Aquinas's Natural Law

[CradleCath]

That’s not true at all. If I were an atheist I’d still believe in the natural law and all of the things it entails. In fact, I’ve found that, from a natural law standpoint, I can argue for ethical positions with no mention of God or Christianity.

Absolutely. Natural Law existed before the Church was founded by Christ, even before His birth. Natural Law, like God, just IS & it pertains to all of His creation.
Natural law states that some laws are basic and fundamental to human nature and** are discoverable by human reason **. We do not need to be taught that concieving a child & then destroying it within the womb, is wrong. We do not need to be taught that gay sex is wrong, we can look at the body of a male & a female & know that they are complementaty (they complete one another) & that two men do not.

What has helped me in my search for Truth is, of course, the Catholic Church & with that the study of Natural Law. We can know so much about ourselves & our world if we just do some studying & pondering of the theory of Natural Law. It will tell us the purpose for so many things:

For instance, while eating can be pleasurable…it’s purpose is to sustain life. Gluttony, on the other hand, will destroy one’s health. While marital sex is pleasurable, it’s dual purpose is to procreate & turn a man & his wife into one person, to create & perpetuate a unity that aids them in the raising of their children.

We can KNOW, without being taught, that murdering another who is not harming anyone or fighting a war against one’s country is wrong. We can KNOW that stealing another’s property, will result in a society of chaos & our God is a God of order. One can see that by observing His universe.

 

[Betterave]

if B really already knows how to make a cake then it sure seems tedious the way he is making A jump through hoops.

You again miss the point (sorry to have to keep repeating this, but it keeps happening). B and A are supposed to be having a discussion* where they can reach a consensus *on how to make pancake batter (not a cake, you’d need some sugar or something sweet for that ). Often we don’t actually know what we know or don’t know until we try to put it into words and either succeed or fail. B is trying to understand if A really has the same view about pancake batter as he does, despite the fact that the view A keeps expressing is actually different from his view, and in fact wrong. A’s obtuseness is making this attempt at clarification difficult.

@betterave,

this isn’t what happened. you asked me what morality means, so i told you. then you said “gotcha” and pointed out that i left something out because i didn’t tell you what a moral being is. well that wasn’t the question, but i went ahead then anyway and told you what a moral being is.

No, I don’t think that’s how it happened, but let’s let bygones be bygones. Now tell me again (perhaps for the first time, perhaps not): what is morality and how do you explain it? (And please don’t leave out the flour this time.)

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Morality

It is necessary at the outset of this article to distinguish between morality and ethics, terms not seldom employed synonymously. Morality is antecedent to ethics: it denotes those concrete activities of which ethics is the science. It may be defined as human conduct in so far as it is freely subordinated to the ideal of what is right and fitting.

This ideal governing our free actions is common to the race. Though there is wide divergence as to theories of ethics, there is a fundamental agreement among men regarding the general lines of conduct desirable in public and private life.

THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS

 

[CradleCath]

Not at all because the Natural Law mentions nothing about God.

One does not need to believe in God to know that murder and rape are wrong on various levels. This is due to Natural Law, ingrained in every human being and only forgotten when a corrupt society indoctrinates us otherwise.

Excellent post!!

 

[Betterave]

if B really already knows how to make a cake then it sure seems tedious the way he is making A jump through hoops.

The other obvious point you missed here is that if A knows that we need flour, it sure seems strange the way he keeps forgetting to mention it. Isn’t it his carelessness that is holding up the conversation? Isn’t he the one making B jump through hoops, trying to get a straight answer out of him?

 

[CradleCath]

No in that the promulgation against murder and rape come from God’s Nature. God, obligation, and the Euthyphro dilemma.

I think that saying that our Creator causes actions to be “good” & “bad” is confusing. Take the Euthyphro dilemma that you just linked us to:

“The Euthyphro dilemma goes like this: God commands us to do what is good. But is something good simply because God commands it, or does He command it because it is already good?”

