B
Black_Rose
Guest
What is superior to “natural law” morality when compared to utilitarian ethics?
- Status
R
Rocinante
Guest
as i understand the distinction, natural law ethics is about trying to discern what god’s purpose for us is from studying nature. i think there is a fallacy here in that no matter what we learn about how nature is like, it can’t tell us about how things ought to be. the same fallacy applies to evolutionary psychology for prescribing morals. the other issue with natural law is that in practice it is entirely based on what different people already think god’s purpose is rather than trying to learn god’s purpose from studying nature. it is a religious view that won’t be able to give us a universal articulation of morality.
the other version of naturalistic ethics goes by the names consequentialism or utilitarianism and probably some others. the basic idea is that morality is concerned with the experiences of human beings and how they can thrive in the world. some practices contribute to well-being and some lead to the worst possibly misery for everyone. this is the view of morality that sam harris studies in his latest book.
R
Rocinante
Guest
i guess that answered your question?
A
awatkins69
Guest
Utilitarianism, in its most basic form, says that what is “right” or what we “ought” to do is whatever achieves “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” However, this idea commits the naturalistic fallacy. In essence, what that says is that, we can make so many statements about “this give the largest amount of people the largest amount pleasure”, but in no way can we derive from that statement that we ought to do something. There’s no “imperative” present, nothing obligating us. This is just basic criticism of utilitarianism. There are also many other major problems.
Natural law ethics, on the other hand, rests on a few highly plausible axioms. The first is that what is good is what is fulfilling of our nature (definition). Secondly, the will’s end is what is “good”. In other words, everyone desires what is good. From this we derive what is called the “hypothetical imperative”: “I ought to do what is good because I desire what is good.” Since good=whatever fulfills my nature, they are equivalent, and we can replace the word “good” with its definition. Thus we get this principle: “I ought to do whatever fulfills my nature, because I desire what fulfills my nature.” Highly plausible principles here, and the so-called naturalistic fallacy doesn’t occur. This is all just touching the surface.
Natural law ethics, on the other hand, rests on a few highly plausible axioms. The first is that what is good is what is fulfilling of our nature (definition). Secondly, the will’s end is what is “good”. In other words, everyone desires what is good. From this we derive what is called the “hypothetical imperative”: “I ought to do what is good because I desire what is good.” Since good=whatever fulfills my nature, they are equivalent, and we can replace the word “good” with its definition. Thus we get this principle: “I ought to do whatever fulfills my nature, because I desire what fulfills my nature.” Highly plausible principles here, and the so-called naturalistic fallacy doesn’t occur. This is all just touching the surface.
R
Rocinante
Guest
the notion of “the greatest happiness for the greatest number” has problems as does maximizing average happiness and many other formulations of what is the correct algebra for happiness. this is a problem for consequentialists to solve, part of rational inquiry into morals, rather than the end of consequentialism.
the naturalistic fallacy you cite in this case is itself a sort of fallacy when you consider, as sam harris pointed out, that in consequentialist ethics we are already presupposing (in your terminology, it rests on the axiom) that what is sought is well-being. the question is only how is well-being achieved? (if natural law ethics can rest on such an axiom, then certainly consequentialism can.)
also, anyone who doesn’t think that the worst possible misery for everyone ought to be avoided just doesn’t know what ought means. if ought means anything at all, then it is a truism that the worst possible misery for everyone ought to be avoided. therefore the ought-conclusion “X ought to be avoided” does follow logically from the is-statement “X causes the worst possible misery for everyone.”
the huge problems here are that
(1) given the state of knowledge in biology, there is no such thing as human nature since human nature is forever evolving.
(2) even if there were a human nature, we should try to transcend it to become better than we now are rather than conform to what is natural for us. i recognize no obligation to “fulfill my nature” but rather a state of affairs where we all participate in defining what humanity is and what it can be with our every act.
rocinante
S
St_Francis
Guest
Natural law is the law written in our hearts by our Creator. It is separate from our desires, altho it may align with our desires. It is the reason we fulfill promises, even when we *really *don’t want to. It is the reason that we understand instinctively that getting something for nothing is wrong.
Utilitarian ethics considers only the material, and usually in a self-centered sort of way. A musician is made happy by playing music; put him in charge and everyone will be forced to study musical instruments. Maximizing the average happiness generally fails because everyone ends up with every the same, and that only the minimum.
