raymond, and investigates the individual's desire to hold Hymes (1996); Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, harmony among their social circle. In an and Kardes (1986); Murphy and Zajonc experiment by Chen, Shechter, and Chaiken (1993); and Hermans, De Houwer, and Eelen (1996), it was shown that when a participant (1994), which demonstrated that the brief 90

Can Modern Science Help Advance Ethics? is expecting to interact with a party and Lastly, Haidt cites research on split-brain knows the position this party holds regarding patients by Gazzaniga, Bogen, and Sperry a subject, the participant will alter his initial (1962). As its name suggests, split-brain position as to align more with the one held by patients have their cerebral hemispheres the party (as cited in Haidt, 2001, p. 821). separated, therefore, uncommunicated. Only Research on coherence motives investigates the left hemisphere has the capacity for the human behavior that strives to avoid speech comprehension and production. When cognitive dissonance, that is, the unpleasant asked for a justification after the right experience that strikes an individual after hemisphere performed an action, the left holding two contradictory beliefs and hemisphere made up an explanation showing becoming aware of it. Studies by Festinger post-hoc reasoning in its purest form (as cited (1957), and Wicklund and Brehm (1976) in Haidt, 2001, p. 822). showed people's tendency to alter beliefs when foreseeing cognitive dissonance (as The social intuitionist theory mirrors cited in Haidt, 2001, p. 821). Moreover, Lord pretty closely moral sentimentalist et al. (1979) conducted an experiment in philosophies like that of David Hume. As which participants were presented with Rachel Cohon (2018) describes, Hume different sets of evidence supporting the two thought that the root of moral judgments was opposing sides of a controversial issue. the emotion or sentiment of approval or Participants did not hesitate to endorse the disapproval that were generated by an action. evidence of the preferred position while This proposition is the same, and the core, of disregarding the opposing evidence (as cited the social intuitionist theory. Although Haidt in Haidt, 2001, p. 821). This phenomenon is does not totally reject the role of reason in popularly known as confirmation bias. moral judgment, his position is highly similar Further, Zimbardo, LaBerge, and Butler to that of Hume. Considering Hume's (1993) conducted a study in which Is/Ought observation, it should not sound participants actions were manipulated surprising that Hume rejected moral through hypnosis. When the participants rationalist positions. For Hume, as for Haidt, were asked to justify the actions, they reason’s function is to justify judgments manufactured explanations ignoring the made by emotion. Even though Haidt does hypnosis (as cited in Haidt, 2001, p. 822). not hold that this is always the case, Hume 91

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 makes it more than clear that he thinks this is and psychologist, at Harvard University. The the case. In A Treatise of Human Nature (1738), Hume states \"Reason is, and ought core of this theory is that two distinct only to be the slave of the passions and can never pretend to any other office than to serve processes compete to arrive at a moral and obey them.\" (p. 415 ) judgment, the automatic system, and the Interesting as this may be, a question must be asked. If the social intuitionist theory controlled system. These systems work under is correct, what are its implications on the promotion of moral behavior? If the social the Central Tension Principle (CTP); which intuitionist theory is correct, and emotion is the source of moral judgments, then ethical proposes that the automatic system produces systems that employ abstract principles to guide behavior, like those of Kant and Mill, characteristically deontological judgments, would lack effectiveness, for they deny the nature of moral judgment. In contrast, ethical judgments justified in relation to duty or theories that encourage the flourishing of virtues, like that of Aristotle, would fit better rights, while the controlled system produces how people arrive at a moral judgment. Thus, if someone wanted to improve her moral characteristically consequentialist behavior, that person will be better off by cultivating virtues like honesty, temperance, judgments, judgments justified by a cost- decency, and so forth, than sticking to an ethical maxim. benefit analysis. To avoid confusion, Greene Science has not abandoned the role of clarifies that his use of the terms reason just yet. An alternative moral theory, one that has gained its fair share of attention deontological and consequentialist refer in the recent literature, is the dual-process theory. The main proponent of this theory is merely to the justifications given by Joshua Greene a philosopher, neuroscientist, participants in experiments, and do not reflect 92 the participant's endorsement of the actual ethical theories (Greene, 2016, p. 120-122). As it happens with other sets of systems, the automatic and controlled systems involve their set of trade-offs. On one side of the coin, the automatic system, which relies on emotions and intuitions, tends to work faster at the cost of being more rigid. This system is always on, operating in the background. Its judgments appear spontaneously, and the agent is only aware of the judgment but not of how it was produced. Lastly, the settings of the automatic system

