Full Read-Through - Pt 4
The Problem of Induction
But wait, if we can’t physically prove moral facts, how do we know if they’re real? Let’s start with the problem of induction.
1. What Is the Problem of Induction? (David Hume)
Induction is a type of reasoning where we make generalizations based on specific observations. For example, if you see the sun rise every day, you might induce that it will rise tomorrow too. This works in many cases, but there’s a problem: we can’t prove tomorrow’s sunrise by looking at today’s alone—it’s always possible that the sun might not rise, even if it seems extremely unlikely.
This is called the problem of induction: we can make reasonable predictions based on past experience, but those predictions can’t be absolutely proven—they’re always based on probability, not certainty. The same can be said about Scientific Law—they’re based on observed patterns, but we can never fully prove they will always hold true in every situation.
Can We Prove Moral Facts Like Physical Facts?
Just like scientific facts (e.g., the laws of physics) rely on induction, moral facts—like “murder is wrong”—don’t have the same kind of empirical proof. You can’t measure moral facts in the same way you can measure physical facts. For instance, there’s no physical instrument to measure if an action is morally wrong, in the same way you can measure a rock’s mass or speed.
But just because moral facts can’t be empirically proven doesn’t mean they aren’t real or believable. Let’s think about it through the lens of induction:
- Just like with the sun rising, we often act as though certain moral facts are true, even if they can’t be directly proven.
- Moral facts can be seen as reasonable predictions based on our shared human experience—like how we all seem to agree that torturing innocent beings is wrong, or that helping others is a good thing. While we can’t prove them in the same way we can prove physical facts, we act as if they are true because they help our societies function better, just like the way we trust certain patterns in the physical world (even though we can’t fully prove the next sunrise).
Can We Still Trust Moral Facts, Even If We Can’t Fully Prove Them?
So, if moral facts are like the problem of induction (i.e., we can’t prove them with certainty, but we can still use them), can we still trust them? Think of it this way:
- We trust scientific theories and laws of nature because they’ve been tested, refined, and seem to hold true over time, even though they can’t be proven with absolute certainty. Similarly, moral facts are tested through their consequences. We observe that societies that value fairness and respect for others tend to function better, while those that allow cruelty often suffer.
- In this way, moral facts are pragmatically useful, just like scientific theories. Even though they can’t be proven absolutely, living by certain moral facts (e.g., treating people with kindness) has been shown to improve societies and individuals’ well-being.
Can We Prove Specific Moral Issues (Like Abortion) Using the Same Logic?
Let’s take a difficult moral question like abortion. There are deeply divided opinions on whether it’s right or wrong, just like there are debates in science about difficult-to-prove questions, like whether we live in a simulation. It’s not easy to prove one side is objectively right or wrong in these cases.
However, just as we can reason about scientific topics even when they’re hard to prove (e.g., debating whether we are in a simulation), we can also reason about moral questions. We can consider:
- The effects on individuals: What harm does it cause to the person involved? What harm does it cause to society?
- The principles we value: Do we value autonomy, freedom of choice, or the well-being of others?
- The consequences: In the case of abortion, would banning it lead to more harm than good for individuals and society?
Though we may not have an absolute proof of what’s right or wrong, the reasoning process can guide us to make better moral decisions, much like reasoning about scientific theories helps us understand the world, even when we can’t fully prove every detail.
Conclusion
Moral facts, much like scientific facts, can’t always be physically proven in an objective, empirical way. But that doesn’t make them any less real or important. By reasoning, observing consequences, and using common sense, we can conclude that moral facts are worth believing in, even if we can’t fully prove every aspect of them right now. And just as science evolves over time, so too does our understanding of what’s morally right and wrong, making the pursuit of moral facts just as worthwhile as the pursuit of scientific knowledge.