The third part of philosophy (ethics) deals with that quetion, no doubt about it. However it is not an independent part of philosophy, it is determined by metaphysics (what exists?) and epsitemology (how do we know it?). Before we can even attempt to speak of “how should we behave?” we must have a ground for this question.
This is precisely the issue I have with materialism. There is nothing in matter, in and of itself, that compels us to act in a certain way. With matter, all its forms are equally valid. One form of matter is not substantially more valuable than another. Life is simply “another form,” but matter as the ground of being and
ethics, as materialists would have to rely upon, does not make ethical distinctions or preferences. So there can be no moral ground for one kind of behaviour over another in matter itself. You don’t believe this, well let’s listen to what “matter” says – hmm, no response.
It has no opinion, makes no claim whatsoever on us or our behaviour.
In other words, a mass murderer could legitimately hold, “I am just rearranging molecules when I shoot these hundred people. Whether molecules form a human being or a corpse or back to humus really makes no difference to the ground of our physical being - matter. Nothing in matter compels me to act in a certain way because nothing in matter gives a reason for preferring one form over another.”
Even if you impose some kind of “survival of the fittest” schema on matter, that all depends upon your definition of “fittest.” Life is pretty tenuous and is merely just another form that matter has taken. Why should life, a centipede or a diamond be preferred over coal to matter itself? No reason, except that human beings value some forms over others for decidedly trivial reasons from the “point of view” of the cosmic universe. But separated from these merely human preferences, matter makes no such distinctions of value.
If you then resort to being parochial and anthropocentric about ethical matters and we, for the sake of argument, grant you that we humans have some inconsequential “right” to value life, because it is important to us, but not because it means anything to matter itself, then you might be forced to turn to “survival of life” as an ethical ideal. However, survival of the fittest as a basis for moral behaviour, would then have to admit all kinds of bizarre behaviours including “nazi” dreams of ideal races.
If one arrangement of molecules over here, let’s call it “Hitler” wishes to change other arrangements, matter itself makes no claims and neither can we to “justify” ourselves. We would merely act in whatever way we “wish” just because we desire it.
If survival of life is important to us in our little human community, then Hitler could legitimately say, “Let’s clean the gene pool of everything weak and unfit because we desire survival of humanity.” He would actually seem to have been endowed with great foresight if materialism is true because “persons” are merely chemical clouds of brains processes after all. Once materially rearranged, these unfit ones merely dissipate in the cosmos, no harm done – and they leave room for others more fit to survive.
I already asked you, please criticize materialism for what it actually says, and not for something it does not say.
It seems to me that materialism as the ground of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics allows for some pretty messy and contemptible ideas. Once the human “person” becomes a shadowy non-entity and matter takes precedence, ethical behaviour has lost all substantive ground of meaning – a radical relativism is the result.
People should act only in ways that are important to them and we have no objective grounds for limiting behaviour because nothing in matter “prefers” one end over another. A mass murderer, a nazi dictator, a corrupt politician, etc. all have equal justification for their behaviour because no justification is possible within a strictly material cosmos.
However, if God exists, is the ground of all Being and therefore gives infinite value to life as its teleological end, ethics do have a ground to stand on, and individual actions can be debated/justified/sanctioned. With matter all “qualitative” or ethical claims are mere figments of chance chemical brain processes and have no more substance than the epiphenomena that gave rise to them.:bigyikes:
You sure you want this scenario, Mr. Materialism?