I think that should read Our Creator shows us what is BENEFICIAL to mankind & what is not. You mentioned homosexuality. How does homosexual sex benefit society? It cannot propagate the human race, it leads to untold disease…Sexual relationships between members of the same sex expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme risks of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, physical injuries, anal cancer, AIDS, mental disorders and even a shortened life span. Gay sex is not BENEFICIAL to either the individual or to society.

As far as the murder & rape that you mentioned. I can KNOW without being taught that murdering another innocent human creature…just like myself…, opens me up to the same, nor does it bring harmony to society. Rape is a forceful act, done without the permission of the person being raped. This is contrary to Natural Law. It is not beneficial to the child that might be born or to the person that is raped.

As Aquinas himself said on rape: But it is more **contrary to reason **to have sex that is **contrary to the good **of the offspring to be born, & also **contrary to reason **as it’s injurious to another.

When our reasoning minds tell us different, society has been corrupted.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

I think that saying that our Creator causes actions to be “good” & “bad” is confusing. Take the Euthyphro dilemma that you just linked us to:

“The Euthyphro dilemma goes like this: God commands us to do what is good. But is something good simply because God commands it, or does He command it because it is already good?”

I think that should read Our Creator shows us what is BENEFICIAL to mankind & what is not. You mentioned homosexuality. How does homosexual sex benefit society? It cannot propagate the human race, it leads to untold disease…Sexual relationships between members of the same sex expose gays, lesbians and bisexuals to extreme risks of Sexually Transmitted Diseases, physical injuries, anal cancer, AIDS, mental disorders and even a shortened life span. Gay sex is not BENEFICIAL to either the individual or to society.

As far as the murder & rape that you mentioned. I can KNOW without being taught that murdering another innocent human creature…just like myself…, opens me up to the same, nor does it bring harmony to society. Rape is a forceful act, done without the permission of the person being raped. This is contrary to Natural Law. It is not beneficial to the child that might be born or to the person that is raped.

As Aquinas himself said on rape: But it is more **contrary to reason **to have sex that is **contrary to the good **of the offspring to be born, & also **contrary to reason **as it’s injurious to another.

When our reasoning minds tell us different, society has been corrupted.

Something is beneficial only because it is good and not bad. The value judgment made by the reason to direct the will to do the good is based on the nature of the object to be done. * CCC 1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience. … 1978 The natural law is a participation in God’s wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties. *
It is this nature that is created and it is this nature that is identified by reason, and it is this reason which must be used to direct the will to do the good identified. For this reason it is beneficial.

Homosexuality is bad, homosexual people are good due to being people and are merely doing bad. If they die unrepentant and God judges them so they are then for eternity “bad” because they are separated from the source of Good which is God. Merely looking at the benefits to individuals or societies is to lose the depth at which the true judgments must be made. It is God’s Nature and law that we must meditate on day and night so that is isn’t confusing.

In addition, rape can be very beneficial to a baby who would not be born otherwise. The judgment made about rape must come from the nature of rape itself prior to benefits on this material level.

 

[Rocinante]

The other obvious point you missed here is that if A knows that we need flour, it sure seems strange the way he keeps forgetting to mention it. Isn’t it his carelessness that is holding up the conversation? Isn’t he the one making B jump through hoops, trying to get a straight answer out of him?

let’s be clear what we are talking about since it is nothing like forgetting the flour. i assumed that you understood that in talking about reasoning about morals that we are talking about beings who are capable of reasoning about morals and not starfish, rocks, and trees. apparently that was too much to assume, but i hope you can keep it in mind from now on rather than insisting that i keep mentioning it.

 

[Rocinante]

The notion of “maximizing well-being” is unintelligible, just as is the notion of “minimizing misery.” These can’t serve as basic guides for morality because they are too abstract and can be interpreted to mean just about anything. Therefore, it seems, they can’t be guides to moral reasoning.

i disagree. in fact, i can’t see how morality can be about anything other than such conscious experiences of beings who can either suffer or thrive. it is indeed difficult to determine what exactly thriving is and what exactly misery is, but there should be no question that there is a real difference between the two that isn’t just whatever you want it to be.

sure, someone can attempt to interpret just about anything “to mean just about anything.” (we already know that people do this with the various “will of god” versions of morality.) but unless human well-being is an entirely random phenomenon, then there will be better and worse interpretations of what it means to move toward maximizing well-being under certain conditions.

