Board index ‹ Morality

[J Lord]

It seems to me that we should follow laws if doing so is likely to improve human well being in general, and discard laws that appear to be a detriment to human well being.

[jimwalton]

I think that's the wrong question, because human well-being is not the standard of right and wrong, and not necessarily the purpose for which laws are made. Possibly I am safe in interpreting it is the standard you have chosen, but human well being is surely not the only possible standard (since it's a moveable standard anyway) for the basis of law. Atheist philosopher Iris Murdoch argued that a transcendent notion of goodness was essential if notions of law based on "right" and "justice" were to be maintained. If she’s right, human well being is not an adequate foundation for law.

[J Lord]

In that case, what are some examples of laws that you think are good laws but that you also think work to the detriment of human well being?

[jimwalton]

It's a matter of opinion, but the laws allowing abortion for convenience might fit into that category. Many could easily perceive that abortion limits the population explosion, prevents unwanted children, and allows women to continue their stride into the work force, becoming meaningful members of society, bread-winners, and contribute to the advancement of culture. I would contend that the evidence is strong that abortion is murder, that the fetus is a human life in its own right with its own unique DNA structure, and therefore it's wrong, despite the possible positive contributions to human well-being.

I would probably also put fetal stem-cell research in the same category. Fetal stem cell research depends on a supply of the products of abortion (spontaneous, ETP, partial-birth), which have required the destruction of an embryo. Yet people point to the benefits to the well-being of humanity to justify the cause.

- Nobody wants them
- They're going to be destroyed anyway
- It's just a bunch of cells, not a human being
- It doesn't carry the same worth
- let's at least do some research and get benefit for those with disease

But in reality, there has been no success with fetal stem cells, while there has been success with adult stem cell research. We have been doing bone marrow transplants and bone grafts for decades with positive results. Researchers are finding new uses and effectivenesses for adult stem cells all the time, but that has not been the case for fetal stem cells. I think the laws about fetal stem cell research are unacceptable laws built on pretense to justify the destruction of fetal tissue for the alleged "well being" of humankind. But I think these laws work to the detriment of human well being. Adult stem cell research is the far more promising avenue right now.

[J Lord]

> I would contend that the evidence is strong that abortion is murder, that the fetus is a human life in its own right with its own unique DNA structure, and therefore it's wrong, despite the possible positive contributions to human well-being.

But are you saying that in your opinion legal abortions, all things considered, improve the well being of humanity?

> But I think these laws work to the detriment of human well being.

In this case stem cell laws clearly are not an answer to my question. You think they are immoral and you also think they work to the detriment of human well being. This reinforces my contention that morality is a way of judging actions based on how they impact human well being.

[jimwalton]

> But are you saying that in your opinion legal abortions, all things considered, improve the well being of humanity?

No, that's the opposite of what I'm saying. I think legal abortion worsens the wellbeing of humanity.

> In this case stem cell laws clearly are not an answer to my question.

Hm. I thought I was addressing your question. I think that fetal stem research is also to the detriment of human wellbeing, despite being legal.

You and I have had this conversation before. I believe that morality is a way of judging actions based on how they align with God's nature—the moral objective. "Well being" is a moveable target, too easily susceptible to the whims of the powers that be or the current cultural mores, and not a reliable standard by which to judge actions. With the nebulous "well being" as a standard, man's cruelty can be deftly justified as nobility. Nazi Germany is the chef d'oeuvre of that storyline. The reasoning goes far behind our conversation, however.

If we accept an impersonal beginning for humanity (evolutionary naturalism), morals don't exist as morals. We are just the chance result of mass, energy, and motion—all impersonal. With an impersonal beginning, morals is just another form of metaphysics—of being. We are left to talk about only what is antisocial (detrimental to human well-being), or what society doesn't like (contrary to human well-being), or even what I don't like (morals is in the eye of the beholder), but we can't talk about what is really right or really wrong. If there is an impersonal beginning, we are only what we are by chance, and morals are a social construct of survival. In addition, if cruelty is part of our animal nature, and well-being is only a social construct for survival, there is no hope for a solution. Plato, Sartre, Nietzsche, Camus, J.L. Mackie, Joel Marks, and William Provine were all right: unless you have absolutes, morals do not exist. There is no real basis for fighting evil except that in the long run it may help us survive our meaningless existence for a longer time. But we are still ultimately subject to blind physical forces: some people are going get hurt just as some are going to get lucky, and there is no rhyme or reason in it, nor any injustice. There is no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good. Just, as Dawkins says, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

