Friday, May 31, 2013

Dan Fincke on the Validity of Morality


Introducing Dr. Fincke
    One of the more difficult challenges facing atheists is that of establishing a basis for morality. Individual atheists, of course, are capable of being decent, humane, and civilized people. They are, after all, human beings and have feelings just like the rest of us (at least the ones that aren't scientists!). But the problem lies in trying to establish an objective code of conduct. If there is no God one would suppose that there are no transcendent, universally binding rules. In trying to establish a code of morality the atheist runs up against what is known as "the naturalistic fallacy," the problem of trying to deduce an "ought" from an "is." He can say what is, but he cannot say what ought to be. All he knows is that things are just the way they are. It is precisely this point that gives many of the rest of us grave misgivings about atheism. It erodes the very foundations of civilization.
    Dr. Daniel Fincke, however, an atheist blogger at Patheos, believes that he has found a way out of the problem. Raised in a devout evangelical Christian home, he underwent a difficult process of deconversion and eventually became enamored with the writings of Nietzsche. He went on to earn a doctorate in philosophy and has several teaching positions at universities in the metropolitan New York area. He specializes in writing about ethics and morality.
    Dr. Fincke has devoted a page on his website to an essay entitled "Morality's Validity".  Most of the essay is devoted to refuting the extreme nihilist position. He describes himself as "an indirect consequentialist" and says that he believes in "modest, non-absolutist, instrumental moral norms." What he apparently means by this is that values and moral norms are not completely relative. As human beings we have the shared experience of living in a physical environment and in human society. As a result, actions have consequences, some of them detrimental. Therefore some choices in life are manifestly better than others, and this forms the basis for an objective moral code. Dr. Fincke summarizes his position this way: we have an "intrinsic rational interest in pursuing our own functioning, on pain of practical contradiction if we choose otherwise." He says "we can rank competing values and recognize that the kinds of achievements for powerfully living in, predicting and mastering the world that we get from thinking like modern, scientific people make our standards of rational investigation and affirmation better than theirs. Our values and the norms we follow are in some ways truly better." What he appears to be offering then is a modern, scientific version of Utilitarianism, the doctrine of the greatest good for the greatest number, with the "good" defined in terms of usefulness.

 

But who decides?

 

    The theory sounds attractive on the surface, but on closer inspection is fraught with difficulties. Dr. Fincke says that "our" values and norms are truly better than "theirs." But who are "we" and "they"? Who decides which values make for "achievements for powerfully living" and "mastering the world"? The problem here, quite simply, is that oftentimes crime pays. If moral standards are based on "our own functioning," then the drug dealer, the organized crime boss, the predatory capitalist, and the crooked politician can all claim to be acting morally, since they are all apparently successful at what they are doing. To their minds they have made rational choices in life, and their choices are paying off. Nice guys finish last!
    There is an obvious objection to this, of course. Because we are constrained to live in human society, we have to have a common set of rules. And so we are said to have entered into a "social contract" with our fellow human beings, and in so doing have surrendered some of our individual autonomy to some central authority. There is then some sort of political process that makes rules for society as a whole. But is this really the same thing as "morality"? Several problems arise.
    First of all, there are some human actions that are too petty to fall under the purview of civil legislation – things like gossip, lying and quarreling. Are these things moral just because they are legal?
    Then there are the logical inconsistencies that arise in the laws. Selling marijuana is still illegal in most U.S. states, but selling tobacco is not. Does this make selling tobacco moral? What is the difference between the two? If anything, tobacco is more harmful that marijuana.
    And then there is the process by which laws are made. As they say in politics, you don't want to know how the sausage was made – it would turn your stomach. Can a corrupt process yield a moral result? Isn't politics itself often morally suspect?
    And what about morally dubious actions taken by the government itself? We have witnessed numerous instances of torture, aggression and genocide. On what basis can we say that these are wrong? By what standard shall the body politic as a whole be judged?
    So who decides, the individual or society? If the former, then there is no stability in government. If the latter, there is no room for dissent.
    Here we see the dilemma in which feminism finds itself. When it comes to abortion, feminists insist that morality is a matter of "personal choice" – due process of law simply doesn't apply. But when it comes to rape, it is a different story. No man has a right to rape a woman. But what about the moral autonomy of the rapist? Does he have "freedom of choice"? One would hope not. So are there universally binding norms or are there not? The feminist position looks suspiciously self-serving.

