(Roughly) Daily

As with the heart, so the head… Joshua May, a professor with training in philosophy, the social sciences, and behavioral science, uses scientific research to examine moral controversies, ethics in science (and life), and the mechanics and philosophies of social change. In his teaching, his research, and his recent book, Neuroethics: Agency in the Age of Brain Science, he reminds us that binary, all-or-nothing arguments often rest on false dichotomies. He elaborates in an interview with JSTOR Daily…

How do moral, social, and political values influence the sciences? The social sciences? How can we become more virtuous in an era of AI, political polarization, and factory farming? These are just a few questions behind Joshua May’s wide-ranging body of research and teaching. In his own words, his work sits at “the intersection of ethics and science,” fed by a desire to understand moral controversies and social change—and the relationship between those things. He encourages us to resist false dichotomies and black-and-white thinking, looking instead for a third, fourth, or even fifth approach to a moral issue (see his discussion of factory farming below for an example). He’s considered the influence of emotions on moral judgement, the emotions provoked by bioethical issues such as human cloning, and the roles of empathy and ego in altruistic behavior. His longstanding interest in free will led to the 2022 co-edited volume Agency in Mental Disorder, which brings philosophical reasoning about limits and culpability to bear on addiction, mental illness, and psychotherapy.

May is also a “public philosopher,” an active contributor to popular debates on neurodiversity, veganism, and politics…

…What’s the best discovery you’ve made in your research?

False dichotomies are everywhere in ethics. Debates about factory farming focus on whether people should strictly omit all animal products from their diet (to go vegan or at least vegetarian) or just eat whatever they want. But I’ve argued, with my collaborator Victor Kumar, that there’s a distinct reducetarian path: most people should imperfectly reduce their consumption of animal products. The appropriate level of reduction all depends on the person and their circumstances. Similarly, does neuroscience show that we have free will or that it’s just an illusion? I think a careful look at the evidence suggests a third option: we have free will, but less than is commonly presumed. When it comes to neurological differences, like autism and ADHD, the false choice is between viewing them as either deficits or mere differences. But they can be one or the other (or both), depending on the person and their circumstances. The same goes for addiction: Is it a brain disease or a moral failing? I’ve argued for a neglected third route: it’s a disorder that nevertheless involves varying levels of control depending on the individual. Throughout moral and political debates, false dichotomies seem to dominate, but in my view, nuance should be the norm…

“Joshua May and the Search for Philosophical Nuance,” from @joshdmay.bsky.social‬ and @jstordaily.bsky.social‬.

See also: “Stop the ‘good’ vs ‘bad’ snap judgments and watch your world become more interesting,” from @lorrainebesser.bsky.social‬ (and source of the image at the top)

* “The mature person becomes able to differentiate feelings into as many nuances, strong and passionate experiences, or delicate and sensitive ones, as in the different passages of music in a symphony. Unfortunately, many of us have feelings limited like notes in a bugle call.” – Rollo May (no known relationship to Joshua)

###

As we distinguish details, we might recall that it was on this date in 1966 that the Roman Catholic Church announced, via a notification from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the abolition of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (“Index of Prohibited Books”), which was originally instituted in 1557. The communique stated that, while the Index maintained its moral force, in that it taught Christians to beware, as required by the natural law itself, of those writings that could endanger faith and morality, it no longer had the force of ecclesiastical positive law with the associated penalties. So… read on.

source