But if humans have a personal beginning (theism), morals and metaphysics separate, meaning that right and wrong have true definitions, and cruelty cannot be passed off as noble. There is an objective moral standard defining right and wrong. Therefore, there is an honest ground for fighting evil, including social evil and social injustice. God didn't make things as they are now; he didn't make man cruel, but good. Humans made a mess, and it can be undone. Humans can be remade in the image of God who is acting to redeem them from their cruelty. There is a solution to the problem of man. We can have real morals and moral absolutes, for now God is absolutely good.

In an interview, Richard Dawkins was queried about the foundation of ethical values. Dawkins claims that all sense of value judgments are the result of the evolutionary process.

Interviewer: So therefore "good" is just as random in a sense as any product of evolution? Ultimately, your belief that rape is wrong is as arbitrary as the fact that we’ve evolved five fingers rather than six.

Dawkins: You could say that, yeah.

Hm. The Nazis ruled to impose their morality of human wellbeing in a social evolutionary environment. The only way to challenge the Nazi ideal is to establish that there is a higher moral authority than human well-being, i.e., that there are transcendent grounds for morality and justice. Atheist Richard Rorty claims that humanity creates its own values and ideas and is not accountable to any external objectivity (theism) or internal subjectivity (conscience). But if Rorty is right, there is no ground for opposing Nazism. Morals are defined by the reigning power group. Instead, morals are only morals if defined by a universal objective.

You see, in your question ("So would you agree that we should follow laws if doing so is likely to improve human well being in general, and discard laws that appear to be a detriment to human well being?"), who gets to define "human well being"? Do the scientists, who want the chance to experiment and see what is possible? Do the people, who are generally motivated to decide what is in their self-interests? Does the government, whose concern is power? Does business, whose goal is a larger profit? "Human well-being" is a moving target; it's a foundation of sand.

[J Lord]

> No, that's the opposite of what I'm saying. I think legal abortion worsens the wellbeing of humanity.

Well then you have not answered my question.

> I think that fetal stem research is also to the detriment of human wellbeing, despite being legal.

Anything could be legal or illegal regardless of whether it is moral. That wasn't what I asked. I asked for an example of something that you think is moral despite also believing it is detrimental to human well being. Or you could answer the opposite question, name something you think is immoral that you also believe to be beneficial to human well being. You have provided examples of two things that you think are immoral and that you also think are detrimental to human well being. This fits perfectly with my observation that morality appears to be based on human well being.

I observe that moral judgments are always judgments about how decisions are likely to impact the well being of humans. If you disagree with this then you should be able to come up with examples where morality and well being are not perfectly correlated in your opinion. You can't use an example of someone else thinking a law benefits humans but you think it doesn't. That's just pointing out the fact that people can have different opinions. You would have to give examples of things that you believe are moral but that you also believe are detrimental to human well being. Otherwise you should conclude that morality is based on human well being if they always correspond exactly.

> "Well being" is a moveable target, too easily susceptible to the whims of the powers that be or the current cultural mores, and not a reliable standard by which to judge actions.

This is basically saying that you wish there were a better way to make moral judgments. But that doesn't mean there is. People can come to incorrect conclusions about how actions will impact human well being. If the Nazis believed they were doing something morally good, then it was because they mistakenly believed their actions would improve human well being. But that doesn't make them right just because they believed it.

And regardless of what you think morality is based on, there could always be people who get it wrong. People who believed that morality is a way of judging actions based on how they align with God's nature have thought killing witches was moral, killing non-believers, owning slaves, ostracizing gays, etc. Trying to judge actions based on God's nature does not guarantee that people will make correct judgments. And in fact it is far less likely to result in correct judgments because we have no reliable information about God's nature. By contrast we can in many cases come to objective and demonstrable conclusions about how actions impact human well being.

