Austin Dacey serves as a respresentative to the United Nations for CFI, and is also on the editorial staff of Skeptical Inquirer and Free Inquiry magazines. His writings have appeared in numerous publications including the New York Times and USA Today. His new book is The Secular Conscience: Why Belief Belongs in Public Life.
In this conversation with D.J. Grothe, Austin Dacey argues for the objectivity of morality from a nonreligious perspective. Maintaining that the conscience is prior to and independent of God and religion, he advocates an "ethics from below" that steers a middle course between an empirical "science of good and evil" and a transcendental religious ethic. While sharply criticizing what he sees as simplistic and misleading applications of evolutionary science to moral matters, Dacey defends a naturalistic understanding of the right and good. He explains the advantages of consequentialist moral theories that seek to promote individual well-being, and returns to John Stuart Mill's On Liberty to show that the belief in objective values is perfectly compatible with the social philosophy of secular liberalism. Dacey also responds to Chris Hedges' assertions that secularists do not grasp the nature of evil and that the Enlightenment notion of moral progress is a myth.
That was a terrific interview. Austin could make me laugh while at the same time think deeply about issues that are important to me (pushed all the right buttons). At first blush it would seem that I could agree with Austin’s consequentialism because it appears to come close to how I think of this issue, which is a kind of ‘common sense’ approach. I’m going to listen to the interview again - but, I was a bit surprised that Michael Shermer’s “science of good and evil” (which I’m guessing was used do to the title of his book) was spoken of in such a near concrete way. To me, Austin’s, and people such as Kurtz and Shermer are actually on the same ‘common sense’ track. I say this because Shermer and others, including Austin, are arguing that science can inform the moral discourse (no, physics isn’t going to answer the questions - which is partly the point of many - including Stuart Kauffman). It’s funny because the middle ground argued for was somewhere I ended up because of Shermer.
Here’s an example of what I mean from Shermer’s book, The Science of Good and Evil.
~ “The bright torch of science illuminates the darkness of humanity to reveal a human nature that is both moral and immoral, a product of our evolutionary heritage and our cultural history. We can construct a provisional ethical system that is neither dogmatically absolute nor irrationally relative, a more universal and tolerant morality that enhances the probability of the survival and well-being of all members of the species, and perhaps eventually of all species and even the biosphere, the only home we have ever known or will know until science leads us off the planet, out of the solar system, and to the stars. Ad astra!” ~ MS
Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that dang close to what Austin is arguing? I can’t help but to comment that on many occasions recently it appears that certain people are going beyond what Michael Shermer is actually arguing in many cases. I should add that from what Shermer has said, he is coming at the issues from a scientific perspective purposefully, from this vantage point and understanding we would be incorrect to accuse of not providing some philosophical treatise. This does not tell us that he holds his approach answers all the questions, far from it, it is only to offer what science may tell us and how we may incorporate that information into the dialog. I would say, well, it’s about time we do. It can be seen as a useful adjunct to the already established (and evolving) philosophical debate . In this regard it helps provide the philosophical debates with grandeur scope, and/or helps to provide a foundational aspect. After all, we do want to be objective at some level.
So, it seems a bit odd to say it is a “skeptical ethic” (as a blanket statement). In the book mentioned above on pg. 165, Shermer introduces the reader to different ethical systems by saying these are the ones that appeal to him and consequentialism is at the top of the list. But, for the reason I stated above, he does not offer a full description or analysis, that is not the goal of the approach of the book.
As long as I’m on it, when it comes to bringing into the public discourse the secular conscience, I would also recommend Shermer’s, The Soul of Science. Here is a free audio recording - a booklet dedicated to Richard Dawkins “for giving science it’s soul”.
If you would like to leave a comment about this episode of Point of Inquiry please visit the related thread on the CFI discussion forums
