“The study of economics and ecology without an ethical objective, in my mind, is akin to studying medicine not to relieve suffering, but simply for something to do to.”
Tor Hundloe, In From Buddha to Bono, On pg 12.
Footer
About Me
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read morePayPal
I agree: Unless ecological suffering is relieved, the study of its economics is unethical.
Obviously there is a role for a so-called ‘ethics of science’ but we must be very precise in defining such an ethics. It must be limited to the proper conduct of scientists as defined by the principles of scientific method. (Note that the ethics of experimental research that involves sentient beings is a whole other branch of ethics in and of itself, and I assume it isn’t what we’re on about here.)
Of course, individual scientists are also citizens and are free to advocate whatever sublime position they imagine their work reveals beyond the hard data. However, if their passionate personal values begin to degrade the ethics of the scientific method in their profession research, then they have crossed the line from science to propaganda and politics.
Ethics in science does not mean empathetic attempts to prove any particular value system, because that is logically impossible. Ethics in science is simple fidelity to the principles of good scientific conduct and the adherence to the gestalt of the Enlightenment.
Bertrand Russell makes the case well:
“When a man says “this is good in itself,” he seems to be making a statement, just as much as if he had said “this is square” or “this is sweet.” I believe this to be a mistake. I think that what the man really means is: “I wish everybody to desire this,” or rather “Would that everybody desired this.” If what he ways is interpreted as a statement , it is merely an affirmation of his own personal wish; if, on the other hand, it is interpreted in a general way, it states nothing, but merely desires something. The wish, as an occurrence, is personal, but what it desires is universal. It is, I think, this curious interlocking of the particular and the universal which has caused so much confusion in ethics.
The matter may perhaps become clearer by contrasting an ethical sentence with one which makes a statement. If I say “all Chinese are Buddhists,” I can be refuted by the production of a Chinese Christian or Mohammedan. If I say “I believe that all Chinese are Buddhists,” I cannot be refuted by any evidence from China, but only by evidence that I do not believe what I say; for what I am asserting is only something about my own state of mind. If, now, a philosopher says “Beauty is good,” I may interpret him as meaning either “Would that everybody loved the beautiful” (which corresponds to “all Chinese are Buddhists”) or “I wish that everybody loved the beautiful” (which corresponds to “I believe that all Chinese are Buddhists”). The first of these makes no assertion, but expresses a wish; since it affirms nothing, it is logically impossible that there should be evidence for or against it, or for it to possess either truth or falsehood. The second sentence, instead of being merely optative, does make a statement, but it is one about the philosopher’s state of mind, and it could only be refuted by evidence that he does not have the wish that he says he has. This second sentence does not belong to ethics, but to psychology or biography. The first sentence, which does belong to ethics, expresses a desire for something, but asserts nothing.
Ethics, if the above analysis is correct, contains no statements, whether true or false, but consists of desires of a certain general kind, namely such as are concerned with the desires of mankind in general – and of gods, angels, and devils, if they exist. Science can discuss the causes of desires, and the means for realizing them, but it cannot contain any genuinely ethical sentences, because it is concerned with what is true or false.”
http://www.solstice.us/russell/science-ethics.html
The advertising blurb for the book states:
” This is a very special book. Until now, no one has put together the full environmental and ethical story facing Planet Earth, as Tor Hundloe has done. In ‘From Buddha to Bono’ he has put squarely on the agenda the key matters which almost all – including Al Gore – are still dodging for fear of the heavy hand of the church and of conservative economists. And that is nothing less than the need to eventually reduce our global population; the need to recognise that our market economy does not have to grow forever to retain its vitality; and above all the need to get serious about linking the global economy to the global environment.”
I am deeply suspicious of any opinion that has as its core belief the reduction of human population.
As for the statement which Jennifer extracted from page 12, It is a nonesense.
Economics describes human action – it cannot have any ethical component to it.
However if Hundloe means economics in the sense of Keynesian planning, and thus the ethical basis of socialist planning, (it can’t be anything else) then he really does not understand economics.
This means I will have to buy the book and read it, unlike Luke or Ender who will accept the opinion of some authority that the author is right.
What’s wrong with studying medicine for something to do? Does the author imply that ALL activity has to have an ethical objective?
Paul
Only if your actions are predicated by policy considerations.
Human ethics are proportional to human comfort.
A good economy rules out a lot of nefarious deeds, particularly environmental ones.
Don’t sack the coppers, though.
And policy considerations are based on a consensus to achieve some agreed goal.
Is this:-“‘From Buddha to Bono’ he has put squarely on the agenda the key matters – that is nothing less than the need to eventually reduce our global population”
more ethical than this:-“You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here.”
Hundloe’s attitude is dangerous and pernicious.
The pursuit of knowledge for its own sake is the hallmark and highest virtue of Enlightenment-era rationalism.
