Ethics and the Search for Moral Knowledge: Morality in Light of Science and Postmodernism

1. Ethics and the Search for Moral Knowledge Morality in Light of Science and Postmodernism R Scott Smith, PhD Biola University Scott.smith@biola.edu

2. There are many competing moral voices today… • “That’s true for you, but not for me…” (as though truth is up to us) • “Religiously-based moral considerations should be left out of the public sphere” • “Morality is just a biological adaptation” • “Same-sex marriages should be permitted because they convey dignity upon the partners.” • “Muslims should be allowed to practice sharia law.”

3. What should we think about these many claims? Why? • There are many, many voices/sources for moral claims these days. • If morals are simply “up to us,” or are just personal and private views, then it seems there is no way to come to a normative conclusion for all.

4. Questioning that assumption Still, maybe we should question that. So, is there a justifiable way to sort through them, to see (with good reasons) how we should live, & what we ought to permit/prohibit?

5. Consider some core moral truths… • Murder is wrong. • Rape is wrong. • Justice is good. • Love is good. • Genocide is wrong. • Slavery is wrong.

6. What kind of thing are they? For many, many people in the history of the west, they have been thought to be transcendent, universal, immaterial, and objective properties (features) of reality: • Biblical authors • Plato, Aristotle • Aquinas • Calvin, Luther • Islamic & Jewish ethicists in Middle Ages

7. But, since then, many alternatives Two key questions to ask: • What are the alternative ways of thinking of what these core morals are? • Can these historical alternatives adequately account for the truth of these core morals?

8. The role of nominalism And, notice: all these alternatives that follow are nominalist(note Ockham’s work in late 1300s) So, there are no universal morals that exist. Everything is particular; so, will be easy to see how things like relativism could arise. Fits with voluntarism in theology – all by the will of God (e.g., at start of Sci. Revol.).

9. Many alternatives: Hobbes 1588-1679(England) Good & bad are just motions of matter: What is good is our being attracted to something, and what is bad is our being repelled away from something. Problems (are these adequate accounts of morality?): • The rapist moves toward his victim, as does the murderer. If so, why then are these wrong? • Motions can be exhausted descriptively, but morality is prescriptive.

10. More alternatives: Hume 1711-1776 (England) Morality is a matter of the sentiments, not reason. A statement like “murder is wrong” is really just an expression of feelings (emotivism). Two examples of (many) problems: • Murder is wrong is not just a descriptive claim. • If feelings change, so can the morality of an action.

11. More alternatives: Kant 1724-1804, Germany • We cannot know things in themselves, but only as they appear to us (empiricism) • All knowledge comes by way of the 5 senses • This divides reality into 2 realms: • The phenomena, which science investigates, using empirical methods (gives us knowledge of reality, facts) • The noumena, the realm of things in themselves (a posit) – we act as if these are so, but cannot know them as such.

12. Assessing Kant For him, morals are absolute commands, something we will to be universally valid for all. They are not a matter of God’s commands. Problems: 1. Just because Kant thought morals were absolute commands, why should we choose that starting point? Why not Hume’s? 2. If knowledge comes empirically, then why should we think (with Kant) that we can have moral knowledge?

13. Assessing Kant 2 More problems: 3. Couldn’t some group in power decide to will for all what they want to be “objectively true”? It’s all power. 4. Instead, morals are like religion – from the realm of the private, subjective, and opinion. 5. So, murder & rape’s being wrong are just our constructs after all.

14. Science: Uses empirical method Gives us knowledge of objective truths, facts Science practiced naturalistically (see the historical development in science) The public sphere The “fact-value split’s” legacy after Kant:

15. Ethics (and religion): These are “up to us,” being personal (or social) preferences, opinions, values, or constructs The private sphere The fact-value split’s legacy after Kant 2

16. More alternatives: Bentham & Mill Bentham (1748-1832), England, & J.S. Mill (1806-1873), U.S. Utilitarianism: right/wrong depends on the sum of the good and bad consequences (due to empiricism’s & nominalism’s influences).

17. Utilitarianism assessed Problems: There is no intrinsic right or wrong (why? no essences), since everything is based on the sum of the consequences. So, murder or rape’s wrongness could turn out otherwise. Who gets to define what are ‘good’ & ‘bad’ consequences at the start? On what basis?

18. More alternatives: Naturalism All is natural; there is no God, or immaterial entities, like souls, or morals. So, there are no Platonic universals. All is physical, or dependent thereon (i.e., morals can be reduced to something else). Everything is particular (nominalism) seems to be the best fit with naturalism.

19. Naturalism’s Options in Ethics Morality is a biological adaptation (Michael Ruse) Same-sex behavior is permissible because it is genetically determined. Right or wrong are a matter of the movement of body parts (Rachels) They are what science measures; e.g., do a survey & see what most people prefer. They are what promote survival.

20. Naturalistic ethics assessed • These are largely just descriptive, which fits with understandings of physical stuff. But, morality is prescriptive. • If morality as objective is just an illusion of our genes (Ruse), then murder’s being wrong could have turned out otherwise…really?

21. Naturalistic ethics assessed 2 • What about counter-examples of what most people prefer, such as racial discrimination in the South in the 1950s & 60s? A moral reformer (like MLK) would have been immoral. • Is the principle, murder is wrong, just physical? (e.g., just a sentence?)