Utilitarian ethics considers only the material, and usually in a self-centered sort of way. A musician is made happy by playing music; put him in charge and everyone will be forced to study musical instruments. Maximizing the average happiness generally fails because everyone ends up with every the same, and that only the minimum.
R
Rocinante
Guest
the problem is that saying that the law is written on our hearts gives us no way to settle the matter as to what this law is. it is also true that people of the past who felt that certain laws were written on their hearts were wrong. consider the following bits of what was said in the bible to be part of the law written on our hearts that none of us think we obliged to kill people for:
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15)
If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)
If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. (Leviticus 20:13)
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17)
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12)
A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9)
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13)
Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. “Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction”. (Jeremiah 50:21-22)
this is all nonsense. why would one utilitarian’s enjoyment of music mean that he ought to think that everyone must be forced to study musical instruments?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Rocinante
(1) given the state of knowledge in biology, there is no such thing as human nature since human nature is forever evolving.
No it isn’t. Human nature today is the same as it has been for thousands of years. Homosexuality was never the natural condition of men, and history has proven it time and again. It is only by taking the view you have just taken that homosexuality can be justified. It certainly cannot be justified on utilitarian grounds. Ask any homosexual who got AIDS.
You think like Touchstone with a new handle.
(1) given the state of knowledge in biology, there is no such thing as human nature since human nature is forever evolving.
No it isn’t. Human nature today is the same as it has been for thousands of years. Homosexuality was never the natural condition of men, and history has proven it time and again. It is only by taking the view you have just taken that homosexuality can be justified. It certainly cannot be justified on utilitarian grounds. Ask any homosexual who got AIDS.
You think like Touchstone with a new handle.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Rocinante
*the problem is that saying that the law is written on our hearts gives us no way to settle the matter as to what this law is. it is also true that people of the past who felt that certain laws were written on their hearts were wrong. consider the following bits of what was said in the bible to be part of the law written on our hearts that none of us think we obliged to kill people for:
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15)
If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)
If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. (Leviticus 20:13)
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17)
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12)
A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9)
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13)
Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. “Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction”. (Jeremiah 50:21-22)*
**Where does it say in the Bible that these particular laws were written on our hearts? **
*the problem is that saying that the law is written on our hearts gives us no way to settle the matter as to what this law is. it is also true that people of the past who felt that certain laws were written on their hearts were wrong. consider the following bits of what was said in the bible to be part of the law written on our hearts that none of us think we obliged to kill people for:
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15)
If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)
If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. (Leviticus 20:13)
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17)
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12)
A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9)
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13)
Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. “Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction”. (Jeremiah 50:21-22)*
**Where does it say in the Bible that these particular laws were written on our hearts? **
R
Rocinante
Guest
in the evolutionary view it is unclear what that statement could even mean. you are talking about a gene pool with significant variability. is our nature the average of all possible characteristics? some ideal set of characteristics? (hitler thought it included blond hair and blue eyes.)
certainly humanity is not merely being part of a specific species. part of being human, perhaps the most essential aspect of humanity, is the propensity for self-creation. we aren’t bound by our biology in the way other animals are. we transcend what natural selection evolved us to do in order to create and pursue purposes all our own.
sheesh. we are talking about natural law and consequentialist ethics here. why does everything with you always come back to anal sex? you are obsessed!
by the way, the best way to avoid AIDS seems to be to become a lesbian.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Rocinante
by the way, the best way to avoid AIDS seems to be to become a lesbian.
Reply With Quote
The best way, but not the very best way. The very best way to avoid AIDS is to have monogamous relations with a person of the opposite sex. … wife or husband. Many lesbians are vulnerable to AIDS if they are bisexual, as many are. Bisexual men can pass it on to them.
The reason I bring up the case of homosexuals so often is that when I was a young man I had a debate over several weeks with a woman who opposed to the idea of natural law, just as you are. In spite of the fact that her arguments were simple minded in the extreme, she persisted in holding to her views. It was only later that I learned from a mutual friend that she was a lesbian. Then the pieces of the puzzle came together. Natural law ethics is verboten to homosexuals because they believe it doesn’t apply to them, and no amount of sound reasoning can make it apply.
But then utilitarian ethics can’t apply to justifying sodomy, and that became abundantly clear when AIDS was connected with homosexual sodomy. I can understand why you don’t want this topic interjected, but I can’t understand where you would place the homosexual act if not in natural law or utilitarian ethics. Would you place it in the hedonist school? Pleasure for its own sake, regardless of the consequences? That strikes me as insanity.