How can you say that’s not your argument?:

ME: Why couldn’t there be amoral beings to whom there pertained a greatest possible fulfillment and a worst possible misery?

YOU: [there couldn’t be amoral beings to whom there pertained a greatest possible fulfillment and a worst possible misery] because i’ve defined “moral beings” as beings capable of reasoning about morality, about what practices, intentions, attitudes, etc lead to increased well-being and which ones lead to increased misery.

Now if you want to claim you were just giving a necessary condition for morality, okay, but that’s not what was being asked for in the context. Please focus on giving sufficient, not just necessary conditions (or at least don’t continue to omit obviously crucial necessary conditions - omitting something from an explanation tends to give the impression that it’s not necessary, don’t you think?).

i think the capacity to reason about morals is an obviously necessary condition for a being to be a moral being. i think that that is what the term “moral being” means. isn’t it? why do you insist that i keep saying it?

…but there is no reason to think that science is responsible for defining what human *health *is, as such, or that science is even interested in what human health is, as such.

human beings (not science itself) are responsible for such things. science, in this case, just refers to our best practices for inquiring into what human health is and how to achieve it.

And certainly the notion of health is not necessarily germane anyway to a discussion of what constitutes moral well-being - sick people can be virtuous, healthy people can be vicious.

this statement suggests a big misconception about what i’ve been talking about. there is no such thing as moral well-being as opposed to other sorts of well-being.

decisions, acts, practices, attitudes, intentions, etc. that are good for us (help to maximize well-being) are moral. it doesn’t make sense to say “good for us morally” because “good” means moral.

for example, it is good (moral) to eat when you are hungry as well as to share food with others who are hungry since it good for our physical well-being which is good for our general well-being.

I think we need to know what morality is, for starters! Don’t you? Of course you can’t recognize a *problematic *lack of grounding for morality if you aren’t even willing to discuss, in the first place, the question of what morality is and what we take it to be grounded in (and whether your answers to those questions are adequate/cogent).

not willing to discuss what morality is???

i’ve said what morality is numerous times. some examples…

post #18
i thought it went without saying that when we talk about morality we are talking about what we human beings ought to do to maximize wellbeing rather than what rocks, trees, and starfish ought to do to maximize wellbeing.

post #24
moral concerns are human concerns about what we ought to do so as to maximize the well-being of human beings (and perhaps also to maximize the well being of other beings to the extent that they are capable of happiness and suffering). but these concerns are our concerns. human concerns. we humans are moral beings because we have the capacity to make such considerations and because we do make such considerations.

post #26
morality is right conduct. it is what we ought to do so as to maximize the well-being of creatures capable of experiencing happiness and misery. hasn’t that already been made clear?

 

[Betterave]

let’s be clear what we are talking about since it is nothing like forgetting the flour. i assumed that you understood that in talking about reasoning about morals that we are talking about beings who are capable of reasoning about morals and not starfish, rocks, and trees. apparently that was too much to assume, but i hope you can keep it in mind from now on rather than insisting that i keep mentioning it.

I don’t understand your response: how is this different from A saying that he didn’t forget to mention flour, because he just assumed flour was included? I’m just saying that if you assume that flour is included, why forget to mention it (repeatedly) - especially when in the case of morality, what we mean by ‘flour’ (reason) will probably be crucial to the development of any concrete position on the grounds for morality?

 

[Betterave]

i disagree. in fact, i can’t see how morality can be about anything other than such conscious experiences of beings who can either suffer or thrive. it is indeed difficult to determine what exactly thriving is and what exactly misery is, but there should be no question that there is a real difference between the two that isn’t just whatever you want it to be.

Oh course there’s a difference between the two. But that doesn’t tell us much, does it? It doesn’t tell us that there is a *maximum *of either one that we are supposed to be aiming for, it doesn’t tell us anything about what that maximum would look like, and it doesn’t tell us how we’re supposed to go about aiming for it (or even conceiving it). Obviously there are common elements of flourishing that we agree on, but there are just as obviously conflicts too…

sure, someone can attempt to interpret just about anything “to mean just about anything.” (we already know that people do this with the various “will of god” versions of morality.) but unless human well-being is an entirely random phenomenon, then there will be better and worse interpretations of what it means to move toward maximizing well-being under certain conditions.