22. More Problems for Naturalistic Ethics Can we really trust our brains and senses to give us knowledge of reality if they evolved by natural selection? Should we really believe what they tell us is true if we are just physical beings, determined by laws of nature? Also, morality is just a way of describing & conceiving of the physical (which we’ll look at more shortly). There are no real beliefs, thoughts, concepts, experiences, etc. – so, no knowledge! This means the “fact” side of the “split” is false.

23. More alternatives: Relativism In the west, it arose from naturalism, empiricism, & nominalism (no universals exist; and we cannot know any universals). • Diversity thesis: Morality does in fact vary from people to people, and society to society. • Dependency thesis: What makes something right depends on a person (or society) accepting it as right, which makes it right for that person or society. • Therefore, there are no universally valid, objective moral truths for all people in all times and places.

24. Relativism assessed 1 Problems: • If true, then murder or rape’s being wrong could have been different. But that is not so. • No moral difference between Hitler, Stalin, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Jesus • Morality, as the proper way to resolve interpersonal conflicts, collapses.

25. Relativism assessed 2 Problems: • No one can live this way. • Civil disobedience is immoral. • A bad reason to be tolerant…

26. More alternatives: Postmodernism 1 “Everything is interpretation.” There is a real world, but we are so “situated” that our only access to it is through the mediation of our language, culture, biases, perspectives, etc. We even cannot take off our “lenses” and see or know reality as it truly is in itself (directly, immediately).

27. Postmodernism 2 Morality is better understood as being embodied in the narrative/story of a community of which we are part. That story is tied to a particular language, too. Examples: MacIntyre, Hauerwas, McLaren, Murphy, etc.

28. Postmodernism assessed Problems: • If rape is wrong because it is part of our narrative, it could happen that we could find a story in which rape is right, or permissible. Could that make rape right? • Is it really just due to our biases, perspectives, historical situatedness, etc., that we know murder is wrong? What about other cultures? • Suppose we change how people talk in a culture. Can that really change murder from being wrong? • We cannot really know anything.

29. What then are these core, moral truths? Summary of alternatives: • Are they just how we happen to talk? • Are they physical things? (evolution?) • Are they just ways of behaving, or moving our bodies? • Are they just utilitarian truths? • Are they just emotive utterances? But all these views fail to do justice to these core morals. • So, what are they?

30. More on Nominalism…? All morals are particulars; there are no real universal morals that exist. What is in common morally in some group is due to how they talk therein (the words used). There are no essences to morals, since they can be eliminated. So, even murder’s being wrong could have turned out otherwise. Some Christians: due to God’s will, & not some further character qualities of His

31. What is the best explanation for what they are? • They seem to be objectively real. They exist independently of us, as moral principles. • They simply seem to be valid in themselves, and not due to anything else (like, the consequences). • They seem to be a “one and many” – i.e., one principle, yet many instances/examples. That is, they seem to be Platonic-like universals.

32. Two options 1 Plato’s view: • Maybe they just exist, like Plato thought: as part of the forms – a realm of heavenly values that just exist as brute, immaterial features of reality. • But, if so, why would they have anything to do with us? • And, why would we feel guilt and shame when we break these?

33. Two Options 2 Theistic view: • They are better explained if they are grounded in a moral being, in the presence of whom we feel approval or shame • Best explanation: they are grounded in God’s character, nature (not His will – Euthyphro problems; Islam). • From this argument: not necessarily (yet) the God of the Bible, but we can situate this ‘moral argument’ in the context of a larger, cumulative case for God’s existence.

34. More on theistic option Furthermore, some of these moral qualities are shareable from God Himself (His communicable, moral qualities). Each such quality is what can be present in many people. For any moral qualities or principles that are not part of His communicable qualities, these He “created” timelessly – i.e., He sustains them in existence. These would be Platonic-like, yet dependent upon Him for existence.

35. Review: 3 Main Points There are some core, moral truths that we all can know to be valid. These core moral truths are: objectively real (i.e., they do not depend for their existence upon humans), universal, and immaterial. The best explanation for what they are is that they are grounded in God’s character. How might we take this all the way to an argument for the Christian God?

36. Which God? Now, evil presupposes goodness (Augustine). What then is the best explanation for this standard of goodness? To be truly good, God must be love. This suggests God is personal, too. To be truly good, God must be truly just. Together, these suggest that God would deal with evil, yet in love and care for humans. A short step to the gospel…

37. Implications for the Fact-Value Split 1. We could not have scientific knowledge based on naturalism. The “fact” side is false. 2. There are at least some morals that exist objectively and we know as such. There is (at least some) moral knowledge. So, that part of the “value” side is false, too. 3. And, we can have at least some religious knowledge (i.e., these are grounded in God), so that aspect also is false.

38. Why Stress this Split? It is crucial that we address this “split,” for it is deeply entrenched in peoples’ mindsets. It leads to shriveled disciples, who tend to bifurcate Christianity just to their “hearts” & “souls” (i.e., our deep feelings?) - & not even the biblical heart - but not their minds. We cannot love the Lord with all our hearts, souls, minds & strength as long as this false view is assumed to be true.