Can Modern Science Help Advance Ethics? are not all rigid. They may be changed characteristic impersonal dilemma is the through individual experiences or cultural switch case, while the most personal dilemma learning. At the other side of the coin, the is the footbridge case. Accordingly: controlled system, which inputs are more abstract like rules or mere numbers, works The switch case dilemma places the slower but is more flexible. This system subject in a scenario where a trolley is on the requires the active consciousness of the agent way to kill five people that are stuck on the and considerably more effort (Greene, 2016, road. However, just before where the five p. 120-121). people are stuck, the road parts ways. On the other side, there is only one person stuck. The One research method that has allowed subject is presented with a switch that could neuroscientist to study the brain with change the direction of the trolley and is improved precision is the functional magnetic asked what is the right thing to do. resonance imaging (fMRI). This device allows scientist to pinpoint in real time the The footbridge case dilemma places brain regions that activate while a subject is the subject in a scenario where a trolley is performing a specific task. It does so by directed at five people that are stuck on the tracking oxygen consumption, therefore, road. This time the subject is with a fat man correlating the activity at hand with the brain on a footbridge observing the trolley advance. regions that consume the most oxygen If this fat man were to fall on the road, it (Banich & Compton, 2018, p. 79-80). would definitely stop the train. The dilemma is whether to push the man or not. In a series of experiments, Greene tested his theory and revealed the neural Greene found out an interesting underpinnings of the two systems. To do so, he placed his subjects on an fMRI machine pattern of responses. When presented with and presented them with different moral dilemmas that could be categorized either as the footbridge dilemma, people declined to personal or impersonal. In the context of the experiment, personalness refers to whether push the man off the footbridge giving the agent would influence the victim through the use of personal force or not. The most characteristically deontological justifications. When presented with the switch dilemma, people chose to press the switch, giving characteristically utilitarian justifications. In addition, Greene's (2004; 93

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 2016) research revealed that personal the dual-process theory. However, he also dilemmas yielded more activity in the default cites an extensive body of evidence as mode network (DMN), the medial prefrontal supporting the theory. Here are a few of the cortex, the medial parietal cortex, the compelling research he cites. temporoparietal junction (TPJ), the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC), The first claim that there is a and the amygdala, all of which are associated controlled and an emotional system is with emotion. In contrast, impersonal supported by a significant body of evidence dilemmas yielded more activity in the in the field of cognitive science. Daniel frontoparietal network and the dorsolateral Kahneman (2003) research on psychology prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), both areas and economics has confirmed such dual- associated with controlled cognition. processes and awarded him the Nobel Prize in economics. Moreover, studies focusing on In addition to revealing parts of the the regulation of negative reactions by anatomy of moral judgment, Greene (2016) Cunningham, Johnson, Raye, Gaten, Gore, found two variables that interacted with each and other when the subject considered the morality of each trolley scenario. The Banaji (2004) have confirmed a similar dual personalness and then intentionality of the system. Further, research by Ochsner, Bunge, action could be adjusted in the variations of Gross, and Gabrieli (2002) has also the trolley experiment, yielding different confirmed a dual system in the revaluation of degrees of permissibility. negative scenes (as cited in Greene, 2016, p. 120-121). So, it seems that dual systems of The dual-process theory runs on a judgment have had a notable presence on couple of premises: first, there are two cognitive research. distinct systems to make a moral judgment, an emotional one and a controlled one. The second claim, that there is a Second, deontological-like judgments are relation between deontological-like and enabled by the emotional system, while the consequentialist-like judgments and the two controlled system enables consequentialist- systems, is supported, as well, by a like judgments. Greene argues that his considerable body of research. Here are a research has confirmed the propositions of couple of the studies cited by Greene that 94