…so there’s no need to refer to an extreme position where “human well-being is an entirely random phenomenon” in order to generate difficulties. That’s just a red herring. We can agree that there are “better and worse interpretations of what it means to move toward maximizing well-being under certain conditions,” but that doesn’t help in specifying what actually is a better or worse interpretation, or in determining what those “certain conditions” are which are relevant for a given case.

You have also ignored the problem with conceiving a ‘maximum’ or ‘minimum’ state of human well-being. How do you feel about promoting well-being, as opposed to maximizing? I think that helps us to avoid some major conceptual difficulties.

i think the capacity to reason about morals is an obviously necessary condition for a being to be a moral being. i think that that is what the term “moral being” means. isn’t it? why do you insist that i keep saying it?

You don’t need to keep saying it. Just stop omitting it when it is called for.

human beings (not science itself) are responsible for such things. science, in this case, just refers to our best practices for inquiring into what human health is and how to achieve it.

Okay, well that’s very abstract. What do you think our “best practices” actually are for inquiring into what human health is and how to achieve it?

this statement suggests a big misconception about what i’ve been talking about. there is no such thing as moral well-being as opposed to other sorts of well-being.

Oh reeeally… So you think one *can’t *be healthy but evil, or sickly but virtuous? (I think you have some big misconceptions here, but please address this point, maybe I don’t understand your position.)

decisions, acts, practices, attitudes, intentions, etc. that are good for us (help to maximize well-being) are moral. it doesn’t make sense to say “good for us morally” because “good” means moral.

You seem to be failing to distinguish between causal factors promoting well-being and well-being itself.

for example, it is good (moral) to eat when you are hungry as well as to share food with others who are hungry since it good for our physical well-being which is good for our general well-being.

Okay, thanks for the example, but again you’ve left out the ‘flour.’ How does reason enter into the equation? How is reason a necessary condition for the goodness/moralness of eating? And if all kinds of well-being are on par, all are moral, why is reason a necessary condition for morality? Reason certainly doesn’t seem to be a necessary condition for well-being, but you claim that all well-being is *moral *well-being…

I should note here that your equation of ‘good’ and ‘moral’ is perhaps a major source of confusion here. When I have been asking about ‘morality,’ have you perhaps been (mis-)interpreting this as a question about ‘goodness’?

not willing to discuss what morality is???

i’ve said what morality is numerous times. some examples…

You’re missing my point here. I was referring to your peevish reticence when asked to be more accurate in your formulations.

 

[Rocinante]

Oh course there’s a difference between the two. But that doesn’t tell us much, does it? It doesn’t tell us that there is a *maximum *of either one that we are supposed to be aiming for,…

the alternative to there being a maximum is that the possibility for human well-being is completely unlimited. do you think that could be the case?

it doesn’t tell us anything about what that maximum would look like,

this is true. our knowledge of what human well-being is and how to achieve it is far from complete like our knowledge of pretty much everything else. this is not to say that we don’t know anything at all about human well-being. in fact, i think we know quite a bit.

let me also point out the the idea of maximizing well-being does not necessarily mean that there is a single best way to structure society or a single best way to behave within society. as sam harris put it in his recent book, there could be multiple peaks on the moral landscape.

and it doesn’t tell us how we’re supposed to go about aiming for it (or even conceiving it).

i disagree. i think this conception of morality makes it clear that we we learn about what does and does not help humans thrive is how we have always learned about it–through rational inquiry into the matter. moral questions like is it good for schools to use corporal punishment? are questions with answers that we can at least in principle try to answer. for example, we can accumulate evidence to help us to determine whether this practice as compared to alternatives produces healthy well-adjusted adults.

Obviously there are common elements of flourishing that we agree on, but there are just as obviously conflicts too…

the question of what we can get people to agree upon is a separate question from what is actually true about morals. the same goes for everything. just consider how hard it is to get americans to accept the truth of evolution. this lack of agreement is of course no problem for the science of biology which gets along just fine in spite of he fact that half of americans disagree with the basis of this science.

