A Treatise On Natural Good And Evil

[Linkara]

I wrote this a few months ago as I mentioned in another topic. Essentially, I got very tired of people in my college telling me that right and wrong don't exist and that ethics were merely subjective. I'm sure most Objectivists have this same reaction to that sort of reasoning:

Since I'm a Christian, I believe that the ultimate source of good and evil are God and the Devil, but since religion can be broken down as a possible invention of man, trying to argue back that a divine source was responsible for ethics would be a flawed argument in that I couldn't give proof of its existence. As such, I took it upon myself to work out some sort of proof that there was such a thing as good and evil existing in the universe. Now, make note - I do not try to ascribe specific actions to either side of the spectrum, only that the two exist.

Now, I come to you looking for:

1. Flaws in my arguments that I can correct

2. Other points I have not considered

3. Any other comments you may have.

Enjoy!

A Treatise on Natural Good and Evil

Before I begin introducing the evidence that I perceive and rationalize for the natural existence of “good” and “evil,” it is probably prudent to make some points about these conclusions so that I do not by accident alienate any who read this paper and attack my findings with malicious or misguided intent. While I admit that I have beliefs and biases over what actions or beliefs are good and evil, I merely wish to show that ethics are not “subjective,” and by that I mean that concepts of right and wrong are not created entirely by human beings. While specific distinctions of what good and evil are can be made by individuals, the two states in their absolute form do exist in nature and are not just inventions of society to keep control over its citizens.

“What would Jesus do?” is an often-used technique for Christians to gain their moral bearings when confronted with a situation. In this regard, Christians believe that their ethical bearings come from divine providence, in that God and Jesus are the ultimate expression of goodness whereas the Devil is the epitome of all that is evil on our world. While this viewpoint is one that I share, it sadly tends to get pushed aside by those who believe in subjective morality. This is because we now live in the age that has adopted the rationalism begun by René Descartes. This is, for lack of a better term, a good thing because it allows for people to question previously held ideas that we now look upon as illogical or, again for lack of a better term, immoral. Because we now question in this regard with the phrase “do we really know anything,” it has allowed for what can be considered positive change in humanity as a whole. Despite Descartes’ and other philosopher’s attempts, however, a reasoned proof for the existence of God cannot be given outside of circular logic. Now, while I intend to use several of Descartes’ methods of discovery for this analysis, I cannot adopt his original methodology of throwing out all prior knowledge accumulated up to this point and start fresh only with my reasoning, since my logic will depend on several things that are not acquired solely by reason.

Religion as a source for ethics would be too simple and insufficient a proof for the subjective thinker, since it can be theorized that religion is an invention of man. Because of this, for the purposes of this analysis, we shall presume that there is no divine source of morality. Now, we are left with the universe, its sciences, and humanity as a whole.

In the modern day and age, there are usually two forms of laws: malem in se and malem prohibitum. The latter, loosely translated from Latin, means actions that are wrong because society has deemed it wrong through legislation. This argument suggests that society already finds that there is, at least, the existence of right and wrong. However, the subjective thinker will then say that this proves their point, since these actions are only considered wrong because humans have made the choice that they are. However, we then get into the first legal term: malem in se, which means “wrong in itself.” This term means that there are actions that society deems so heinous that there is something ill-natured or inhuman about them. Again, the subjective thinker speaks up to say that they are only considered inhuman because subjective ethics are used to determine what is inhuman.

However, the problem with this assessment is that humanity has certain natural tendencies that make it different from the other creatures that inhabit the earth. For starters, human beings are the only creatures on this planet that are sentient. This means that they are conscious of their own existence. In this regard, we have the ability to think, reason, and be deceived. Some would say that animals share these qualities, but it has been shown through scientific research and indeed in basic reasoning that while animals may be deceived and perhaps even think, they do not reason. Descartes went further in this argument for the fact that animals cannot learn language outside of their own species. While some would say this rings false, citing animals that can learn sign language or speak in other languages, most of the time this is either mimicry of that language, simply repeating what they have heard and using their own tongues to repeat it. As for the sign language argument, I have yet to see any animal that could do this outside of monkeys or apes, which are very closely associated with human beings in structure, and they are not truly communicating most of the time nor are they reasoning. You could not explain quantum physics to an ape and have it understand.

In this regard, we can therefore be fairly certain that human beings are, for another lack of a better term applicable, special. As such, we have within us a natural humanity that is not applicable to other forms of life on this planet. That humanity is, in definition, basically the act of being human or humane. A significant portion of this humanity is also our conscience. Psychoanalysis says that we have, as part of the superego, a force that judges the ethical nature of actions and thoughts and then transmits those thoughts to the ego for consideration. This implies that a part of being human is, in fact, determinations of right and wrong. Even if those views of right and wrong are skewed by subjective standards and decisions, it shows that human beings, by design, have ethics or ethical determinism built into them. If right and wrong are concepts designed by man, then why do human beings have a natural ability to judge and determine what is right and wrong?

