"Evil is as objective a phenomenon as
the suffering that it results in."
C.W. Rietdijk (translated from Dutch.)
"I have in mind such posits that it is better
to be alive than dead, better to be healthy than sick,
and better to be happy than miserable. On the basis
of such assumptions it is possible, I believe, ... to
construct a naturalistic ethics that avoids the absurdities
of extreme relativism."
Martin Gardner (The Night is Large)
I have always been interested, often amazed, by the morality and ethics of human actions. What is it that makes one person altruistic and another remorseless? And I have wondered, are there no ethical values whatsoever that are independent of cultural and social backgrounds? I think, and hope, there are.
Of course, different people have different needs, so a particular action could very well be a good deed in one culture or situation, where it could be a wrongdoing in another. Now, can not we conclude that there is nothing absolute about ethical values?
Besides the heterogeneity of cultural and personal values, another fact may lead us to believe that there is no such thing as an absolute set of ethical values. It comes from biology. Organisms have evolved that can reproduce. Through time organisms learned to avoid death and other circumstances that will stop them from reproducing and seek out ways to increase the probabilities of producing offspring. Those that could not learn this have become extinct.
So, evolutionary processes have resulted in the following situation: factors in the organism's environment that threaten the life, further development, or chances of reproduction of that organism are perceived as painful, and thus as bad. (This applies to the organism's external as well as its internal environment). The question is, can one conclude that ethics is just what our biology has learned to associate with probabilities of survival and reproduction?
The answer to both questions is a strong "NO". Both conclusions are unfounded. To start with the latter, although I agree that evolution may well work that way, I do not think that this is a reason to assume that it is totally purposeless, or that life ultimately is without value. This is for the same reason why it is unsound to conclude the existence of God from the mere beauty of nature. Perceived morality needs a subject, but that need not mean that ethics themselves are ultimately defined by the perceiver.
As for the relativity of ethics argument: the underlying wrongdoing in all situations is the deliberate frustration of needs. So, whatever the needs are, it will cause suffering if one denies another one of needs. Here, it is about not-inevitable suffering. The cause of inevitable suffering (e.g. the need to feed on other organisms, volcanic eruptions, diseases and the like) can hardly be considered "evil".
I believe that it all comes down to one fundamental principle, a fundamental ethical law, as you will: Wherever possible, the well being of living creatures should be pursued. This also means that suffering and hazards to development must be avoided as much as possible. So here we have a basis for a universal ethics. I also believe that they are objective; meaning that there is Good and Evil as "platonic" truths. One may or may not believe in such objective truths, and as long as this remains a matter of believe, I will choose for the option that looks best to me. But I think one cannot deny the universal validity of the ethical values described above.
Live long and prosper
~Merlijn
the suffering that it results in."
C.W. Rietdijk (translated from Dutch.)
"I have in mind such posits that it is better
to be alive than dead, better to be healthy than sick,
and better to be happy than miserable. On the basis
of such assumptions it is possible, I believe, ... to
construct a naturalistic ethics that avoids the absurdities
of extreme relativism."
Martin Gardner (The Night is Large)
I have always been interested, often amazed, by the morality and ethics of human actions. What is it that makes one person altruistic and another remorseless? And I have wondered, are there no ethical values whatsoever that are independent of cultural and social backgrounds? I think, and hope, there are.
Of course, different people have different needs, so a particular action could very well be a good deed in one culture or situation, where it could be a wrongdoing in another. Now, can not we conclude that there is nothing absolute about ethical values?
Besides the heterogeneity of cultural and personal values, another fact may lead us to believe that there is no such thing as an absolute set of ethical values. It comes from biology. Organisms have evolved that can reproduce. Through time organisms learned to avoid death and other circumstances that will stop them from reproducing and seek out ways to increase the probabilities of producing offspring. Those that could not learn this have become extinct.
So, evolutionary processes have resulted in the following situation: factors in the organism's environment that threaten the life, further development, or chances of reproduction of that organism are perceived as painful, and thus as bad. (This applies to the organism's external as well as its internal environment). The question is, can one conclude that ethics is just what our biology has learned to associate with probabilities of survival and reproduction?
The answer to both questions is a strong "NO". Both conclusions are unfounded. To start with the latter, although I agree that evolution may well work that way, I do not think that this is a reason to assume that it is totally purposeless, or that life ultimately is without value. This is for the same reason why it is unsound to conclude the existence of God from the mere beauty of nature. Perceived morality needs a subject, but that need not mean that ethics themselves are ultimately defined by the perceiver.
As for the relativity of ethics argument: the underlying wrongdoing in all situations is the deliberate frustration of needs. So, whatever the needs are, it will cause suffering if one denies another one of needs. Here, it is about not-inevitable suffering. The cause of inevitable suffering (e.g. the need to feed on other organisms, volcanic eruptions, diseases and the like) can hardly be considered "evil".
I believe that it all comes down to one fundamental principle, a fundamental ethical law, as you will: Wherever possible, the well being of living creatures should be pursued. This also means that suffering and hazards to development must be avoided as much as possible. So here we have a basis for a universal ethics. I also believe that they are objective; meaning that there is Good and Evil as "platonic" truths. One may or may not believe in such objective truths, and as long as this remains a matter of believe, I will choose for the option that looks best to me. But I think one cannot deny the universal validity of the ethical values described above.
Live long and prosper
~Merlijn