Or what other ethical school?
by the way, the best way to avoid AIDS seems to be to become a lesbian.
Reply With Quote
The best way, but not the very best way. The very best way to avoid AIDS is to have monogamous relations with a person of the opposite sex. … wife or husband. Many lesbians are vulnerable to AIDS if they are bisexual, as many are. Bisexual men can pass it on to them.
The reason I bring up the case of homosexuals so often is that when I was a young man I had a debate over several weeks with a woman who opposed to the idea of natural law, just as you are. In spite of the fact that her arguments were simple minded in the extreme, she persisted in holding to her views. It was only later that I learned from a mutual friend that she was a lesbian. Then the pieces of the puzzle came together. Natural law ethics is verboten to homosexuals because they believe it doesn’t apply to them, and no amount of sound reasoning can make it apply.
But then utilitarian ethics can’t apply to justifying sodomy, and that became abundantly clear when AIDS was connected with homosexual sodomy. I can understand why you don’t want this topic interjected, but I can’t understand where you would place the homosexual act if not in natural law or utilitarian ethics. Would you place it in the hedonist school? Pleasure for its own sake, regardless of the consequences? That strikes me as insanity.
Or what other ethical school?
A
awatkins69
Guest
Okay. Let’s see if they can solve it.
First off, I wouldn’t get my philosophy from someone like Sam Harris.
But anyways, if that’s the case, then we’re off to a good start. However, just off the bat, note that an action can be intrinsically evil if it is directly contrary to our nature (remember, we agree that what is good is what fulfills our nature). So, there can be many cases where the ends do not justify the means, contra consequentialism.I’m not sure what you mean. First off all, the usual principle is “greatest pleasure for greatest amount of people” not “avoiding the worst possible misery for everyone”. Completely different statements and, if we could derive an ought from them, we’d have completely different normative values. I don’t think anyone is saying we should allow the worst possible misery for everyone. Not what I said at all.
I said we cannot derive an “ought” from is such as: “an action X gives the greatest amount of pleasure for everyone.” And we can’t, for reasons such as that the action may not fulfill our nature (thus the ends cannot justify it). So ultimately the morality and “oughtness” of the action is going to rest upon whether it actually fulfills our nature (again, you accepted our axiom), not how much pleasure it derives.
(1) Why would you say that biology says there is no such thing as a human nature? I’m not sure what you mean. I think you may be referring to transitional species, but that’s really not a problem. There is no logical inconsistency in this set of propositions:
a. At some point in time the differences between species are very minute and imperceptible.
b. Man has a nature.
Or are you a strict nominalist and would deny that this is in a different category from this.
(2) Well, this is true in a sense, since us Christians believe our end is not only natural, but supernatural. However, what you say about “transcending our nature” is very vague and you’re going to have to tell me what you mean, and how we could possibly do this. Defining what humanity is may be (and is likely to be) contrary to my actual nature. Again, remember, we rest on the axiom that “I ought to do what is good because I desire what is good”, and that we’ve defined good as “what fulfills my nature”. We can’t define reality out of existence.
B
Black_Rose
Guest
Nominalists do not deny the existence of categories; they insist that categories are human constructs that assist in classification of objects which would help facilitate the communication and comprehension of information pertaining to the observable world and intangible subjective ideas. Categories serve to organize objects based on their observable shared attributes and properties. A nominalist would not deny the profound differences in a human being and cannabis leaf because that itself would be an abandonment of empiricism.
A
awatkins69
Guest
This sounds to me more like conceptualism. But either way we classify it, what I mean is that they are opposed to realism, and do not believe universals are out there so to speak. We could get into a long criticism of nominalism here as well.
Anyways, I guess we could rephrase the question, “do you not see a difference in kind between this and this?” I’d also note that to deny that humans have natures or essences is to say that they are pure existence, in which case they are God.
R
Rocinante
Guest
we certainly do NOT agree that “what is good is what fulfills our nature.” what i said is that “fulfills our nature” is a nonsensical notion (more explanation below) and has nothing to do with how i think about morality or how i think anyone should think about morality.
this is all very confused. pleasure is the goal of hedonism. happiness or well-being is the goal of consequentialist or utilitarian ethics. short term pleasure is well known to be an unreliable guide to long term happiness.
given that the concept of species is what you appear to mean by man’s nature, why exactly should we feel any duty to be true to our current state of biological adaptation to the current state of nature given that the current state of nature is constantly changing as species continuously adapt to compete with other species? where exactly do you find moral obligation to act in certain ways so as to maintain our species as it happens to be in a particular moment in time in this evolutionary picture?