There come further problems with trying to say that concepts of right and wrong either do not exist (ethical nihilism) or that they come only from the relative point of view (ethical relativism). In the words of William G. Merriman in his book Naturalistic Ethics, if there were no such thing as ethics outside of personal subjective ethics, then ethics are reduced to either “if it feels good, do it” or are formed by state agendas that say “do it or we’ll punish you.” Merriman goes on further to explain why ethical relativism is wrong by showing how criminals like Charlie Manson are then considered “moral beings” because from his point of view, he is a moral being. “Further, if ethics are merely ‘conventions of culture,’ then Nazi Germany would have been a morally valid culture.” Ethical relativism with culture brings up other issues involved in this debate, for if words are to have meaning as they do, right and wrong must be consistent and calling one thing wrong in one culture and then right in another culture would eliminate the meanings of the word, i.e. calling a window a hat eliminates the meaning of the word hat, since we have specific guidelines for what is a window and what is a hat. Communication cannot exist if we cannot agree on what words mean. Further expanding on the cultural argument, it should be noted that if we claim that the Germany today is a better state than it was during the Nazi’s reign, we must appeal to an ethical standard by which it is judged and if such standards do not exist, as the subjective thinker claims they do not, then criminal actions in any society are enfeebling to that society as a whole, since it shows that anyone can get away with anything they so desire.

A subjective thinker, though, would say that they aren’t any better than the Nazi regime. To his mind, there is no such thing as better or worse. However, this is a flawed argument. To elucidate, if it is claimed that that nothing is necessarily “better” than anything else, than there is no basis for competition or comparison whatsoever. In the mind of the subjective thinker, then, an apple that has rotted through and covered with mold is no better for eating than one that has been freshly picked from a tree and contains no flaws beneath its surface. However, this does not outright prove the existence of natural good or evil, so while we have now removed the ideas of ethical relativism, let us now create a proof for the existence of natural good.

Proposition one: human beings are imperfect creatures. Humans have the capacity to be deceived, make errors, and be ignorant of some knowledge or skill. Because human beings are capable of these things, it shows that there exists an opposite possibility of never being deceived, never making mistakes, and possessing all knowledge and capacity to use a skill. We attribute failure to the term ‘imperfect,’ suggesting that there exists a state of perfection that can be achieved or possessed.

Proposition two: Being perfect, lacking any flaw or aspect that would be regarded as detracting from the essential idea behind it, is something that people generally tend to strive for. It can then be reasoned that perfection is something that people want or hope to gain since it will have some sort of positive impact on them. Since the idea, then, is that being perfect possesses some sort of positive consequences of being (since people will rarely seek something that will have negative consequences for themselves), it can then be deemed a good thing to seek perfection or achieve it (i.e. to ‘better’ oneself).

Proposition three: Since seeking such perfection or achieving such perfection is then seen as a good thing, it is reasonable to assume that there exists a state of complete good to be achieved or strived for. Reasonably then, there indicates that there is a natural good that exists.

One possible flaw in this logic, in that it suggests that anything less than this perfection is not good, but I pose that there exists a spectrum (as many subjective thinkers believe would be) where there is a gray area between absolute good and absolute evil (evil being an opposite end of good, since one cannot have absolute good without an opposite end for it to contrast with). While the subjective thinker would then believe that they have won the argument, it must be then said that since one action is closer to the good than it is to the evil side, it shows that there is something of that action that makes it far superior in goodness than another action that would be closer to the evil side, where people very few and far between would imply that their action is one of evil (provided that they were capable of properly perceiving the spectrum).

I hope now that I have provided sufficient evidence and reasoning for those who would study this paper. If my reasoning is in any way flawed or with error, feel free to question and debate on it and point out any inconsistencies within it. Otherwise, please accept the reasoning for what it is: a confirmation on the natural existence of good and evil.

Edited June 12, 2006 by Linkara

[softwareNerd]

(I've moved this thread to the "Debate Forum" lest some later, unsuspecting person think it is related to Objectivism.)

[Bold Standard]

I've only skimmed your article, but I wonder what works of Ayn Rand's you've read. Her theory of the objective foundation of morals is concisely laid out in The Virtue of Selfishness (VOS). If you read that, it will make a response to your position much easier (in fact, the task will most likely be therein completed). It's been my experience that discussing Objectivist ethics with anyone who hasn't read that book inevitably turns into a drawn out paraphrase of VOS, in its entirety, on the part of the Objectivists which becomes quite tedious, and unnecessary, since the book is short, inexpensive, and easily acquired.

[Bold Standard]

Upon further inspection of your paper, I thought I'd point out some of the obvious flaws.

First of all, your entire position here seems to be a mere rationalization of your own, "subjective" prejudices and assumptions, rather than a philosophically grounded description of reality. In this regard you are consistent with the Rationalists such as Descartes and Leibniz, and this is the mistake from which most of your subsequent mistakes appear to originate. For a thorough answer to this, I refer you (as did some posters on another thread) to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (ITOE). This was the first book I ever read by Ayn Rand, and I found it to be extremely accessible (though I was myself a theist when I read it), and it helped me overcome some fundamental errors in thinking which was immensely helpful (but I didn't become an atheist until a year or so after reading this-- I was reading Atlas Shrugged at the time). I think you would enjoy ITOE, whether or not you agree with it.

