When scientific research reveals new discoveries about human nature, how do these discoveries conflict with existing ethical standards, and how far can ethical legitimacy be accepted in the face of such conflict? In doing so, it re-examines the interplay between science and ethics and explores the possibility of changing societal values.
David Carrier of the University of Utah, USA, published a paper on October 21, 2015, in the journal Experimental Biology, suggesting that human hands have evolved to be good at making fists and punching. This study is considered an important resource for exploring how the human body has evolved to perform specific functions from an anthropological perspective. While the content of the paper was impressive enough, the scientific community was quick to weigh in on the validity of the study, which sparked a controversy. The results were immediately met with opposition. They questioned the reliability of David Carrier’s findings and argued that they could justify human violence. It is true that there is excessive reductionism in David Carrier’s research, and it is open to debate whether or not he provided sufficient evidence of causal traceability at the methodological level. But was the other reason for criticism, the justification of violence, really valid? Would the same assessment have been made if the evidence had been more robust under the same circumstances? Let’s reconsider their position that science and ethics are in conflict.
The purpose of scientific research is to bring the world into the realm of human understanding as insight. Even if the results derived from the natural sciences do not fit our a priori perceptions, they are the product of scientific methodology and cannot be easily denied. In that case, it is necessary to expand or modify the perception to satisfy the original purpose. If you observe and structure human beings based on the premise that humans are not violent, but the results of your research show the opposite, you must find the error in your premise and reexamine it. This is the basis of philosophy. The current view of human beings in society as a whole is philosophically based and needs to be reviewed and accepted. The willingness to expand our perception of human beings at this point in time, after a long period of observing human beings as objects, will be the beginning of acceptance. This expansion of awareness is also essential to making the ethical framework of our society more robust and inclusive.
Of course, there are also dangers in refusing to expand our perception of humanity. Making simplistic conclusions about human nature excludes groups that do not share those qualities. The social systems that ethics creates are structured without considering the excluded groups. The excluded position faces the difficulty of proving its existence. For example, psychopaths belong to a group that is different from normal humans in terms of their ability to empathize. On the other hand, within the judgment of Colbert and the universal group, tentative empathy and moral development are natural outcomes and basic processes of cognitive development, and educational policy is based on these ideas. Universal ethics fails to place psychopaths in their own group. If their differences are not respected, it is discrimination, and discrimination is a universal unethical behavior. The exclusionary attitude of one ethic leads to the isolation of the ethic itself and moves it away from wholeness. It is self-evident that such an ethic cannot be a universal ethic. Nevertheless, these debates can be an important part of the process of developing a deeper understanding of human nature and resolving ethical dilemmas.
Naturalistic ethics requires sufficient evidence to address the question of what human nature is and what human beings should be. These can be judgments based on a priori findings, or they can be the result of a deductive process. Throughout history, there have been numerous discussions about human nature. Based on the philosophical nature of naturalistic ethics and analogizing it to the structure of the scientific revolution, some ethics may have faded or become paradigmatic. In this case, we should not emphasize perfection at this point, but rather the potential for improvement. The basis is always knowledge and experience, and the natural sciences will be a strong supporter. Natural science and ethics are now on equal footing, and we need to humbly accept that, rather than stubbornly resisting conflicts. When new discoveries challenge existing ethical standards, we must remember to embrace them critically and reexamine our values.
Some groups argue that natural scientific thinking threatens ethics itself. Adolf Hitler used eugenics research as a rationale for ethnic cleansing, leading to some of the worst genocides in history. They argue that if natural science is elevated above ethics, many inhumane behaviors can be justified in the name of natural law. This argument fails to recognize two problems.
The first is that eugenics is never a scientific study. Eugenics claims that there are inferior species and superior species. However, there is no such thing as a superior and inferior species in nature. Species are distinguished solely by differences in how they interact with their environment. It is only the arrogance of the researcher who interprets it from a highly subjective point of view. A study that loses its objectivity due to irrational judgment cannot be considered appropriate for understanding human beings.
The other contradiction of the eugenics example is that natural science cannot be placed above ethics. Ethics and the natural sciences must be treated as equals in value, and ethics must be balanced with respect to the human beings recognized by the natural sciences, which are equal but diverse. If science is a way of observing things, then ethics and morality are bifurcated into ways of structuring things, and the relationship between the two is compartmentalized but must remain reciprocal.
In other words, we should avoid judging science by ethics, as this is a monopoly that does not recognize the boundaries between the two. But they must recognize each other, science returning knowledge and reason, and ethics restructuring them within our society. The purpose of science, not unlike ethics, is for the prosperity and well-being of humanity. I have no doubt that they can fulfill each other’s purpose without excluding the other. It is necessary to reflect deeply on how these two different domains can harmonize and interact. Such reflection will provide important clues to understanding the relationship between science and ethics.