To demand an ethical dimension in the pursuit of knowledge is the first step toward politicizing science. Which, in light of the CAGW debacle, becomes anti-intellectual and neo-religionist in the end.
I am currently reading ‘From Buddha to Bono’ and finding it really interesting and challenging.
As regards the above quote: I think it is important to recognise that while medical doctors know what they are trying to achieve – to allieviate human suffering – it is not nearly so clear what we are trying to achieve through the study of ecology?
[PS I’ve just deleted 16 comments from this thread as they were off topic – if Ann or anyone else wants to send in a note about blogging and whether this blog is environmental or anti-environmental I can post it as a new thread.]
Jennifer, I don’t think it is absolutely clear cut that doctors are trying to alleviate human suffering, and I don’t mean any disrespect when I say that.
There are many doctors in Australia who were trained in other countries, countries that have far worse health problems than does Australia. Yet those doctors are here in Australia, presumably so they can practice more sophisticated medicine, make more money or have a more secure life than in their own country. And good on them for that.
Doctors don’t gravitate to the countries that have the worst health problems, otherwise we wouldn’t have many here in Australia!
Ethics seems a very subjective topic to a simple soul like me. As Louis said, actions to achieve an agreed goal can be labelled as ethical. If so, then surely the discussion needs to be about the worth of that goal.
If the goal is to reduce the human population, then that is a reversal of the normal biological imperative to perpetuate the species. I don’t know how the author justifies that position, but I’m guessing resource depletion and global warming will figure strongly.
Ironically, increased wealth and economic development, which the author seems to be against, is also associated with decreased birth rates.
Paul is right on this.
One of the biggest problems in poor and developing countries is that they educate doctors for many years and for HUGE costs and then loose them to rich countries when they are trained because the salaries are better. A moral dilemma!
Paul and Ann, yes, yes, doctors could go where there are more sick people to allieviate more suffering, but this doesn’t negate my basic point which is that doctors seek to make people better where as ecologists don’t necessarily seek to make the environment better. do they?
Hello Ann,
Nice to hear that cool logic from Scandinavia again. Hasn’t Global Warmimg driven you to Greenland yet?
Just to show I am on topic, I want to talk about the ethics of those naughty Danes who live just south of you.
Not only do they sing a very rude song that sounds just like the Australian National Anthem, but they make jokes about all sorts of people, including one of my ancestors. It’s a good job another ancestor was Halfdan Bluetooth.
In January I went to a conference in Malaysia, and met a very nice tall Norwegian lady called Ann. She lives in a mountain hut, and writes stories about trolls.
She is doing a PhD at Arhus University, and the Danes call her ‘mountain ape’. How unethical. Are they racists?
Hallå Davey,
Actually we Scandinavians just love global warming , or anyway warm weather , as usually we are freezing our asses off….;)!
Are the Danes , unethical, hmmm….have you heard about the Danish Mohammed pictures that cause riots in the Middle East? Actually , they are not racist , but only an expression of free speeech, that is not very tolerated among muslims ( all this is open to discussion),note I’m open to all views of politics and religion….
I saw your comment above , re rabbits and fire and agree on this , it’s better for both the environment and animals to get killed in that way…. for your note , if I eat meat ( very seldom) , I choose reindeer meat….
” where as ecologists don’t necessarily seek to make the environment better. do they?” – Jennifer
This is also an issue of politics. One of my favorite topics is about the animal food industry , and the ethical treatment of animals.
As has been revealed in the whaling issue , there are big differnces in the culture….
As I see it , it’s more OK , to harvest wild animals , if you want to be ” humane”. This is contrary to the Steve Irwing view.
For example , I read that about 70% of young Americans think that beef is something that is produced in a factory!!!!
” where as ecologists don’t necessarily seek to make the environment better. do they?” – Jennifer
I’m back again to the whaling issue and must ask what’s really the differences between ecologists , conservationists and environmentalists?
All is about interactions….and this is imprinted by your political view.
One person who doesn’t know anything about whales asked me about the issue.
He asked me if the numbers are increasing or decreasing and what do the scientists say.
I told him , it all depends on in which country you live in , so how much is really science , and how much is really politics / emotions?
Doctors are not here to alleviate human suffering, (I should know, my late father was one), but to make sick people well.
Human suffering is principally starvation and trying to cope with totalarian systems, or despots – an example, Zimbabwe – the Matabele are suffering horrendously from Mugabe’s Shona tribe – but Doctors are to alleviate this suffering?
I won’t say more on this until the book arrives from Melbourne, which should be in 14 days time here in Halls Creek, WA.
Hundloe should have called his blurb ‘From Buddha to Bollocks’. He is arguing for the imposition of a value system over the science of economics when what has always been needed is the incorporation of values in the APPLICATION of the results of the science.
He is trying to justify the same sort of ideological biases in the study and science of economics that are painfully apparent in the study and science of climate. And by doing so he has clearly demonstrated his incapacity to master either brief.