However, the problem with this assessment is that humanity has certain natural tendencies that make it different from the other creatures that inhabit the earth. For starters, human beings are the only creatures on this planet that are sentient.

Yes, understanding Man's nature as a rational animal is important for understanding the basis of objective ethics.

In this regard, we can therefore be fairly certain that human beings are, for another lack of a better term applicable, special.

How about "unique"?

As such, we have within us a natural humanity that is not applicable to other forms of life on this planet. That humanity is, in definition, basically the act of being human or humane. A significant portion of this humanity is also our conscience. Psychoanalysis says that we have, as part of the superego, a force that judges the ethical nature of actions and thoughts and then transmits those thoughts to the ego for consideration. This implies that a part of being human is, in fact, determinations of right and wrong. Even if those views of right and wrong are skewed by subjective standards and decisions, it shows that human beings, by design, have ethics or ethical determinism built into them. If right and wrong are concepts designed by man, then why do human beings have a natural ability to judge and determine what is right and wrong?

Here's where you go all wrong! There is absolutely no such thing as innate ideas. Man is born tabula rasa. Furthermore, it is an indisputable, necessary fact that human beings are volitional. Therefore, every argument which asserts ethical or psychological determinism of any variety is in conflict with reality, and should be rejected on those grounds.

Proposition one: human beings are imperfect creatures.

Begging the question. Imperfect, by what standard of morality? Here, you are presupposing a morality in an attempt to prove morality. Perhaps what you mean is-- humans are fallible. A human can fail to identify, or misidentify a fact of reality. That's different from "imperfect," which implies a breach of morality has already occurred. It's also false inasmuch as it implies Original Sin, which is a false doctrine (which assumes that people are flawed by nature even if they've never done anything "wrong," another example of Christianity's rebellion against justice.)

Humans have the capacity to be deceived, make errors, and be ignorant of some knowledge or skill. Because human beings are capable of these things, it shows that there exists an opposite possibility of never being deceived, never making mistakes, and possessing all knowledge and capacity to use a skill. We attribute failure to the term ‘imperfect,’ suggesting that there exists a state of perfection that can be achieved or possessed.

Just because something is conceivable, does not mean that it is possible. A proposition does not become "possible" until there is some evidence that it is true. I believe it would be a great help for you (as it has been for me) to study Aristotle's "onus of proof" principle. He said, "The onus of proof is on he who asserts the positive." If you say a proposition is conceivable, you've made a positive assertion. You must prove that it is free of internal contradictions. If you claim a proposition is possible, you must prove the existence of positive evidence to support the claim. If you claim a proposition is true, you must prove, conclusively, that it in fact corresponds to reality. It is never the responsibility of the person who takes the negative position to "prove" his position. That's because non-entities leave no evidence.

So, it does not follow from the fact that a "perfect" entity is conceivable, that such an entity is possible, and even less does it follow that such a state of perfection actually exists. Nobody has to prove that such an entity does not exist, because you have identified no evidence that it does. Leibniz makes this mistake all the time.

Proposition two: Being perfect, lacking any flaw or aspect that would be regarded as detracting from the essential idea behind it, is something that people generally tend to strive for. It can then be reasoned that perfection is something that people want or hope to gain since it will have some sort of positive impact on them. Since the idea, then, is that being perfect possesses some sort of positive consequences of being (since people will rarely seek something that will have negative consequences for themselves), it can then be deemed a good thing to seek perfection or achieve it (i.e. to ‘better’ oneself).

But you haven't defined what perfection is. By what standard is something "flawed" or not? What is the "it" from which the essential idea must not be detracted, and what specific qualities detract from "it," and how does one come to know what these qualities are? What if someone is a "perfect" Nazi? Or a "perfect" Charles Manson? Why would this not be possible?

Again, for an explanation of how objective knowledge of any kind is possible, see ITOE. For a description and validation of objective ethics, specifically, see VOS and Atlas Shrugged.

Edited June 12, 2006 by Bold Standard

[hunterrose]

Well, aren't you ambitious, Linkara

Proposition one: human beings are imperfect creatures... There exists a state of perfection that can be achieved or possessed.

Using "state of improvement" instead of "state of perfection" might be more effective. Depending on one's definition of perfection (see below), perfection may not be attainable, whereas improvement being attainable is less likely to be nayed or cause digressions.

Proposition two: Perfection is something that people want or hope to gain since it will have some sort of positive impact on them... it can then be deemed a good thing to seek perfection or achieve it (i.e. to ‘better’ oneself).

I don't know whether it's a flaw or not, but a subjectivist would likely say that, as different people have different ideas of perfection, perfection would be a subjective standard of good. Even perfection qua omnipotence wouldn't be considered the perfect state by some people, as it would have it's own disadvantages.

Kudos on working toward finding answers about ethics. Keep at it!