You have also ignored the problem with conceiving a ‘maximum’ or ‘minimum’ state of human well-being. How do you feel about promoting well-being, as opposed to maximizing? I think that helps us to avoid some major conceptual difficulties.

i have no problem with that verbiage.

Okay, well that’s very abstract. What do you think our “best practices” actually are for inquiring into what human health is and how to achieve it?

our best practices for inquiry in general include trying to be honest with ourselves and one another about what we have good reason to believe as distinct from what we always traditionally thought or what we wish were true. they include valuing reliable chains of evidence over gut feelings.

Oh reeeally… So you think one *can’t *be healthy but evil, or sickly but virtuous? (I think you have some big misconceptions here, but please address this point, maybe I don’t understand your position.)

You seem to be failing to distinguish between causal factors promoting well-being and well-being itself.

i’m not, but i think maybe you are cutting the distinction in a different way.

for me well-being is that which is sought in the name of morality. moral behavior is what best enables us to achieve well-being.

being virtuous or not is a question about whether or not someone tends to behave in ways that are moral. someone can be relatively virtuous and still not be in a state of relative well-being because there are lots of factors that are beyond an individual’s control. for example, living in a civil war torn jungle in africa, one’s virtue will in no way ensure one’s wellbeing. what that tells us is not that virtue is bad but that civil war is bad.

Okay, thanks for the example, but again you’ve left out the ‘flour.’ How does reason enter into the equation? How is reason a necessary condition for the goodness/moralness of eating?

it’s not. it is just required for deliberation about what is and is not moral.

I should note here that your equation of ‘good’ and ‘moral’ is perhaps a major source of confusion here. When I have been asking about ‘morality,’ have you perhaps been (mis-)interpreting this as a question about ‘goodness’?

i suspect what is going on is that you are taking morality as a state of being, as being a certain sort of person–a virtuous person–whereas i am talking about what a person does as being either moral or immoral based on whether or not it promotes well-being. well-being is the state of being that morality is aimed at.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

i suspect what is going on is that you are taking morality as a state of being, as being a certain sort of person–a virtuous person–whereas i am talking about what a person does as being either moral or immoral based on whether or not it promotes well-being. well-being is the state of being that morality is aimed at.

Finally, the big picture is viewed.

Article 6. Whether sin is fittingly defined as a word, deed, or desire contrary to the eternal law?

I answer that, As was shown above (Article 1), sin is nothing else than a bad human act. Now that an act is a human act is due to its being voluntary, as stated above (Question 1, Article 1), whether it be voluntary, as being elicited by the will, e.g. to will or to choose, or as being commanded by the will, e.g. the exterior actions of speech or operation. Again, a human act is evil through lacking conformity with its due measure: and conformity of measure in a thing depends on a rule, from which if that thing depart, it is incommensurate. Now there are two rules of the human will: one is proximate and homogeneous, viz. the human reason; the other is the first rule, viz. the eternal law, which is God’s reason, so to speak. Accordingly Augustine (Contra Faust. xxii, 27) includes two things in the definition of sin; one, pertaining to the substance of a human act, and which is the matter, so to speak, of sin, when he says “word,” “deed,” or “desire”; the other, pertaining to the nature of evil, and which is the form, as it were, of sin, when he says, “contrary to the eternal law.”

The above notes that we sin by our participation in that which is against the rule, God’s eternal law, and that in and of itself makes us wrong, evil, immoral due to being willed or commanded by the will. Our well being is directly related to our acts in union with God whether we know it or not. We don’t know it due to ignorance of God’s law by revelation which is both Scripture and Tradition (the Church).

Reply to Objection 5. The theologian considers sin chiefly as an offense against God; and the moral philosopher, as something contrary to reason. Hence Augustine defines sin with reference to its being “contrary to the eternal law,” more fittingly than with reference to its being contrary to reason; the more so, as the eternal law directs us in many things that surpass human reason, e.g. in matters of faith.

