Resolving the Debate

Biologically, “the well-being of conscious creatures” is logically and empirically subservient to survival, not vice-versa.

i.e. We empirically observe, and can logically conclude, that evolution created the desire for us to pursue “well-being” (which we then use as as a meaningful concept) because conscious creatures experiencing subjective well-being from breathing freely, a full belly, sexual satisfaction, loving offspring, etc., are likely to survive. But the reverse is not the case: empirically well-being is a subset, non-essential, aspect of survival. Because, for one thing, obviously survival of life forms predated, and can occur without, conscious life forms who could even experience subjective well being.

So, by placing well-being at the top of their moral hierarchy Sam Harris and the utilitarian’s have created a normative system that will often be out of accord with what scientifically is the case. Obviously, it makes no sense to say that we just happen to pursue well-being randomly, just tautologically because that’s what conscious creatures like.

For the utilitarian, long term survival of the metabolic process that moves through us, via reproduction into the distant future (the essential “survival” part of the literal meaning/definition of life), would only be of interest if it leads to well-being, not vice-versa. Utilitarians found (base) their value systems in the subjective conscious experience of well-being; not in the physical world as a whole (then the biological world as a subcategory of that, then conscious beings as a subcategory of that).  Thus, when the hard science of biology (and thus biological survival) is suggested or implied as a precursor value base, they tend to respond with a straw man argument against biological evolution as a base.   The closest Harris comes to addressing this issue is to say that a scientific account of human values “is not the same as an evolutionary account.” For example, in the introduction to The Moral Landscape, Harris admiringly quotes Stephen Pinker’s (another utilitarian) stunningly unscientific, ignorant, and dismissive straw man argument against attempting to make a biological survival based ethical foundation:
“If conforming to the dictates of evolution were the foundation of subjective well-being, most men would discover no higher calling in life than to make daily contributions to their local sperm bank.”*

Well, though evolution has dictated that such a survival strategy kind of makes sense for certain kinds of male fish, or the male portions of pine trees (spreading sperm and pollen far and wide), it doesn’t for homo sapiens. Evolution has “dictated” that members of homo sapiens employ far more behaviorally sophisticated reproductive strategies than pine trees. And, even with fish and pine trees, evolution has dictated that most of the business of living (being an individuated thermodynamic dissipative structure) is more about respiration and finding food for the individual fish, and respiration and finding sunlight, water, and minerals for the individual tree. Perhaps Harris and Pinker’s simplistic idea of the “dictates of evolution” would apply best to a simple virus. However, virus’s have no metabolic apparatus. They aren’t cells. Their “purpose” is only all about spreading genetic copies of themselves. And so, crucially according to most biologist’s viruses can only marginally be considered lifeforms.

With Harris and Pinker’s straw man “dictates of evolution” argument, one is reminded of the comic absurdity in the 1980 Saturday Night Live sketch, were Rodney Dangerfield is worn out because so many women are clamoring for his sperm at the local sperm bank. With homo sapiens a cast your genes far and wide strategy, would, at best, only work for a very few lucky individuals. In reality, the dictates of evolution cause most men to note that, in uncontrolled “free market” sperm banks, virtually all women go for the handsome 6’3” star quarterback Harvard graduate. Most men don’t qualify. And because most men don’t qualify, most men wouldn’t have much reason to peacefully participate in such a society. Most men can easily figure this out.

In a scientific pantheist society the awareness of the most rational ethos would presumably be more subtle. Thus, regarding the sperm bank example, in a functional sustainable positive sum game civilization (a “biological niche” which enlightened human organisms should rationally choose to participate in for the synergistic survival benefits) an individual donor’s sperm would generally probably only be allowed for the creation of two offspring at most. Because current sperm banks, where one male can create thousand of children  Darwinian evolution has free reign. And such unfettered Darwinian evolution is ultimately antithetical to a sustainable civilization/niche.

Seen in this light, conforming to the dictates of survival (rather than evolution) is, or should be, the ethical foundation that precedes subjective well-being, because with the scientific pantheist meta ethos a sophisticated benevolent morality can be established the is in deep accord with what we as homo sapiens  psychologically and biologically are, according to science.

To explicitly clarify what is going on here, please consider the utilitarian versus pantheistic moral systems being advocated in terms of two distinct concepts: evolution and survival. When the utilitarian is asked to consider basing an ethos on hard science based biological survival, in this contemporary cultural milieu they have been reflexively and incorrectly presuming that means an ethos advocating biological evolution. Evolution is not even an essential part of the definition of life; as can be logically demonstrated by a theory/definition of life based on the universal laws of physics (given in the main essay above, and further elucidated in a sub essay below), and empirically demonstrated by life forms that have survived, but that haven’t evolved appreciably since the dawn of earth based life. Considering the near certain zero sum game nature of survival via biological evolution, versus the possible positive sum game nature of survival via human civilization, biological survival for the metabolic process that moves through individual modern homo sapiens (or for homo sapiens collectively as a species) is not best facilitated by an ethos that generally sees biological evolution as a positive.

So, since the natural order is, well being is important because it leads to survival (not survival is important because it leads to well being), the natural order is more scientific and more in accord with reality. And, the common utilitarian argument against put survival first is simply the straw man that “survival” necessitates some sort of social Darwinist ethics.

Then what, once again, is the resulting central pragmatic difference for humanity, between the likely utilitarian ethos of Harris, and the likely Scientific Pantheist ethos? Simply put, biological survival is much more of a big picture, long term, even eternal goal. Whereas well being tends to be more of a short term, or even immediate goal. In its worst manifestation, well being as a goal leads to simple hedonism. After all, the heroin addict experiences great well being, temporarily; as does this fossil fuel addicted society. The more enlightened and more common utilitarianism of Peter Singer or Bill Gates quite laudably can and has alleviated a great deal of suffering, but their efforts spent on the short term alleviation of suffering has been at the expense of effort that could have been spent on securing the long term survival of our civilization, on which the survival of the metabolic process of life that moves through us depends. So, from the scientific pantheist perspective is this an either/or situation? Is a sci-pan meta ethos all about survival at the expense of well being? No. Psychologically well being is necessary for oneself because it motivates one to work for survival. And altruistic and empathetic acts directed towards the improving the well being of others is necessary, because it strengthens the fabric of civilization (it’s civilized!) And civilization, done right can, be a phenomenally benevolent biological niche for not just the survival of individual homo sapiens, but of life on earth.

*Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape T (New York: Free Press, 2010), 13