 

Problems with "functionality"

 

    But does "functionality" really give us clear answers to ethical questions? We see several problems here as well.
    First of all, how do we determine what is "functional"? How do we determine what the particular function of any particular thing is?
    The idea of "function" almost suggests the medieval notion of teleology, or its more modern step-child, Intelligent Design. The underlying assumption here is that everything exists for a purpose, or naturally tends towards a predetermined end. But if there is no Designer (and Dr. Fincke assures us that there is not), and if everything came about through a blind, purposeless, impersonal, natural process, how can anything properly be said to have a specific "function"? Isn't the "function" the purpose for which something was designed?
    Dr. Fincke might reply that natural selection supplies function. If the iron rule of evolution is "the survival of the fittest," then whatever enhances the chances of the human species for survival would be "moral."
    But to make matters even more complicated and confusing, if we are all in an ongoing process of evolution, then there really are not fixed categories in nature. Everything is in a state of flux. And if there are no fixed categories then there are not fixed functions. The species is constantly being "redesigned," as it were. Thus what may appear to be dysfunctional today may simply be a transition to something more functional tomorrow. And since we cannot predict what tomorrow may hold, how can we say the function of a given thing may become?
    By either standard, whether by design or by accident, it is hard to see how homosexuality could conform to our functionality. The obvious function of our reproductive organs is, well, reproduction, and that requires a heterosexual relationship. From a traditional, theistic perspective, homosexuality is a "perversion," a deviation form the divinely ordained norm. From an evolutionary standpoint, it would constitute a regressive tendency that diminishes the species' chances for survival. What the ancients understood and we moderns have forgotten, the welfare of humanity depends on women having babies. How then does homosexuality enhance functionality?
    But the problem of assigning function becomes even more perplexing when we consider the possibilities of the human imagination. How we are not talking about what exists now, but rather about what might come into being. But of the myriad possibilities for future development, which ones should we choose? Do we focus on our physical and material well-being, or is there a spiritual and aesthetic side to life as well? Do we wish to maximize individual freedom, or should we strive for the common good? Does social justice consist in equality of outcome, or merely in equality of opportunity? Sparta and Athens gave different answers to questions life these.
    In the final analysis, it is not function that determines values, but values that determine function. We first decide what we want to achieve, and we set goals for ourselves. It is the goals that determine whether or not something is functional. Thus in the broader realm of human culture, functionality is determined by our a priori values.

 
Searching for Utopia

 
    Philosophers, in fact, have never been able to reach a consensus as to what our values should be. But why is this so? Dr. Fincke himself hints at the underlying reason when he speaks of "those flourishing goods which we all most basically value," but then adds "or would if we understood properly." Why don't we "understand properly"?
    It could be argued that if people "understood properly," they would want to live in a society in which everyone lived by the Golden Rule. It would be a society in which everyone dealt honestly, respected each other's dignity and rights, and looked after each other's welfare. It would be a society entirely free of poverty, crime and war. Everyone would have access to healthcare. In other words, if everyone understood properly, they would arrive at pretty much the same conclusion that Jesus did in the Sermon on the Mount.
    Why don't we then? The answer lies in human nature. We are wedded to the iron law of self-interest. Rationally we know that everyone would be better off if we were all altruists, if they realized, as Dr. Fincke put it, that "there are some rules worth adhering to even when they violate our short term interest because they contribute vitally to the group's thriving which indirectly is in our own long term interest. . ." But when the interests of society come into conflict with our individual self interest, we hesitate. We are back where we started. The simple fact of the matter is that sometimes crime pays.
    Even "enlightened self-interest" is still self-interest. As long as we are wedded to self-interest we are bound to negotiate with the rest of society to find a compromise. The end result is something less than Utopia. A morality based on "indirect consequentialism" and "modest, non-absolutist, instrumental moral norms" is ultimately a morality of convenience. Concepts such as "duty," "honor," and "integrity" evaporate. Can this really be called "morality"? Is morality really nothing more than avoiding negative consequences? We are afraid that in the end Dr. Fincke's solution leaves us unsatisfied.
    But more to the point, why do we think that certain actions are somehow morally wrong even when they are perfectly legal and even patently successful? How could we argue with success?
    The answer is that we have been endowed with a conscience. What sets us apart as human beings from the animal kingdom is our sense of morality. We do not simply act of instinct and conditioning as the animals do, but have a definite sense that certain things are right and others wrong. We feel an uncanny sense of accountability to some standard of conduct outside of ourselves, and we feel a sense of guilt and shame when we violate it. It is nothing less than the Law of God written upon our hearts, and it is an important evidence for the existence of the Deity.
            "He has shown you, O man, what is good;
             And what does the Lord require of you
             But to do justly,
             To love mercy,
             And to walk humbly with your God?"
                                (Mic. 6:8; NKJV)

Related blog posts:
Atheism and Morality 
Good Without God? 
A Scientific Basis for Morality? 
Alasdair MacIntyre: A Study in Moral Theory 
The Case for Moral Absolutes

 

    

12 comments:

  1. Bob, you have to make an argument that can't be hi-jacked. I warned you about this.
    I pleaded with you to walk a mile in the other guy's shoes. You have to play Devil's Advocate.
    You are going around in circles, making the same mistake again and again and again and again.