Ignorance is not bliss if it is contrary to God’s law. We can fool ourselves but not God and He will have the last word when after death we are appearing before Him. We need study and the fullness of the faith of the Church to give us that which we cannot attain by ourselves.

 

[Betterave]

the alternative to there being a maximum is that the possibility for human well-being is completely unlimited. do you think that could be the case?

There’s the finite (limited), the infinite (completely unlimited), and the indefinite (no clear limits but not completely unlimited). I pick the third alternative, and on this alternative I think that talk of a maximum is unintelligible. I’m sure we couldn’t agree on who we think are the ‘best-being’ people around. There’s too much disagreement about criteria, too many factors to balance, too much diversity in legitimate modes of well-being, for carte-blanche talk of “maximum well-being” to make any real sense. You just can’t evaluate well-being on a quantitative scale, even if certain quantitative scales are reliable indicators of *certain aspects *of well-being.

this is true. our knowledge of what human well-being is and how to achieve it is far from complete like our knowledge of pretty much everything else. this is not to say that we don’t know anything at all about human well-being. in fact, i think we know quite a bit.

let me also point out the the idea of maximizing well-being does not necessarily mean that there is a single best way to structure society or a single best way to behave within society. as sam harris put it in his recent book, there could be multiple peaks on the moral landscape.

I’m not sure how much we do know, but I do know we disagree about much. What makes for a peak in Harris’s view? We can agree there are peaks, but I doubt that we’d agree about where those peaks lie.

i disagree. i think this conception of morality makes it clear that we we learn about what does and does not help humans thrive is how we have always learned about it–through rational inquiry into the matter. moral questions like is it good for schools to use corporal punishment? are questions with answers that we can at least in principle try to answer. for example, we can accumulate evidence to help us to determine whether this practice as compared to alternatives produces healthy well-adjusted adults.

So you think that these questions are answerable by evidence and rational inquiry. But what kind of evidence? What kind of rational inquiry? Do you have any second-order evidence about the efficacy of the kind of inquiry you advocate? I’d guess that the second-order evidence for your view is ambiguous at best.

the question of what we can get people to agree upon is a separate question from what is actually true about morals. the same goes for everything. [True.] just consider how hard it is to get americans to accept the truth of evolution. this lack of agreement is of course no problem for the science of biology which gets along just fine in spite of he fact that half of americans disagree with the basis of this science.

So what do you think that proves? I assume you’re not trying to show that an autonomous field of inquiry can proceed merrily on its way, regardless of the acceptability of its basic premisses?

our best practices for inquiry in general include trying to be honest with ourselves and one another about what we have good reason to believe as distinct from what we always traditionally thought or what we wish were true. they include valuing reliable chains of evidence over gut feelings.

Sure, I hope that goes without saying. It really doesn’t help us much here, though. It’s perfecly easy to talk about valuing reliable chains of evidence over gut feelings, quite another to actually evaluate the reliability of a given chain of evidence (whether this is “over gut feelings” or not).

 

[Betterave]

for me well-being is that which is sought in the name of morality. moral behavior is what best enables us to achieve well-being.

being virtuous or not is a question about whether or not someone tends to behave in ways that are moral. someone can be relatively virtuous and still not be in a state of relative well-being because there are lots of factors that are beyond an individual’s control. for example, living in a civil war torn jungle in africa, one’s virtue will in no way ensure one’s wellbeing. what that tells us is not that virtue is bad but that civil war is bad.

I think that you still have not clearly answered my question. Let’s take your example: Most people would say that while civil war is bad, one can still find examples of moral well-being in the midst of such situations, especially things like heroism, valor, self-sacrifice, but also, really, any of the standard moral categories: justice, temperance, courage, prudence, kindness, patience, etc.

You’ve talked about us knowing a lot about well-being and about being honest with ourselves about what we have good reason to believe. Do you recognize that your view - namely that moral well-being is not distinct from well-being in general, such that ensuring one’s (moral) well-being in the midst of civil war (or whatever extrinsically imposed misfortune) is not possible - is one that very few people would share? How is your view here supposed to be based on evidence or rational inquiry?

it’s not. it is just required for deliberation about what is and is not moral.