Can Modern Science Help Advance Ethics? support this claim. A study by Conway and social intuitionist does. However, it has some Gawronski (2013) showed that induced clear connections to utilitarianism and empathy would increase deontological-like deontology, as the emotional system makes judgments in participants. Research by judgments considering the rights and duties Jonathan Haidt (1993) showed that the of a subject, while the controlled system negative emotional responses of participants makes judgments evaluating with a cost- predicted deontological-like disapproval. In benefit analysis the consequences of an an experiment by Paxton, Ungar, and Greene action. If the theory is correct, it would seem (2012), participants were induced to be more to tie deontology to emotions and reflective and this increased consequentialist- consequentialism to a cold analysis. This like responses. Research by Crockett (2010) would be a counterintuitive issue for Kant's showed that patients under a Citalopram deontological ethics, while for Mill, it would intervention, a drug known to increase not pose any trouble. However, as it has been emotional reactivity as harm aversion, made previously suggested, more evidence should less consequentialist-like judgments (as cited be demanded before making any definitive by Greene, 2016, p.123-125). So, there is conclusion about the nature of deontological reason to believe that the emotional system and consequentialist judgments. exclusively endorses deontological-like judgments, while the controlled system If the dual-process theory is correct, exclusively endorses consequentialist-like what are its implications on the promotion of judgments. However, one must be careful moral behavior? This theory is interesting with generalized statements of that nature, because it has generated more questions than for, it could be the case that there are answers. Which system is better? What does circumstances where the controlled system this mean for classical ethical theories? A endorses deontological-like judgments and direct consequence of this theory is that it pits the emotional system consequentialist-like consequentialism against deontology, judgments. More research is needed before pouring fuel over the fiery debate to decide making any definite conclusions. which theory is best. Some philosophers, like Greene (2016), have interpreted the theory as The dual-process theory does not to discredit deontological ethics. They argue match one particular ethical theory as the that it takes as inputs volatile morally inert 95

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 factors, like emotions, and therefore, and will be dropped, or maybe some judgments under this reasoning lack a valid judgments are shown to be easily disturbed justification. However, not all philosophers by irrelevant factors, and thus a strategy is share this interpretation and some refrain devised to prevent this. However, this from making conclusive judgments until happens to be, there is one additional value more evidence is presented. Kahane (2016) science brings to the table. This value can be has argued the opposite point of Greene. He better understood when it is contrasted with thinks that if a factor that seems morally some of the purposes of ethics. If in addition relevant, like intentionality, is empirically to figuring out what is right and what is confirmed to influence judgment, this lends it wrong, one of the purposes of ethical more evidence to think it is a morally reflection is, as the goal of Eleanor important factor. The issue is not resolved, Shellstrop, to use this knowledge become a and it seems it would only be after more better person. Then, the best way to transcribe research. If this theory is correct, what would those ought-statements into is-statements, is the implications be for someone who wanted with the use of science. A form to visualize to improve her moral behavior? The honest this is by seeing an ought-statement like a answer to this question is that it is too early to point on a GPS. Whether one is or not in a say. As with the previously discussed issue, location, and how one works toward it, is more investigation into the matter is needed merely a matter of is-statements. There may before any final judgment. be shorter or longer paths to the desired place. If science reveals the human process of moral Whether the social intuitionist or the reasoning, it can help discover a shorter and dual-process theory portrays a more accurate faster path, in the same way understanding a depiction of moral judgment is out of the motor allows an engineer to optimize its scope of this essay. Regardless of which functioning. Thus, helping advance ethics. theory is the correct one, the current theories bring useful knowledge, like what are the Eleanor Shellstrop might have many factors and their weight on a person's options to become a better person. Despite all decision. When ethics starts to cooperate with her options, the best way is to learn ethics and science interesting results will follow; maybe use science to complement it. Some some standards are shown to be impossible philosophers might quarrel and argue that one 96

