Can science determine morality? It can and should, according to a special feature in New Scientist. Until recently, morality was the special preserve of philosophers and theologians. However, modern science is showing us the true basis of morality, which is variously regarded as neurology, evolution or genetics.

Admittedly, this is a fearsome thought for people who believe that morality collapses without a divine leglislator. However, Harvard University’s Fiery Cushman insists that this is not so: “Rather, by unmasking our minds as the authors of morality, we may be better able to bend its narrative arc towards a happy end.” In fact, he says, “By recognising morality as a property of the mind, we gain a magical power of control over its future.”

Amongst the other articles was an interview with atheism activist Sam Harris, who has recently published a book on this very topic: The Moral Landscape: How science can determine human values. Not surprisingly, he declares that science has made religion and religious morality obsolete:

“The scientific study of morality is the lever that, if pulled hard enough, will completely dislodge religion from the firmament of our concerns. The world religions will land somewhere near astrology, witchcraft and Greek mythology on the scrapheap. In their place we will have a thoroughgoing understanding of human flourishing, which will include even the most rarified and traditionally ‘spiritual’ states of human consciousness.” 

The well-known Princeton philosopher Peter Singer was also invited to contribute to the New Scientist forum. He briefly surveyed research which shows that our morality is by and large based on instinctive – not reasoned – reactions. While adequate in primitive societies, this is probably bad or counterproductive today. As an example, he cites the wrong of having a large family on an over-populated planet. “The new scientific lines of evidence about the nature of morality open the way for us to think more deeply, and more freely, about what we ought to do,” he argues. ~ New Scientist, Oct 19