So that deliberation need not include a reference to reason??? But then we’re back to the original problem: morality applies to starfish et al. because we can deliberate about their well-being and lack thereof, i.e., what is moral for them or not moral. That’s nonsense so far as the standard ways of using these terms goes.

i suspect what is going on is that you are taking morality as a state of being, as being a certain sort of person–a virtuous person–whereas i am talking about what a person does as being either moral or immoral based on whether or not it promotes well-being. well-being is the state of being that morality is aimed at.

No, I take morality as being an abstract noun used to refer to the characteristic ‘moral’ quality of moral beings, i.e., beings who have an abstract grasp (understanding) of a moral difference between different objects of the will and recognize a difference between movements of the will (actions) which are right and those which are wrong, depending on the object chosen; or morality refers to the general institutions and ideals which arise as a result of the concrete acts of moral understanding which occur in the community of moral beings.

As for your claim, “well-being is the state of being that morality is aimed at,” please be clear about whether you understand that the vast majority of people will disagree with your claim that the well-being in question is not a particularly moral kind of well-being, such that it is entirely possible to sacrifice one’s physical well-being (health, or even life) in order to promote one’s moral well-being.

 

[Rocinante]

There’s the finite (limited), the infinite (completely unlimited), and the indefinite (no clear limits but not completely unlimited). I pick the third alternative, and on this alternative I think that talk of a maximum is unintelligible. I’m sure we couldn’t agree on who we think are the ‘best-being’ people around. There’s too much disagreement about criteria, too many factors to balance, too much diversity in legitimate modes of well-being, for carte-blanche talk of “maximum well-being” to make any real sense. You just can’t evaluate well-being on a quantitative scale, even if certain quantitative scales are reliable indicators of *certain aspects *of well-being.

even though human well-being is not yet well-enough understood to have a definition with a high degree of specificity, it seems reasonable to me to think that well-being is not completely unlimited and so is limited it has some maximum or perhaps multiple maxima.

your comments about not having agreement on criteria is a separate question that has no impact on the truth of the matter. we do know enough about well-being to know that forcing women to walk around in unbearable heat wearing black cloth bags is bad. the fact that some people disagree is irrelevant to the truth of that fact.

I’m not sure how much we do know, but I do know we disagree about much. What makes for a peak in Harris’s view? We can agree there are peaks, but I doubt that we’d agree about where those peaks lie.

so the question is, once we agree that some ways of living are better than others, how can we try to get consensus on what is good and bad? that is where science comes in to gather evidence in support of one view or another. just as we wouldn’t consult any of the world’s sacred texts to discover the optimal balance between carbs and proteins in one’s diet, we determine conclusively whether it is good or bad to use corporal punishment in schools by consulting such texts. we will need data on how children thrive or not with or without such methods. it is doctors, psychologists, sociologists, psychometricians, and statisticians among other scientists that will help us answer the question in a way that we can hope to get consensus.

So you think that these questions are answerable by evidence and rational inquiry. But what kind of evidence? What kind of rational inquiry? Do you have any second-order evidence about the efficacy of the kind of inquiry you advocate? I’d guess that the second-order evidence for your view is ambiguous at best.

can you explain what you mean by second order evidence?

So what do you think that proves? I assume you’re not trying to show that an autonomous field of inquiry can proceed merrily on its way, regardless of the acceptability of its basic premisses?

it means that when there is something to know about something, then there are experts who will know more than others and people who remain ignorant.

it means that, say, if Muslims object that what science reveals about human well-being with regard to burkas is inconsistent with what their imams teach, so much the worse for what the imams teach.

rocinante

 

[LogisticsBranch]

consider one aspect of well-being–human physical health. we haven’t settled on any scientific definition of what human health is, but as we study it to try to achieve it we learn about what it is.
Betterave;7233303:

…but there is no reason to think that science is responsible for defining what human *health *

is, as such, or that science is even interested in what human health is, as such.

human beings (not science itself) are responsible for such things. science, in this case, just refers to our best practices for inquiring into what human health is and how to achieve it.