Can Modern Science Help Advance Ethics? can never derive an ought from an is. This is of Cognitive Conflict and Control in Moral false, as it has been proved, there are different Judgment. Neuron,44(2), 389-400. types of arguments capable of deriving an doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.027 ought with the help of an is. After Eleanor arrives at a conclusion from an ethical Greene, J. D. (2016). Beyond Point-and-Shoot reflection, the two leading theories of moral judgment can draw ways to facilitate the Morality. In Moral Brains: The Neuroscience application of such a conclusion. Thus, science can help Eleanor become a better of Morality(pp. 119-149). New York, NY: person, and science can help advance ethics. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199357666.001 .0001 Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review,108 (4), 814-834. doi:10.1037//0033-295x.108.4.814 Acknowledgment: Hume, D. (1738). A Treatise of Human Nature: Being an Attempt to Introduce the Experimental Method of Reasoning Into Moral Subjects. Oxford University Press. I want to thank Dr. Duckles and the Kahane, G. (2016). Is, Ought, and the Brain. In Moral Philosophy club at San Diego Mesa College Brains: The Neuroscience of Morality(pp. for helping me with my article. 281-311). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199357666.001 .0001 References: Kant, Immanuel (2018). Kant: Religion Within the Boundaries of Mere Reason: And Other Writings. Cambridge University Press. Banich, M., & Compton, R. (2018). Cognitive Neuroscience. Cambridge: Cambridge Rini, R. A. (n.d.). Morality and Cognitive Science. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN University Press. 2161-0002, Retrieved March 30, 2019, from https://www.iep.utm.edu/m-cog-sc/ doi:10.1017/9781316664018.005 Cohon, R. (2018, Fall). Hume's Moral Philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (E. N. Schnall, S., Haidt, J., Clore, G. L., & Jordan, A. H. (2008). Disgust as Embodied Moral Zalta, Ed.). Retrieved from Judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,34(8), 1096-1109. https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/archiv doi:10.1177/0146167208317771 es/spr2009/entries/hume-moral/ Greene, J. D., Nystrom, L. E., Engell, A. D., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2004). The Neural Bases 97

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 98

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 ________________ Introducing Aaron Chipp-Miller A Q&A with the author of The Hopelessness of Infinity What is your major and why did you choose to study philosophy? - I am a philosophy major who fell into formal philosophical study through animal ethics. A few years ago, my girlfriend told me that I was doing something seriously wrong by eating meat, and so, after arguing vehemently that \"plants are living things too\", I started researching if it was morally acceptable to use non-human animals in the way that I was supporting (food, experimentation, etc.). When I came across the work of the many philosophers who have written on the subject, I was hooked. I started reading whatever I could on my own, and eventually decided to go back to school full-time to pursue philosophy as a career. What are your interests within the field of philosophy? - I am interested primarily in questions of applied ethics and political philosophy. I want to know what kinds of lives we should lead as individuals and what kinds of societies we should strive to create. What was your favorite philosophy class and what did you get out of it? - I've enjoyed all of my classes, but, if I had to pick just one, I'd say that contemporary political philosophy with Professor Arneson was my favorite so far. I felt that it gave me a solid working foundation when it comes to the main arguments going on in political philosophy, and it helped me to strengthen and disambiguate my own political positions. What are your future hopes with your philosophy degree? - I am going to pursue Graduate School and try my hand at professional philosophy. Beyond that, I hope to put forward work that convinces people that we ought to take more seriously the interests of non-human animals, the world's poor, and other marginalized groups. What inspired you to come up with the topic for this paper? - This was originally a paper written for an epistemology course, but it struck me that it applied to the PATH conference and \"The Good Place.\" I thought that it would be great to see if we have a good reason to pretend as if \"The Good Place\" were a documentary about life after death. There's a slim, non-zero chance that \"The Good Place\" details exactly what you'd need to do to avoid an eternity of suffering, but does that give us any reason to act as if that's a salient possibility? Read the paper and find out! 99