    We feel an uncanny sense of accountability to some standard of conduct outside of ourselves, and we feel a sense of guilt and shame when we violate it.

    Yes, we do. We both agree on that.

    It is nothing less than the Law of God written upon our hearts, and it is an important evidence for the existence of the Deity.

    (...facepalm...)

    It is nothing less than the Law of Allah written upon our hearts, and it is an important evidence for the existence of the Deity.
    It is nothing less than the Law of Baal written upon our hearts, and it is an important evidence for the existence of the Deity.
    It is nothing less than the Law of the Mega-Pixie written upon our hearts, and it is an important evidence for the existence of the Fairy-Dusted One.
    It is nothing less than the Law of the Flying Spaghetti Monster written upon our hearts, and it is an important evidence for the existence of the Noodly One.

    Can't you see what you have done?

    ReplyDelete
  2. If the Muslims want to hijack this one, I'm fine with it. The blog post was intended as a polemic against atheism, not Islam. Obviously any monotheistic religion would see the human conscience as a testimony to the divine law. Polytheism is a different story, however.
    The basic idea here is that morality has to be something more than mere social convention, self-interest, avoidance of negative consequences, or expediency.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Obviously any monotheistic religion would see the human conscience as a testimony to the divine law.

    No, the other guy would see it as a testimony to THEIR divine law-not yours. There is no "THE" as in "the divine law".

    Polytheism is a different story, however.

    You really don't get this Devil' Advocate thing.
    Bob, it's not that hard. A child could see the glaring flaw in your thinking.

    The basic idea here is that morality has to be something more...

    Then you need to demonstrate that as opposed to just asserting it.
    Besides, there's more to it than just one "basic idea".
    You yourself said...

    ...and it is an important evidence for the existence of the Deity.

    See?
    Yet, clearly, it's not. The guy with the beard? The one that you don't like and doesn't share your beliefs or morals one little bit? Remember him?
    Well, he's going to hi-jack it.

    Your argument isn't specific to your brand-name. Strictly speaking, it's not even an argument. It's only an unsupported assertion. Again you go around in circles.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Seems appropriate to post this at this point in the conversation.

    Winner of the 2012 coveted Golden Crocoduck!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I obviously can't respond to the video in detail here, but would only want to make two quick observations:
    1) On the side of religion: we have to be careful that we don't press the Bible too far about the details of science, since it is not the intent of the biblical writers to provide us with a technical description of nature. As for the history of the earth prior to the time of Abraham we have only the relatively sketchy accounts contained in the first chapters of Genesis. Thus it would be foolish to get too dogmatic about the age of the earth.
    2) On the side of science, the scientific method cannot be applied to prehistoric events which cannot be observed directly and cannot be repeated in a laboratory. Scientists are free to form hypotheses, but for the most part the hypotheses cannot be falsified.
    My caution to both sides: if we know more we might think differently!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I obviously can't respond to the video in detail here, but would only want to make two quick observations:
    1) On the side of religion: we have to be careful that we don't press the Bible too far about the details of science, since it is not the intent of the biblical writers to provide us with a technical description of nature. As for the history of the earth prior to the time of Abraham we have only the relatively sketchy accounts contained in the first chapters of Genesis. Thus it would be foolish to get too dogmatic about the age of the earth.
    2) On the side of science, the scientific method cannot be applied to prehistoric events which cannot be observed directly and cannot be repeated in a laboratory. Scientists are free to form hypotheses, but for the most part the hypotheses cannot be falsified.
    My caution to both sides: if we know more we might think differently!

    ReplyDelete
  7. 1) "On the side of religion: we have to be careful that we don't press the Bible too far about the details of science, since it is not the intent of the biblical writers to provide us with a technical description of nature."

    By all means, feel free to put it in the poetry/fiction section of the library.

    "Thus it would be foolish to get too dogmatic about the age of the earth."

    Yet the Earth has an age. Either it is 2000 years old or...it's not. Either it was created last Thursday or...it wasn't.
    A commitment to the truth and a genuine thirst for knowledge would be nice instead of wallowing in demeaning ignorance.
    When YEC'ers dance around this, it makes them look comically bad. Nothing is more hysterically funny than getting a fundy to admit to what he really thinks out loud on television.