An example of the “human health” issue would be The United States Environmental Protection Agency ( Water -Science & Technology -Surface Water Standards & Guidance- Water Quality -Standards Criteria Human Health -Human Health Criteria).

Human Health Criteria
Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health
water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/waterquality/standards/criteria/health/methodology/index.cfm

 

[Betterave]

even though human well-being is not yet well-enough understood to have a definition with a high degree of specificity, it seems reasonable to me to think that well-being is not completely unlimited and so is limited it has some maximum or perhaps multiple maxima.

I really don’t know what you’re talking about. Got any examples?

your comments about not having agreement on criteria is a separate question that has no impact on the truth of the matter. we do know enough about well-being to know that forcing women to walk around in unbearable heat wearing black cloth bags is bad. the fact that some people disagree is irrelevant to the truth of that fact.

The question of criteria is not at all a separate, as in independent, question. What we take to be the truth of the matter will depend on what criteria for evaluating the truth we bring to bear. Can you see that?

so the question is, once we agree that some ways of living are better than others, how can we try to get consensus on what is good and bad? that is where science comes in to gather evidence in support of one view or another. just as we wouldn’t consult any of the world’s sacred texts to discover the optimal balance between carbs and proteins in one’s diet, we determine conclusively whether it is good or bad to use corporal punishment in schools by consulting such texts. we will need data on how children thrive or not with or without such methods. it is doctors, psychologists, sociologists, psychometricians, and statisticians among other scientists that will help us answer the question in a way that we can hope to get consensus.

So what texts do you think we should consult to discover the optimal balance between carbs and proteins?? When it comes to corporal punishment, your solution is far too simplistic. You can read all of the books you want, you can’t expect that a conclusive answer will pop out that should be obvious to everyone who has read all the books. Real life’s just not like that.

can you explain what you mean by second order evidence?

I mean just what I said: evidence about the efficacy of the kind of inquiry you advocate. It’s very easy to say, “My view X is based on evidence (and rational inquiry).” And it’s just as easy for someone else to reply, “My view not-X is based on better evidence.” So what do you say to that? Do you just insist that, no, your evidence is better? What if your opponent claims that you’re interpreting the evidence wrongly? Do you just tell him, “No, you are”? That would be dumb. So you need some second-order evidence/decision procedure, right?

it means that when there is something to know about something, then there are experts who will know more than others and people who remain ignorant.

That’s a nice bit of black-and-white thinking, true as far as it goes, but how do you think such an observation makes an interesting/relevant contribution to the discussion here?

it means that, say, if Muslims object that what science reveals about human well-being with regard to burkas is inconsistent with what their imams teach, so much the worse for what the imams teach.

Until you’ve successfully identified the ‘science’ which tells us about human well-being and defended its credentials, you’re just begging the question here.

 

[Betterave]

An example of the “human health” issue would be The United States Environmental Protection Agency ( Water -Science & Technology -Surface Water Standards & Guidance- Water Quality -Standards Criteria Human Health -Human Health Criteria).

Human Health Criteria
Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health
water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/waterquality/standards/criteria/health/methodology/index.cfm

How is this an example of the ‘human health’ issue?

 

[LogisticsBranch]

How is this an example of the ‘human health’ issue?

You have got to be kidding me! You don’t agree with The United States Environmental Protection Agency ( Water -Science & Technology -Surface Water Standards & Guidance- Water Quality -Standards Criteria Human Health -Human Health Criteria)? You don’t think that the Clean Water Act is important? Your physical health depends on clean drinking water. Otherwise you are susceptible to diseases. Did you read the article in its entirety? Here is some more from the link (url) I presented.

“This document presents our recommended methodology for developing human health ambient water quality criteria as required under the Clean Water Act. The methodology is guidance for scientific human health assessments used by us to develop, publish, and from time to time revise, recommended criteria for water quality accurately reflecting the latest scientific knowledge. The recommended criteria serve states and tribes’ needs in their development of water quality standards. . . .” (The United States Environmental Protection Agency ( Water -Science & Technology -Surface Water Standards & Guidance- Water Quality -Standards Criteria Human Health -Human Health Criteria).
water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/waterquality/standards/criteria/health/methodology/index.cfm