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 100

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 The Hopelessness of Infinity Aaron Chipp-Miller, University of California, San Diego In this paper, I argue that “Pascal’s Wager” is unsuccessful in its proposed aim of giving us a pragmatic argument for believing in God. I first explicate Pascal’s argument for belief in God from expected utility. Next, I present what I believe to be a knock-down objection to the argument, the “Many Gods” problem. And finally, I put forward what I take to the best possible response to this problem – a retreat to the probability of different sets of Gods existing, combined with an appeal to the relevant beliefs necessary to wager for Pascal’s God – and argue why I do not believe that this response works to salvage the wager. In the television show “The Good plausible, but given that the stakes are so high Place,” persons are selected, based on the (we are talking about eternity here), should moral weight of their deeds on earth, to either we be content with this analysis? Afterall, spend eternity in the “Good Place” or the what if we are wrong and, by failing to act “Bad Place.” In the former, house parties and appropriately on earth, we spend our afterlife unlimited frozen yogurt await you. In the in misery? As it turns out, an argument which latter, torture and the endless realizations of might rationally require us to behave as if your worst nightmares. So, suffice it to say, “The Good Place” were a documentary, you want to end up in the “Good Place.” The cataloging every detail of the afterlife, has problem, however, is that very few people do. existed since the 17th Century, and in this Only the most moral and giving are rewarded paper, we are going to see just how this with such a fate. In other words, getting into argument – commonly called “Pascal’s the “Good Place” requires tremendous Wager” – holds up. sacrifice while on earth. From an entirely self-serving perspective, is the sacrifice Pascal’s wager is an important worth it? One might reply with an emphatic argument for many historical reasons, from “No!” by arguing that the chance of such a pushing theology into unexplored territory to system existing is so low that we are justified innovating decision theory (Hajek 2017) but, in living as if it were false. This may seem to my mind, there are two components of the argument which make it a particularly 101

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 illuminating. First, it draws a critical forward what I take to the best possible distinction between epistemic and pragmatic response to this problem – a retreat to the considerations in our decision theoretic. It probability of different sets of Gods existing, may seem prima facie obvious that we ought combined with an appeal to the relevant to believe simply what is most likely to be beliefs necessary to wager for Pascal’s God – true, but Pascal’s forced gamble puts that and will argue why I do not believe that this proposition under scrutiny. It shows us that response works to salvage the wager. there are good reasons to suspect that it is not only permissible to believe propositions for Pascal’s pragmatic argument for God purely pragmatic reasons, but that you may takes three forms but, by far, the most even be rationally required to do so. Second, influential and important has been his and more importantly, it shows us the argument from the expected utility of belief. incredible difficulty of using infinite utilities The argument works by showing that there in expected utility theory. Infinity does, in my are 4 possible states of the world: (1) God opinion, the bulk of the work for Pascal’s exists and you believe he does, (2) God argument. It is what allows his conclusions to doesn’t exist and you believe he does, (3) be so surprising and controversial, yet God exists and you don’t believe he does, and intuitively appealing and persuasive. (4) God doesn’t exist and you don’t believe Unfortunately, infinity also ends up being the he does. Clearly, you do not have a choice in reason that the wager is untenable as a the matter as to whether God exists or not, defense of a pragmatic reason for belief in but, Pascal argues, you do have a choice as to God. whether or not you believe in God. It might be objected that you cannot choose whether In this paper, I will argue that or not you believe in God, or any proposition “Pascal’s Wager” is unsuccessful in its for that matter. That said, I will not linger proposed aims of giving us an argument for long on this objection and, for the purposes belief in God. I will first explicate Pascal’s of this paper, we’ll take Pascal’s argument at argument for belief in God from expected face value and assume that we can choose utility. Next, I’ll present what I believe to be whether or not we believe in God. a knock-down objection to the argument, the Additionally, we’ll assume that Pascal is “Many Gods” problem. Finally, I’ll put correct in positing that this is a “forced 102

