The Common Basis of Moral Principles (II)

From a scientific/rational principle, we can easily arrive at moral principles, which is to say, at values. Let me use eating once again as a simple example. I think we would all agree that (I1) is a scientific fact :

(I1) Human beings have a metabolism which requires nutrients to be sustained.

Now (I1) is not within our power to change, it is a fact of life. On the other hand, we can decide to eat and drink, or not. Therefore (I1) leads to :

(I2) Human beings need to eat and drink in a certain way in order to survive.

A human need - something we need to gain and/or keep - can be translated as a value - something we work to gain and/or keep. (I2) can be translated into a moral proposition :

(V) Nutrition is a value. (or if you wish to express it in a more pragmatic way : all other factors being constant, we ought to eat and drink in a manner consistent with proper nutrition)

We have easily translated a fact of causality (I1) into a value (V). This can be done for any fact of causality that applies to human action. The only difference is that when people talk about their values, they tend to discuss important issues such as their family, their religion, their leisure and hobbies, their community, because they take the more obvious values for granted.

An important difference between this scheme and religion is that the "values" proposed by religion are not values at all. The pseudo-morality proposed by religion is not based on desirable goals to work towards and achieve, but rather on repression of actions, against oneself and others.

For instance, when Christians speak of "family values", they do not talk about love or communication (that is, actual values), but rather about attacking anyone who does not follow the "Christian model of the family". Religious pseudo-morality is also not based on science and rational fact, but on tradition and faith.

There is still one more step left. Unlike religious absolutism, which makes statements of the type "thou shalt not do X", moral principles cannot justify such prejudice. Rather, any moral judgment must be based on contextualism. Not only does human action have consequences, but the consequences depend on the context of the action.

Another simple example can illustrate this. The action of "killing" effects very different values whether it involves :
* killing someone who has a gun trained on you

Go To Page: 1 2

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic