Observation and Ethics
Gilbert Harman

Fahim Khan
250567847
Dec 3rd, 2014
Dr. Ryan Robb In the following essay I will attempt to argue against Gilbert Harman’s claim that observation cannot confirm moral theories. I will first begin with a summary of Harman’s argument. I will then present an argument against Harman’s theory that observation can confirm certain moral theories as without observation; there will be no reason to trust our moral beliefs. The main objective of Harman is to show how scientific principles can be justified by their role in explaining the observations whereas in ethics, moral principles do not confirm in the same sort of justification. Harman questions whether we can test the ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ of an action through observation. Harman states that observations are theory-laden. This means that some form of theory you already hold accompanies observations. To explain his idea, Harman uses an example of hoodlums/children who pour gasoline over a cat and ignite it. To really see this, we need to possess a lot of knowledge such as knowing “that people pass through life stages…know what flesh and bloods animals are…have some idea of life…” (Pg. 5), etc. Harman says that we only see what we see because of the theories we hold to be true and if we change the theories we believe in, then we would see something else. According to Harman, observation has a difference of role in science and in ethics. In science, one must make assumptions about certain physical facts to explain the occurrence of the observations that support a scientific theory, whereas in ethics, there is no need for assumption about any moral facts to explain moral observations (Pg. 6). A scientific theory can be tested against the world but a moral case is a personal observation and psychology. In scientific theories, observation helps by explaining the theory. Harman uses the example of a physicist who has a theory of proton and upon seeing a vapor trail, ‘there goes a proton’. His observation is made because such an event took place that confirms his theory. The vapor trail did occur, thus his theory of the proton is confirmed. However, if he made such an assumption of proton without having understating of the world and simply stating a proton exists, it would not count as evidence. Harman compares this idea to ethics. Using the example state before about the hoodlums, when we observe them setting a cat on fire, we immediately have a moral reaction. According to Harman, we see an event, not a moral fact. The ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ depends on the observers’ moral principles, which is neither true nor false. Moral observations shows that you have a moral sensibility, it does not show moral fact. Harman states that facts about proton can affect what you observe cause it proton causes a vapor trail which we observe leading us to believe that we are seeing a proton. However, seeing someone set a cat on fire does not affect the rightness or wrongness of the situation. If we see it as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ action, we will still see the hoodlums burning the cat (Pg. 8). Harman states our moral principles can explain why an action is wrong but moral principles cannot explain why we believe the action is wrong. Thus, observations can confirm a theory if it contains fact that cause the world to a certain way, such as beliefs about scientific facts, as observation can confirm them. Moral facts, however, do not change the world, thus observations cannot confirm moral theories. The problem with Harman’s theory is that, though he doesn’t say that ethics doesn’t exist, it can be concluded that there is no reason trust our moral beliefs. Which therefore means there is no such thing as ethics. In Harman’s article, there is a comparison of mathematics to ethics. Since there are no moral facts, similarly, there are no ‘mathematical facts’ as we cannot feel or come in contact with numbers. Harman however