> We are left to talk about only what is antisocial (detrimental to human well-being)

Yes and that is what the concept of morality appears to refer to in all cases. You have not provided any examples to the contrary. We care about our own well being because we want to live good lives. Whether life came about through natural processes or not makes no difference to the concept of morality.

> There is an objective moral standard defining right and wrong.

Human well being is an objective standard. There are certain actions that are objectively better for human well being than others. You are just concerned about the fact that there is no grand arbiter to determine in advance how actions will impact human well being. But we are in the same position if morality is based on God's nature and he is the arbiter because we have no objective way of determining what aligns with God's nature and what doesn't.

> who gets to define "human well being"?

Everyone can draw their own conclusions about how they think something would impact human well being, just as everyone draws their own conclusions about whether something aligns with God's nature. In terms of laws, it depends on the country in question how they are made. In some cases it is the people voting, in some cases it is a tyrant. But the law does not determine morality.

> "Human well-being" is a moving target; it's a foundation of sand.

All of the questions you asked apply equally to morality based on God's nature. Who gets to determine which actions align with God's nature? Is it the Catholic church, the people, the governments, the Christians, the Muslims, etc.? At least with human well being you can in many cases use objective evidence to reach an objective conclusion. If you go with God's nature you really have a moving target for people on earth because there is no objective evidence available to tell us anything about God's nature.

But really, whether or not human well being is hard to determine is an irrelevant point. It is an appeal to consequence fallacy to think something is not the case because you don't like the implications. And unless there are examples of situations where morality does not align with human well being then I am left to conclude that this is how everyone makes moral judgments. That is what I observe and I have not seen examples to the contrary. Your morality appears correlated wit well being just like everyone else I have observed. Maybe you think it also correlates with God's nature, which would then mean God's nature is also correlated with well being.

[jimwalton]

Now that we have dug back to the issues behind the conversation, I have ascertained a further flaw in your reasoning, besides that "human well-being" defies objectivity. Your whole concept of "human well-being" is based on capital borrowed from theism. It's a value judgment, by definition. But if we are an impersonal agglomeration of chemicals, value judgments such as "well-being" are absurd. Can we determine the "well-being" of a solution in a test tube? Can we determine the "well-being" of gravity, or energy? "Well being" is a value judgment based on some kind of standard that defines it (so it's not an irrelevant point by any means). Values only becomes meaningful if there is meaning and purpose in things, a theistic premise and not a naturalistic one. As Plato, Sartre, Nietzsche, Camus, J.L. Mackie, Joel Marks, and William Provine say: unless you have absolutes, morals do not exist. As Dawkins says, naturalism and atheism lead to nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. The only way you can meaningfully and purposefully talk about a value judgment like well-being is if there is meaning, purpose, and values, a concept far more suited to theism than atheism or naturalism. If we are a mere collection of chemicals due to random processes "governed" (ha, loosely used) by blind natural selection, then value statements have no place. You are borrowing from theism to argue your point against theism. Without God, value statements are both contrived and immaterial, like giving personality to a pile of sodium chloride.

My morality is to some extent guided by human well-being, but God is the objective plumb line behind it. You want human well-being to stand alone, or even to regulate God's nature, but I have shown you how that is incongruous. Here's an analogy: You say money comes from the bank. "Everybody knows money comes from the bank." It's where we all get our money. Banks are the source of money! I, in contrast, have argued that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing in Washington, D.C. is the source of all our money. "That's where the banks get it!" I say. But you stick to your guns: "Unless there are examples of situations where money doesn't come from a bank, I am left to conclude that's where money comes from. That is what I observe and I have not seen examples to the contrary. Money correlates with banks. Maybe you think it also has something to do with the Bur. of Engraving and Printing, which would then mean the Bureau is also correlated with banks."

So, here's my summary:

1. You cannot have morality with an objective standard. Without an objective standard, it's not definable and not meaningful.
2. You can't have values just from time plus matter plus chance. All values from an impersonal, chemical and physical sources are arbitrary and contrived.
3. God's nature doesn't correlate with human well being; human well being only has meaning as a reflection of God's nature.