    "On the side of science, the scientific method cannot be applied..."

    No Bob. That's not the way it works.
    You don't get to tell me about science and then say "Hey, just blindly trust me on this. Would I lie to you?"
    Nope.
    You have to give more respect to your readers and treat them like adults who also have access to google and can find out for themselves how science works.

    Scientists are free to form hypotheses, but for the most part the hypotheses cannot be falsified.

    That sentence is evidence that you've never really understood what a hypothesis actually is and why scientists go around forming them all the time. Look it up for yourself.
    (...awkward silence...)
    Um, ok. Let me help you with that.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I just realised that you might not know the history of the Crocoduck and it's symbolic value. This should put you in the picture. The Internet has not been kind to the YEC community.
    Not kind at all.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I was interested to see that P.Z. Meyers visited the Creation Museum. What did he think? (Or, need I ask?).
    While the Crockoduck is a bit fanciful, you would think that if evolution were true you would see an almost infinite variety of intermediate transitional forms in existence today. But you don't, which points to one of the difficulties inherent in evolution: How do you get from one species to another, especially when the organisms involved are so complex?

    ReplyDelete
  10. While the Crockoduck is a bit fanciful, you would think that if evolution were true you would see an almost infinite variety of intermediate transitional forms in existence today.

    Ok.
    Try and think like me.
    (Just a thought experiment, ok? No need to freak out.)
    Now imagine you are me. Someone (on the internet) asks you a question relating to, um, genetics. Now what do you suppose I would most likely do?
    Would I..
    a) Make something up?
    b) Try to half-remember something I saw on the telly one time a few years ago?
    c) Feel confident that I already know the answer to the question (even though I'm not a geneticist) and then go hunting for some site that will tell me I'm right...'cause I just know I'm right?
    or
    d) Go to a site that's well regarded by working geneticists and has a brilliant series of explanations related to all matters genetic that's set up to explain things to non-experts....and then verify that that site is backed up by other mainstream sites?

    Let's cheat a little and assume you do me the credit of going with option D, ok?

    So..how am I going to answer your question?

    "...you would think that if evolution were true you would see an almost infinite variety of intermediate transitional forms in existence today."

    What I would do is to find out what scientists mean when they talk about "transitional forms" and then I would quote them. In detail. In context. I wouldn't play "GOTCHA" games. I'd try and be as honest about it as possible.

    "But you don't"

    Then I'd try and find out if this was...really true. I know you accept that it's true....but I'd have to independently verify it. Fair enough, right?
    You would too, right?

    "...which points to one of the difficulties inherent in evolution..."

    Yeah, you see, any difficulties with any scientific field? That has to be verified. By the scientific community that actually does the work and knows what they are talking about. No assumptions or assertions or strawmen or quotemining allowed.

    "How do you get from one species to another..."

    Again, what do scientists (specifically biologists) mean when they say "species".
    Plus this sounds like a fairly basic question. Are we really going to pretend that no-one has ever asked it and that biologists have never worked on it?
    That's something that's checkable.

    So, if you were me, what would you do with your questions?

    (And no, I'm not messing with you. I'm being perfectly serious. Walk a mile in my shoes. Live a little.)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Actually Jerry Coyne does in fact discuss the definition of the word "species" and mentions two different definitions in particular: the "morphological species concept" and the "biological species concept." He holds to the latter, which he defines as "a group of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from each other such groups." In other words, a species is defined by its underlying genetics. But therein lies the whole problem (though, of course, Coyne would never admit to this!): the genetics act as a barrier to evolution. Distinct species exist precisely because genetics determine certain well-defined laws of heredity. Dr. Coyne, of course, would insist that mutations and genetic drift can account for evolution, but I still think this is a stretch. Significantly, all of the examples of speciation he cites in his book involve the modification or recombination of existing genetic material. Evolution on the scale upon which he conceives of it, however, would require the production of new genetic material. Where does it come from?

    ReplyDelete
  12. In other words....

    No. Don't do that.

    But therein lies the whole problem (though, of course, Coyne would never admit to this!):

    This is something that you have to independently verify as a real problem. You cannot expect people to just blindly trust you based solely on your say so.
    That would be foolish.

    Dr. Coyne, of course, would insist that mutations and genetic drift can account for evolution, but I still think this is a stretch.

    Well...I'm sure that you personally do but...(shrug)

    Bob, live a little. Do the Devil's Advocate thing. Do it right.

    ReplyDelete