R
Rocinante
Guest
the categories of species are certainly no more or less than “human constructs that assist in classification of objects which would help facilitate the communication and comprehension of information pertaining to the observable world,” and defining what a species is and whether two individuals are of the same or different species is not as cut and dried as some people think.
R
Rocinante
Guest
sure i see a difference in kind between rocks and trees and starfish and people. but how do you get from “this is an X” to “this has a moral obligation to be true to its X-ness?” (which can’t be distinguished from “this has a moral obligation to be true to my particular conception of how an X ought to be so as to be a true X.”)
R
Rocinante
Guest
i guess then to be on the safe side (according to your logic), no one should ever have sex with anyone.
my experience is very different. rather than seeing homosexuals avoiding natural law ethics because it prohibits what they do, i think people in general avoid natural law ethics because it is a lousy system of ethics. instead, as i see it, those people who are obsessed with homosexuals having anal sex tend to cling to natural law and avoid more reasonable ways of thinking about ethics since natural law ethics is the only somewhat accepted moral view that can find a way to condemn the practice that they are so obsessed with.The reason I bring up the case of homosexuals so often is that when I was a young man I had a debate over several weeks with a woman who opposed to the idea of natural law, just as you are. In spite of the fact that her arguments were simple minded in the extreme, she persisted in holding to her views. It was only later that I learned from a mutual friend that she was a lesbian. Then the pieces of the puzzle came together. Natural law ethics is verboten to homosexuals because they believe it doesn’t apply to them, and no amount of sound reasoning can make it apply.
But then utilitarian ethics can’t apply to justifying sodomy, and that became abundantly clear when AIDS was connected with homosexual sodomy. I can understand why you don’t want this topic interjected, but I can’t understand where you would place the homosexual act if not in natural law or utilitarian ethics. Would you place it in the hedonist school? Pleasure for its own sake, regardless of the consequences? That strikes me as insanity.
Or what other ethical school?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Rocinante
i guess then to be on the safe side (according to your logic), no one should ever have sex with anyone.
Non sequitur.
*my experience is very different. rather than seeing homosexuals avoiding natural law ethics because it prohibits what they do, i think people in general avoid natural law ethics because it is a lousy system of ethics. instead, as i see it, those people who are obsessed with homosexuals having anal sex tend to cling to natural law and avoid more reasonable ways of thinking about ethics since natural law ethics is the only somewhat accepted moral view that can find a way to condemn the practice that they are so obsessed with. *
More non sequitur. You are going to indict every civilization that has ever existed for their condemnation of a clearly unnatural and odious act? Good luck with that strategy!
*natural law ethics is the only somewhat accepted moral view that can find a way to condemn the practice that they are so obsessed with. *
If you don’t like natural law, what other ethical system would anal sex fit into as a natural and proper moral act? And please explain how it fits. Thanks.
i guess then to be on the safe side (according to your logic), no one should ever have sex with anyone.
Non sequitur.
*my experience is very different. rather than seeing homosexuals avoiding natural law ethics because it prohibits what they do, i think people in general avoid natural law ethics because it is a lousy system of ethics. instead, as i see it, those people who are obsessed with homosexuals having anal sex tend to cling to natural law and avoid more reasonable ways of thinking about ethics since natural law ethics is the only somewhat accepted moral view that can find a way to condemn the practice that they are so obsessed with. *
More non sequitur. You are going to indict every civilization that has ever existed for their condemnation of a clearly unnatural and odious act? Good luck with that strategy!
*natural law ethics is the only somewhat accepted moral view that can find a way to condemn the practice that they are so obsessed with. *
If you don’t like natural law, what other ethical system would anal sex fit into as a natural and proper moral act? And please explain how it fits. Thanks.
R
Rocinante
Guest
what everyone has always thought is not necessarily right.
you are failing to think outside the box here. you can’t ask what ethical systems say about what acts are natural and unnatural since only natural law ethical systems buy into the premise that what is natural is what is good.*natural law ethics is the only somewhat accepted moral view that can find a way to condemn the practice that they are so obsessed with. *
If you don’t like natural law, what other ethical system would anal sex fit into as a natural and proper moral act? And please explain how it fits. Thanks.
most people think that though it may be quite natural for men to be sexually promiscuous it is nevertheless quite wrong. in other words, what is natural and what is right are separate questions. rape is completely natural but obviously evil.
- Status