| When in Rome do as the Romans! The above saying is a common bit of wisdom that applies well to travelling. You need to adapt to the local customs, such as when to eat or what to eat, how to catch a bus, how to greet people, or how to act respectfully towards other religions. That is one of the pleasures of travel: experiencing the differences between 'heres' and 'theres'. You don't want to be offending the locals-after all, it's their country. "Doing as the Romans do" is good advice for getting along in a strange land. It's a tolerance thing. But what about when these differences extend to our moral values? Are moral values-human rights, for instance-fundamental and basic to all societies, or do they apply only case by case? For example, if you traveled to a country where slavery was acceptable, would you accept slavery as a quaint local custom and agree that while slavery is not right in Canada, it may be right in the society it is practiced in? Is slavery wrong everywhere, or is it just wrong in places like Canada? How far should the idea of tolerance for other cultural practices extend? |
Is there such a thing as a "moral fact"?
We all have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. But where does this sense come from? Are our values based on objective "facts"--moral truths--or are they based on subjective opinions?
1. Moral Realists or Ethical Objectivists
Some philosophers argue that a moral fact is something that is objectively true. That is, it is not a matter of opinion but something that is true, always, everywhere, and for everyone. For example, the statement "torturing animals is wrong" would be true for everyone at all times, not just in certain places or at certain times. In terms of logic, such a statement would be equivalent to the statement "I live on Mulberry Street". Both statements are either true or false. A moral fact exists independently of humans, is part of the nature of the universe, and it is there for us to discover. Actions are thus right or wrong, always and everywhere. Philosophers who hold this view are called moral realists or ethical objectivists.
2. Anti-realism or Subjectivism
Not surprisingly, many philosophers hold a contrary view. They argue that there are moral values, but no moral facts. Moral values exist and should guide your behaviour, but these moral values are subjective and will vary. They may vary for each person-you have your morals and I have mine-or they may vary by cultures-we have these values and your culture has yours. This view holds that actions can be right or wrong, but not always or everywhere, necessarily. This view is known as anti-realism or subjectivism.
3. Skepticism or Nihilism
Some philosophers argue that morality does not exist because people have no free will. Without free will-the ability to make choices-you cannot be held responsible for what you do. You are like a robot, or a computer, carrying out pre-programmed instructions without any real control over what you might do next. This programming can be the result of your genetic inheritance ("nature"), your upbringing ("nurture"), or the will of a Supreme Being who guides and controls all human actions. If humans are not free, morality is not possible. Philosophers who hold this view are called determinists.
Still other philosophers argue that any discussion of moral values is meaningless, and that moral values are merely opinions and that to hold the view that moral values are more than opinions is to make an error. In this view, there can be moral values, but they are personal and of no real interest: you believe what you want to believe. This view is known as skepticism or nihilism.
Moral Realism
If moral facts are real, where do they come from? Moral realism can be divided into several approaches:
1. Divine Command Theory
This theory argues that all matters of right and wrong have been decided by a supranatural Supreme Being. This Being created the universe and set out the moral rules. Just as there are certain physical laws-for example, the speed of light, gravity, the boiling point of water-there are ethical laws and they were Divinely created. For humans, then, moral values are those given by the Creator, who has decided what is right and what is wrong. Our should-ing consists of following the rules laid out by the Supreme Being, which have been revealed to us in sources like the Bible or the Koran. Doing right consists of "Doing what you've been told".
This theory has the great advantage of simplicity, but there are several difficulties with it:
- Clearly, it requires belief in a Supreme Being. Atheists have trouble with it at this point.
- There are many versions of commandments from the Supreme Being and not all of them agree. This leads to the question "Whose version of Divine Truth is the one we should follow?" For instance, the Bible and the Koran disagree on certain major points. In fact, even within religious traditions not everyone agrees on what the Revealed Truth tells us to do.
- There is the "Euthyphro Problem", perhaps the most challenging for this theory.
Read some of it here - The Euthyphro Problem.