If you add bull$hit to any process of inquiry or scientific investigation you can only, ever, produce more bull$hit. And for Hundloe to have spent as much time on earth as he has and not grasped this essential point indicates that his primary focus of contemplation has always been his navel. Save your money, you will get more wisdom from a slab of beer.
Hi Jennifer,
Thanks for the offer to post a guest post . Currently , however I have spent too much time behind the computer, worrying that I suffer from HYPERGRAPHIA, the urge to write too much , so I must decline from your offer, but thanks anyway.
FYI, I admire Nelson Mandela kinds of persons that don’t feel any hatred against enemies and that want to resolve issues in a rational and friendly way.
Cheers,
Ann
Ian
Alas I have parted with the readies and its on its way.
The conflation of economics with ecology (I am still wondering what point he was making with the sentence Jennifer initially quoted) shows that he does not, as all social democrats, understand economics.
Economics is simply the study of the mechanics of human action – proposing that is needs to be ethical implies that there is also an ethical way of riding a bicycle or for that matter, laying a course of bricks when building a house.
But I need to read it in order to understand his points and thus refute it on a basis of knowledge, rather than on the colour of its covers.
Rejecting an idea simply on the basis of its title, without reading it and actually comprehending the author’s opinion is much like Ender’s approach to science – any contradictory evidence must never be examined in detail.
This approach results in a self satisfying feeling that one KNOWS one cannot be wrong simply because one has not personally observed the error of one’s ideas by studying contradictory evidence. I’ve noticed this is pervasive attitude with lefties/greenies – contradictory fact is studiously ignored, presumably because if you don’t think about it, it does cannot exist.
It is impossible to reason with this manner of interlocution. Hence why the left then resort to violence to assert their POV. And they regard this as ethical as well.
In general I would tend to agree with you Louis. But in this case Hundloe is hardly making any statements that he has not already said, ad nauseum. Those of us in Brisbane who have had to endure the turgid ramblings of this sad old academic cliche for a few decades can be excused for being a bit more selective with our source material.
But if you are into rampant narcissism, reinforced by a constantly renewing supply of gullible undergrads, then, by all means, partake of the swill.
The actual numbers of whales in the ocean is not dependent upon human emotions or what country you live in. It’s a hard fact and it can and must be determined independent of human emotion and politics.
An ecologist is a scientist, just like a geologist or a biologist. She/he should do his/her work within the strict parameters of the scientific method. In the lab, or the field, curiosity and a thirst for discovery are the only appropriate passions for good science.
This doesn’t mean that an ecologist can’t then later put on an activist’s hat and attempt to interpret soundly and transparently performed science into environmental policy. One would hope they don’t confuse hats.
Understand the fundamental difference between activism and scientific research—The two can and should meet, but they can never be performed at the same time. Or we end up with people who seem to think the number of whales in the oceans is determined by politics and emotion.
If the science is performed at the research level with the end policy result (consciously or unconsciously) predetermined, then that’s unethical science. Science must be performed as objectively as possible and be reproducible, if it cannot stand up to transparent inspection by other members of the scientific community it isn’t acceptable. Researcher bias in experimental situations is why activism must always be removed from the laboratory.
Take Louis’s work as a geologist looking for minerals for a mining corporation. The goal is to discover recoverable minerals deposits, but the policy outcome from Louis’s research ALWAYS remains open ended pending the empirical results. If Louis skews his research to prove a deposit exists because that is what he wishes to prove, (ie, he becomes an activist while doing research) he’d be on the dole pretty quick.
The same strict rules of evidence enforced by fiduciary responsibility in the mining world, must be enforced in the academic world by the rules of scientific method: transparency, reproducibility, etc.
This is why climatological research evidence when funded by a petroleum corporation would be deeply suspect to Ann. It is also why research performed upon the Rainbow Warrior should be equally suspect.
The Ecology and Ethics.
Methinks that this headline constitutes much of today’s fisheries policy.
Year after year , scientists in ICES , propose lower lower quotas than the fishermen want, and the final decision is made by the Gov’t , that almost always take the side of the fishermen.
It seems that Hundloe and all his fellow travellers are about to get a taste of what life in a world community is actually like when a large part of the economy stops growing. The problem is that people like him have tenure and will be insulated from the slings and arrows of the very misfortune they champion.
Economic growth is like life itself. It can sometimes cause some problems but it remains far superior to the alternative.
It is also interesting to note that the so-called ‘ethical’ or ‘responsible’ investment funds at QSuper have performed the worst over the past 3 months. http://qsuper.qld.gov.au/public/members/investment_performance/
I wonder where Hundloe had his retirement funds invested?
I’ve noted a company called Easy Being Green Pty Ltd ACN 116 769 781 is Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement with a notice inviting formal proof of debt or claim. Hmmm… must not been so easy!