Improvement of Moral Status is Due to Reason and Knowledge, Not Just Religions

Michael Shermer, the editor of "Skeptic" magazine and CEO of an institute by the same name, claims that his work is to uncover lies and dispel false beliefs. He is a skeptic in ethical and social discussions and, in his recent book, he expands on the improvement of ethics, paralleling discussions by Steven Pinker in "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined." In his book "The Moral Arc: How Science and Reason Lead Humanity Toward Truth, Justice, and Freedom," Shermer elaborates on moral improvement as the survival and flourishing of sentient beings, which includes having food, security, clothing, and a community beneficial to our psychological and social lives. He defines sentient beings as those who have emotions, understand, are sensitive, respond, and are aware. Following Jeremy Bentham, he bases animal rights not on their intelligence but on their ability to understand suffering. In a conversation with Sam Harris about his book, Shermer emphasizes four reasons for focusing on the survival and flourishing of the individual in the moral arc: first, evolution operates at the individual level, not the societal level; second, the moral agent is the individual, not the tribe or nation; third, historically, the greatest violations of human rights and mass killings have occurred when individuals are sacrificed for the group; and fourth, the legal revolutions of the past two centuries have primarily focused on individual rights rather than communities or tribes. Modern rights, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, protect individuals from discrimination based solely on group membership. Shermer addresses issues like civilian violence, such as gun violence, as public health concerns. Over the past two centuries, the murder rate has remarkably fallen, which is significant because it suggests that through effective governance, better policing methods, and numerous other interventions, we can achieve this moral imperative. Why? Because saving human lives is morally desirable. Why is it desirable? Because saving lives leads to the survival and flourishing of sentient beings. Today, we do not believe in witchcraft because knowledge has dispelled it. We have better explanations for disease and drought. Knowledge has also shown that humans do not differ based on skin color, nor are women 'weak.' Except for abusers and those lacking mental health, the majority of people do not wish to witness the suffering of others. Therefore, when we see people torturing others, it is more likely that they have made a 'mistake' about what is good and what is bad. Shermer states, 'If you think that women dancing around a fire at midnight can cause drought and crop failure, you are either insane or living five hundred years ago.' When the theory of witchcraft and its connection to these issues was accepted, those who burned women for witchcraft were more mistaken than 'immoral.' They undoubtedly believed that by burning women, they were doing the right thing. But because their beliefs were not rooted in reality, their actions became immoral. He adds, 'Today, we do not believe in witchcraft because knowledge has dispelled it. We have better explanations for disease and drought. Knowledge has also shown that humans do not differ based on skin color, nor are women 'weak.' Except for abusers and those lacking mental health, the majority of people do not wish to witness the suffering of others. Therefore, when we see people torturing others, it is more likely that they have made a 'mistake' about what is good and what is bad. Knowledge and reason are the best tools we have for advancing ethics.' In an interview with Radio Farda about his book, Shermer notes that religion is mentioned less frequently and that the discussion of ethics has not progressed through religions. He states that in the fourth chapter of the book, he discusses religions primarily to reject their role in ethics, arguing that the assumption that religion is the greatest driving force behind ethics is incorrect. In fact, all the Enlightenment values of secular thought, critical thinking, scientific reasoning, and the scientific rules we have gradually discovered over the past centuries have been the main driving force behind the formation of ethics, with religions having no role in improvement. Religions have not been the main driving force but rather a part of this movement. Whenever they have been able to accompany social movements, they have become one of the elements of moral improvement. However, if you look at the trend of religion towards moralism, you will see that they are usually always lagging behind the movements. For example, in the United States, the main opponents of same-sex marriage were religious individuals, while the main supporters of this movement were secular and non-religious individuals who do not attend church. Even if you find a religious group that supports it, they are usually reformed groups or those with more open thinking, such as liberal Jews or the Episcopal Church. Thus, I reiterate that religion has played a role in moral improvement, but its role has not been primary. The main bearers of ethics have been reason and science. So how has religion intertwined itself with ethics? In popular perception, whenever the topic of ethics arises, the primary thought that comes to mind is religion. How has religion managed to dominate the discussion of ethics in public thought? One reason could be that religion has introduced itself as an institution for ethics since the movement towards organized religions. For us, in simple and primitive thought, whenever ethics is discussed, we think it is related to religion or comes from there. But