2. Moral Naturalism
 St. Thomas Aquinas | This theory can appeal both to those who believe in a Supreme Being and to those who do not. It relies on "human nature" and what is "natural" for humans as a guide to what is right and wrong. Basic to this belief is that certain actions have the quality of "rightness" or "goodness", just as objects might have the quality of "yellowness" or "squareness". The moral quality of an action is thus innate in the action itself. Right and wrong are discoverable-- "the truth is out there". A religious moral naturalist might look at how humans were created by a Supreme Being and find moral guidance there. For example, if a good Supreme Being created humans, we can assume that humans would be basically good and would be drawn to do good things: it is in our nature to do so. Thus, we will be able to know moral facts, as created by the Supreme Being, because it is part of our nature. St. Thomas Aquinas argued that a good God created the universe, that our purpose is thus good, and that our faculty of reason-given us by God-gave us the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Of course, this could be viewed as a variant of the Divine Command Theory. However, it is more subtle-the commandments are not so explicit and the more complex of them require considerable human thought and interpretation of the Divine Order. |
 Thomas Hobbes, looking not particularly evil. | A non-religious naturalist might look to human psychology to find out what is naturally right and wrong. The 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued that humans are basically egoistic and evil. In a "state of nature" there would be "a war of every man against every man", as each would try to dominate the others, killing and stealing. This would be a perilous situation for everyone, and it would be in everyone's best self-interest to try and control the mayhem. So, using their faculty of reason, people would recognize certain truths which are in their best self-interest. Thus keeping the peace (and the moral laws that work to keep the peace-for example "killing other humans is wrong") will be seen by all as a "law of nature". It will be "natural" that we would all agree that such moral rules work to benefit us all, and these would be the "obvious" steps necessary for survival. Thus the moral rules necessary to our survival are recognizable by all humans. |
 Joseph Butler, contemplating human goodness. | Joseph Butler, an 18th century English critic of Hobbes, argued that humans were basically altruistic and benevolent. While we do have egoistic qualities and motivations, we also have an innate desire to do good and to help each other. An altruistic naturalist would argue that humans, by nature, are generally good, would naturally be drawn to that which is right and good, and be repelled by that which is wrong and bad. Our moral values, then are based on our innate goodness, inherent in our human nature. |
Some naturalists look to the non-human world to see how it operates and try to discover if it operates on any "moral" basis. In common parlance there is the phrase "law of the jungle", that describes a natural world where all animals are struggling with each other. But is this an accurate description of the natural world? Is nature a struggle for survival with self-interest the only rule?
Many observations contradict this view. For example, in some species of monkey, individual monkeys will sacrifice their own lives to warn others about predators, when keeping quiet would be more in their self-interest. Are these monkeys altruistic? Do all animals have a sense of "right" and "wrong" behaviour? Is the non-human world ruled by moral codes? Can humans learn anything from animals about how to behave? If this is the case, studying animals might help us understand our own moral systems.
Socio-biologists argue that "natural selection" has shaped not just human physical evolution, but moral evolution as well. In the same way that physical traits that promote survival will be passed down to descendants, so will moral traits. For instance, if the trait of altruism is a useful tool for an individual (or species) survival, then altruistic individuals will survive. Their descendants will thus be altruistic "by nature", due to the "weeding out" process of natural selection. Thus, the moral values we recognize as good are based on the natural process of heredity and those who do right will be more likely to survive than those who do wrong.
In all the types of naturalism cited above, the basic premise is that moral facts exist and can be discovered by humans, either through observation or through reason.
3. Ethical Intuitionism
This variety of moral objectivism argues that there are moral facts, but that we can't "know" them through reason. We feel them, intuitively, using a "moral sense" or a "moral compass". In short, we just know what is right and what is wrong. It's our human nature.
GE Moore, a 20th century British philosopher, argued against naturalism. He claimed that it confused the definition of moral qualities, such as good, with the quality itself. For instance, whenever anyone tries to define "good" in terms of one quality (for instance, truthfulness), the question can always be asked, "But is that good?" ("Is telling the truth the same as goodness?"). The answer is always no, since the concept of "good" is much more than any one thing. Moore argued that good can never be defined, as more and more things are added to the definition, and none of those things correctly and fully defines good: this is called the Open Question Argument. "Good" thus resists definition, even though people can recognize it.
Good, according to Moore, is non-natural, and cannot be known rationally or empirically: you just know it. You recognize goodness and badness and have a series of "hunches" about what you should do. Moral is thus following your instinct, your "inner GPS" of right and wrong.
Unfortunately, this argument has the major problem that, while Moore argued there were objective moral facts that could be felt intuitively, why do different people (and cultures) have different intuitions about right and wrong? If Moore was right, shouldn't all people see things the same way? They don't. However, his theory has many advantages, including that it works: in the end, many people "just know" what is right and wrong and how they should act and this knowledge of right and wrong is difficult to pick apart and analyze. It just is.
No comments:
Post a Comment