The Hopelessness of Infinity wager”; you cannot opt out of choosing all possible states are some finite value. (Pascal, 1932). That’s the beauty of the argument! With the boxes of our decision matrix With the rules for the utilities in established (possible states 1 – 4), we can place, we can immediately see that no begin to see the force of Pascal’s argument. decision necessarily dominates another. Critical to the argument is the proposition “Dominates” here refers to a situation in that (1) has infinite utility, while all other which one decision is at least as good in every possible states of the world have finite utility. possible state of the world, and also better in If these conditions are met, Pascal’s at least one possible state of the world. To argument can begin to get off the ground. illustrate the point that no choice necessarily Interestingly, we can assign a high level of dominates another, let’s imagine that the negative utility to (2) and it still won’t expected utilities of the possible states are as weaken the conclusion! For instance, Pascal follows: can grant the skeptic that believing in God will incur some costs. Perhaps, due to your (1) : Infinite new belief, you wake up early and miss (2) : -100 football on Sundays to go to church, or you (3) : 0 skip out on sinful, yet enjoyable, activities (4) : 50 that you would have partaken in had you been absent your belief. This would imbue (2) with If one of our choices dominated the other, negative utility, yet Pascal’s conclusion will then we’d have a great case for selecting that hold so long as that negative utility isn’t option. In this case, however, if God exists, infinite. It seems obviously true that the we’re better off believing, but if God doesn’t badness of waking up early to go to church exist, we’re better off not believing. So, this isn’t infinite, no matter how close. All of this doesn’t help us. In cases like this, a common to show that it doesn’t matter whatsoever method in decision theory is to look to the how you move around the utilities of the expected utility of your possible choices. possible states. Pascal’s conclusion holds so long as we accept that (1) is infinite and that Expected utility can be calculated by taking the sum of the utilities of all relevant states, weighted for their probability of 103

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 obtaining. To give a simple example, imagine is, of course, infinity. Obviously, the utility someone makes a bet with you, saying that of non-belief will never equal this. Combine they’ll flip a fair coin and give you $2 if you all this with a plausible normative guess which side it’ll land on, but take $1 proposition – you ought to do that which from you if you guess incorrectly. In this maximizes expected utility – and, voila, you game, it won’t matter what you bet because have Pascal’s pragmatic argument for belief either choice will have an average utility of in God. It is worth noting that the math will $0.50. Let’s say you choose heads. There is a not give you Pascal’s conclusion if you either .5 chance of either winning $2 or losing $1. do not accept that God can give you infinite After adjusting for the probability of flipping utility, or do not accept that the probability of heads, you get the weighted utility of $1 and God’s existence is >0. I agree with the -$0.50, which, when summed, gives you a defenders of Pascal, however, that both of total expected utility of $0.50 for betting these propositions are implausible and will heads. At this point, you should be able to see thus refrain from addressing them fully in this how Pascal’s argument proceeds. For any paper. They are, as it turns out, unnecessary probability that you assign God’s existence, due to the many Gods problem which we’ll the expected utility of believing will be now explore. infinite. This is where the magic of infinity does some very heavy lifting for the The many Gods objection works in argument. To illustrate this, let’s just work just the way it sounds. It contends that Pascal the expected utility of believing and not errors in vastly underestimating the possible believing with the numbers I posited earlier. states of the world. It turns out that we can This time, however, we’ll also assume that extend the decision matrix indefinitely if we there is a 1% chance of God’s existence fine grain our states of the world from just obtaining. Whether or not the probability is “God exists” to “Pascal’s God exists” and anything like this in reality is beside the then add all the competing conceptions of point, I am simply using a low chance to God which are incompatible. Some Gods will emphasize the force of the argument. Taking pose no problem at all for the argument, as the weighed utility of (2), we get -99 (-100 x they do not purport to reward believers with .99), and taking the weighed utility of (1), we infinite utility, so we can throw those out get infinity (infinity x .01). The sum of these (Hajek, 2017). There are plenty, however, 104

