Basic HTML Version
30
anonymous sage once said, "When the
masters all fall out, what are the stu–
den ts to think ?"
Everyone has decided to "do his own
thing." In fact the disagreeing author–
ities have counseled that we
shortfd
make our own decisions m these
matters.
Are W e On Our Own ?
This idea - that our own opinions
are "truth" for us - is
diametrically
opposed to the scientific method. In
fact, science thought it could dispel the
idea of unproved, individual opinion
being counted as "truth." Yet, iostead
of dispelling opinion, the method has
sat by helplessly as personal opinion has
advanced in the social sciences.
This "ind ividual-can-come-to-truth–
for-himself" idea has been voiced by
many, including the late philosopher
Paul T illich. He counseled that "the
individual has in himself, essentially,
the responsibility to form bis own con–
victions and act accordingly."
But is this scientific? Is this really the
truth?
Are humans really capable of making
judgments as to what is right or wrong?
Is majority opinion capable of decidiog
what is moral or immoral? Is it really
scientifi.c for a small group of men to
decide on
personal opinion
what is por–
nography and whetber it should or
should not be legalized?
Is this
NOT
pre-scientific-age, opin–
ionated dogmatism?
Today, we are supposedly free to
make moral decisions as never before.
But is this good? Rarely will two
people agree on what is moral or
immoral. Are we then to discover truth
by counting opinions? Is this the ulti–
mate in scientifi.c approach?
Today, man stands confused
in
an
age of science. Why have sociologists
failed to provide the important answers
in life? Why have the experts - with
access to more facts than ever before -
fallen out so violently? Why must man
submit to the
~ercy
of
opitúon
in an
age that prides itself on scientific exacti–
tude and search for truth?
The reason is clear.
Today's problems demand
VALUE
judgments. "Our problems may be eco–
nomic, social, scientilic, political, but at
The
PLAIN TRUTH
their core they demand of us moral
decisions - decisions of right and
wrong"
(Morality in America,
J.
Robert
Moskin, Random House, 1966,
p.
xiii).
But no one seems capable of provid–
ing knowledge of what is right or
wrong.
D eath of Moral Guidelines
As senior editor of
Look
magazine, J.
Robert Moskin wrote: "We in America"
- and this is tme of other Western
nations - "live in a society without a
supreme moral authority to rule our
conduct''
(Morality in America,
l'·
15) .
But who is to say what is right or
wrong? Who is to say that this or that
is to be the absolute moral conduct?
Quoting existentialist philosopber
Hannah Arendt: "Whether we like it or
not, we have long ceased to live in a
world in which the faith in the Judaeo–
Christian myth of creation is secure
enough to constitute a basis and source
of authority for actual laws...
"Our new diffi.culty is that we start
from a
fundamental distrust
of every–
thing merely given, a distrust of all
laws and p rescriptions, moral or social,
that are deduced from a given com–
prehensive, universal whole" (Henry
S. Kariel,
In
Search of Atrthority,
Twentieth Century Political Thought,
New York, Glencoe, 1964, p. 246) .
On the other hand, science meekly
apologizes by saying that it cannot serve
as or provide us with such a source of
authority for moral decisions.
"Science only provides a car and a
chauffeur for us," says sociologist
George Lundberg. "It does not directly,
as science, tell us where to drive. The
car and the chauffeur will take us into
the ditch, over the precipice, against a
stone wall, or into the highlands of age–
long aspi rations with equal efficiency"
( Can Srience Save Us?,
p.
38).
In fact, when social scientists come
upon moral questions they
ABANDON
the scientific method and resort to
philosophy.
Philosopher Mortimer Adler calls the
search for moral truth "ought-knowl–
edge" - that is the knowledge of what
we
ought
to do in a given situation. For
example, should we spray our crops?
Commi t adultery? Go to war' Borrow
money with interest' This is different
February 1971
from the "know-how" knowledge sup–
plied by science and the scientific
method.
Is Philosophy the Answer ?
Says Adler: "We cannot go to any
other of the major branches of natural
knowledge - to science, to history, or
to mathematics - for it . . .
Philosophy
alone,
of all branches of knowledge,
can tell us what we ought to seek as
well as both why and how we ought to
seek it.
"Philosophy alone gives us knowl–
edge of what is good and bad, right
and wrong - the order of goods, the
moral law, ends and means, happiness,
the human virtues, and our duties"
(The Conditions of Philosophy,
Morti–
mer J. Adler, New York, Antheneum,
1965,
p.
197).
But
WHICH
philosophy?
Shall we follow the philosophy of
Mao Tse-Tung who says "power comes
from the barre! of a gun"? $hall we fol–
low Soviet Russia's Communist philoso–
phy; or socialism; or democracy; or
dictatorship; or nihilism? Shall we
follow Christianity, Buddhistn, Islam ?
$hall we accept the "new morality"
- where anything goes in sex and
drugs? $hall we follow Victorian
prudery, which claims sex is evil?
Is it right to kill in any situation? To
steal? To commit adultery? Should man
lie in any situation, on a personal or
governmental leve!?
Obviously, philosophy per se has
not
been very scientifi.c. That we need a
"scientific philosophy" - one based on
facts, on cause and effect, on truth, free
from the desire of men - is certainly
apparent. But such a "philosophy" has
not yet been forthcoming.
In the physical sciences a wrong the–
ory is soon proveo to be so by the facts.
But what are we to do in the social
sphere? Must we follow foolish ideas
before the foolishness is finally, if ever,
demonstrated?
Can we use the scientific method to
prove what is good and what ís evil -
without first following foolish and
unproved hypotheses?
Yes we
CAN,
indirectly, use the scien–
tific method to
lead 11s
to that which can
establish what is right and wrong. We