all our lives and everything we have is intertwined with ethics, and it is not just about religion. I think this is more of a historical prevalence where religion has intertwined itself with ethics in everyone's mind. How can individuals be encouraged to step out of this conventional thinking and find ethics without it being tied to religion? One way is through this book or by visiting the website "moralarc.org" and many other resources, including Steven Pinker's book or even Sam Harris's book on the moral landscape. My book focuses more precisely on ethics and separates it from religions, showing that reason, consciousness, and awareness are the main pillars of ethics. When someone understands what actually happens in the formation of ethics, it is sufficient for them, and they will seek how to better achieve or improve ethics. In fact, this discussion has been ongoing for several centuries, and I have only shown its practical formation in this book. Another discussion you had with Sam Harris was about evolution acting on individuals, not groups. In this case, should ethics also be seen as a matter dependent on individual evolution rather than collective? If there is a conflict in society, we must be able to consider the rights of individuals, and individual rights cannot be sacrificed. For example, look at the U.S. Constitution. Many provisions are made to protect individual rights, and it does not matter what the prevailing conditions are; these rights cannot be taken away from individuals, even regarding how the majority thinks or how the majority votes. No matter how comprehensive it is, these fundamental rights cannot be taken from individuals. My argument is that these rights support individuals, and individuals with rights can play a role in society. Therefore, it does not matter what skin color someone has or what their views or sexual orientation are; they have the right to vote. For this reason, I emphasize natural rights. Because evolution has given this foundation to individuals to survive and progress, and from there, everything begins. At one point, I think you said that apart from the philosophy of science, other philosophies will fade away. Do you still hold this belief, or perhaps your point was not conveyed correctly? No, I think it was not expressed correctly because we have good thinkers and philosophers from Aristotle to John Rawls who have laid good foundations for ethics, but none alone can address contemporary ethical issues. My point is that we should use such a foundation established by ethical philosophers to create an ethics based on reason and knowledge. We are doing this, and it is happening; I just said what the conditions are. We have discussions on ethics, and the more we can add to it, the better the results we get. In "The Moral Arc," you reference a lot of statistics that document and show that violence and killing among humans have been on the decline. However, suddenly we face a volcanic eruption of violence, such as someone like Putin in Russia or militias known as the "Islamic State" or ISIS. How can we understand this sudden outbreak of violence at a time when we are witnessing a decline in violence? First of all, it should be said that that part of the moral arc does not easily decline and is not straightforward. It is a challenging path with many obstacles and speed bumps. There are places where one takes a step forward and then has to take two steps back. Of course, there are many who do not accept the light of knowledge and reason and do not acknowledge values such as tolerance, rationality, and secularism. Extremist Islamist groups like ISIS or Al-Qaeda want to return to the values and principles of the seventh century and implement Sharia law; patriarchal societies, barbarism, closed and inflexible communities where no individual rights are respected. In fact, the emergence of such exceptions in the trend of decreasing violence in the world confirms a point I have addressed in "The Moral Arc." The decline of violence or the increase in moralism is not inevitable. It is not the case that we say we cannot escape it and will eventually reach it; there are several actors and factors that are effective, and when we engage them, they respond. When we apply these principles, moral improvement occurs; if we set them aside, there will be no moral improvement. In fact, moral regression occurs, which is precisely the case with these recent acts of violence. It is true that we said the moral arc may not always progress perfectly, but is there a factor or something within us that is averse to ethics or a force that prevents us from being moral? Yes, and of course, it goes back to our perspective. I always say the moral arc is not a line on the wall, and I prefer the term 'arc' used by Sam Harris in his book "The Moral Landscape." It is true that we do not have a utopia, but the moral arc is not like a hill. The moral arc is multidirectional and multidimensional. There are multiple good ways to live; some are better than others, and everyone can choose. In our current era, where we are much more connected and no longer isolated and uninformed, what is the best step we can take to improve ethics? The most important thing is to recognize that there are truths that need to be discovered. That there is a world of reality, and the meaning of truth is not just to accept biological life, but to acknowledge that there is a world of social and ethical relationships as well. We start from there and then proceed with democracy, tolerance, and other values. From a personal perspective, if someone can see the world from the viewpoints of others before making any judgments, they will find better tolerance, better understand their lives, and have a sense of empathy towards them.