The Hopelessness of Infinity that do promise such a reward, and that fact There’s even “Shy God”, who only rewards seriously undermines Pascal’s conclusion. people who don’t believe in any Gods For example, maybe Allah exists and rewards because he doesn’t want the extra attention. the Muslim believers. Maybe the Mormon As silly as these all may seem, I cannot see conception of God is correct, and nobody will that we have sufficient evidence to rule them be rewarded but them. Maybe the merciful out. It isn’t as if they are logically God that my Mom believes in is who exists, contradictory. So, according to Pascal’s and we’ll all be rewarded, regardless of argument, if there is even a which doxastic attitudes we hold. Right away .00000000000000001 chance of “Shy God we can see the massive problem that the existing”, there is infinite expected utility in wager faces. So long as we assign some refusing to believe in any Gods. Now, there number >0 to the probability of any of these are a couple different ways that one might try Gods existing, the choice to believe in them to defend the wager against this problem. I’ll also has infinite expected utility. What’s briefly cover one response which, I think, more, if my Mom is right, even not believing obviously fails, and then I’ll cover a more has infinite expected utility! sophisticated response, as well as why I believe it cannot salvage the wager, for the If all of these beliefs have infinite remainder of this paper. utility, how can we possibly choose any of them based on Pascal’s The poor response is to argue reasoning? something like, “It’s true that, if all the beliefs have infinite expected value, you cannot Believe it or not, it actually gets reasonably choose among them, however, worse for the defenders of the wager, and this this isn’t the case. The real God will not only is where infinity begins to truly work against reward the believers with infinite utility but Pascal. To push the decision matrix even will punish the non-believers with an eternity further, we can just make mutually exclusive of suffering!” If this held, the many Gods Gods up! There is the “Anti-Pascal” God, problem would certainly be in peril, as the who only rewards people who don’t believe positive infinite utility of say, my Mom’s in God based on Pascal’s reasoning. There’s God, would have to contend with the “Luna the Moon God”, who rewards people negative infinite utility of Pascal’s, rendering who were born during full moons, and doesn’t care at all what people believe. 105

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 belief in my Mom’s God to have an seem to me that if utility calculations cannot undefined expected utility ((infinity – decide which choice to make, we should do infinity) is undefined if you’re wondering that which is most likely to bring us the why this is the case). There is a convincing utility. The second part of the response is retort to this, however. Many Gods, which suggesting that the objector has wildly are mutually exclusive with Pascal’s, would misunderstood what it means to believe in also punish you for believing in Pascal’s God. The most plausible (which now matters) God. Many, for example, believe that Allah kind of God won’t care that you were will punish nonbelievers, including those perfectly accurate in your beliefs. God is, who believe in different Gods. Even our after all, all good and will seek to reward made-up Gods, with incredibly low those who make a genuine effort to connect probabilities of existence, make a problem with him. Whether you believe in Allah, the for this response. Say “Shy God” doesn’t just Christian God, or the Mormon conception of reward non-believers, he punishes harshly God, what you’ve done is humble yourself those who embarrass him with their praise. before the infinite power of your creator. With these possibilities elaborated, we can You’ve taken a leap of faith and see that belief in Pascal’s God runs into acknowledged that, when there is so much exactly the same problem as any others. All that you don’t know or can never know, it can of these beliefs, with just a little tweaking, only be the fool who says, “I know there isn’t will have undefinable expected utility. a God”. This is the true essence of belief and, seen in this light, we can greatly reduce the A much stronger response to the decision matrix once again. Understood objection is that, when all beliefs in the correctly, we have possible states “Plausible matrix have equal utility, we ought to use the God exists”, “Wildly Implausible God probability of the state’s obtaining as a tie exists”, and “No Gods exist”. Taking this into breaker (Hajek, 2017). Additionally, we account, along with the normative might suspect that the objector has made the component of the response, we see that we matrix far too fine-grained and has missed the ought to favor belief in “Plausible God” over central point about belief in God. The first “Implausible God” due to the likelihood of part to this response is a normative these states obtaining, and we ought to favor proposition, which I think is correct. It does “Plausible God” over “No God” because the 106

The Hopelessness of Infinity “No Gods” decision will only be rewarded if the one expressed in the passages about one of the implausible God’s obtains. In this judgement? Furthermore, wouldn’t the most case, we can see that we are still rationally loving and benevolent God be the compelled to choose to believe in a plausible “implausible” one that my Mom believes in? conception of God, which rewards those who The one who rewards all, regardless of their make some honest effort to connect with him. doxastic attitudes? If it’s a plausible nature of God that makes him more or less likely, I’d Although I do think that this response personally bet on this conception, making is clever, I do not believe that it can atheism a tenable choice once more. ultimately save the wager from the many Gods problem. First, it is unclear to me why Another issue is that it’s very dubious the kind of God supposed is the most that the transitive nature of the response plausible. It seems to me that, beyond being works in the way that the proponent would the most useful for the argument, there is no like. Remember, the proposed normative reason to suspect that it is. You might appeal claim was that, when utilities are all tied, you to the nature of God as loving or otherwise ought to retreat to probability of the states benevolent to show that what he cares about obtaining to decide which action to take. So, isn’t the petty details of perfectly accurate we might grant that “plausible God” is more belief, but in doing so, you’ll need to appeal likely than “implausible God”, but it doesn’t to some holy text, which presupposes the follow that belief in “plausible God” is truth of the very thing that you are trying to rationally required over the belief in “No prove, the truth of some holy text. God”. The reason originally proposed was Additionally, most holy texts will have that believers in “no God” are only rewarded passages which explicitly state that God will if “implausible god” obtains, but that doesn’t only reward those who believe in a specific say anything about how we ought to decide if conception of him and will punish all others. “no God” is the most likely state to obtain. Even if we accept that the holy text used to The proponent of the response is attempting prove God’s loving nature is accurate, what to have it both ways. They want to rule out independent method could we use to show “implausible God” by appealing to that the real nature of God is the one probability, but then rule out “no God” based expressed in the “loving” passages and not on utility. Unfortunately for the defender of 107

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 the wager, utility calculations being abandon the argument. Whether Pascal has undecisive were exactly what brought us to shown that use of infinite utilities is this point and, thus, cannot now be used again inherently destructive to decision theory is an to invoke the pragmatic necessity for belief in issue for another time, but for now, we can be God. At this point, you must do a comparison fairly certain that the argument doesn’t show of probability between “plausible God” and that we have a rational obligation to cut our “no God” obtaining, which gives the atheist sleep short on Sunday mornings. Thank God the perfectly reasonable position of accepting for that. the normative component of the defender’s response and still rationally believing that no Acknowledgment: God exists, based on a higher probability of said state obtaining. I'd like to thank all of my wonderful professors at UCSD for help me to grow in In this paper, I’ve presented Pascal’s my philosophical thinking and for putting up wager for pragmatic belief in God via with me during so many office hours. expected utility and explained why I believe that it fails. Ultimately, issues of infinity are References: both what motivate and destroy Pascal’s argument, as shown by the many God’s Hájek, A. (2017, September 01). Pascal's Wager. objection. These problems are, in my Retrieved from opinion, unescapably damning to the https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal- defender of the wager and leave them with no wager/ epistemically responsible choice but to Pascal, B. (1932). Pensees (John Warrington, Trans.). London: Dent. (Everyman’s Library no. 847) 108

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 ________________ Introducing Jeremy Moore A Q&A with the author of The Importance of True Friendship in Forming a Full Understanding of, and Participation in, Morality. What is your major and why did you choose to study philosophy? - I am planning to double major in philosophy and cognitive science. I came to the major of philosophy through a complex academic journey that spanned the classics, chemistry, music, and psychology. I found philosophy to be an all-encompassing glue of these different disciplines and this is what attracted me to it. With the tools of forming questions and delivering arguments we can explore nearly anything and this idea to me is the purpose of philosophy. What are your interests within the field of philosophy? - I have a particular interest in the ways in which we can view consciousness and identity theory. This closely tracks with cognitive and behavioral psychology. I believe the synthesis of these fields will be very beneficial to discovering what we can know about ourselves and the nature of life itself. What was your favorite philosophy class and what did you get out of it? - My favorite philosophy class so far was merely a Critical Thinking and Writing class with Professor Soon-Ah Fadness at San Diego City College. The material in the class varied widely but learning the process of good philosophy, from how to deconstruct arguments to recognizing flaws and how to build a good argument have been the most useful and fulfilling tools of philosophy that I have learned. What are your future hopes with your philosophy degree? - While I have not fully decided which path in philosophy I will ultimately take, I think the most I can wish for is to contribute meaningfully in the larger field of philosophy. What school and program are you hoping to transfer to? - I am transferring to UCSD to finish my undergraduate degree and then plan to complete a graduate degree in philosophy. What inspired you to come up with the topic for this paper? - While watching the T.V. show “The Good Place” I came to realize that a central theme of the show was the friendship that the characters formed with each other. This made me wonder about the importance of friendship and the role it plays in participating in moral systems. 109

INTUITIONS 2019 Volume XVI: Issue 2 110