What is “good” and “bad”? What is “right” and “wrong”? Are these concepts merely constructs of a collective societal will? A sort of sum of a group’s preferences with some averaging applied to come up with a generally agreed upon “standard”? Is right and wrong based on preferences? Let’s explore this idea.
One person named Bob has an opinion/feeling about prematurely ending the life of newborn puppies. Terminating newborn puppies makes him feel good inside and he has always felt deeply that newborn puppies should not be allowed to live. To Bob it seems like such a conventional, inner belief that he has a hard time understanding how anyone could feel otherwise.
The remaining individuals in Bob’s neighborhood, 10 people in all, deeply feel that prematurely terminating the life of newborn puppies is wrong. Deeply wrong. They have even attached harsh terms to this practice, calling it “murder” or “atrocity” or “crime”. So the 10 individuals decide to band together to “protect the rights” of puppies. They form a group called “Puppies are Precious” and form a written, prescriptive edict declaring that all puppies are precious and that their lives should be protected, enriched, and prolonged to the maximum degree possible.
One morning Bob is interrupted from his daily task of prematurely terminating the lives of a few puppies by a stern knock at the door. With some degree of perturbation he answers the door in his blood-stained apron, knife in hand, only to find 10, first angry then increasingly horrified neighbors standing in his front yard. A representative of the group collects himself enough to inform Bob that it is entirely, and absolutely wrong to “murder” innocent puppies and that Bob must cease and desist this “atrocious” act immediately.
Bob, who highly values his relationship with his neighbors is thoughtful for a moment. Then as his desire for peace and good relations gives way to righteous indignation he answers the representative by asking “Or what?”.
This stuns the representative, who looks back at his fellow “PP” group members for reassurance. After retiring into the group for a short dialog he rejoins Bob by declaring that the group would normally attempt to bring about change with neighbors through diplomacy but that the “heinous” nature of Bob’s “crime” demands that their group stop him with force if he does not willingly concede to their demands.
Now it is Bob’s turn to be stunned. He had already been completely unprepared for this dialog, and now this threat of force by 10 individuals set him to stammering for a reply.
Immediately sensing their advantage, the group pressed Bob with further threats, and informed him that there would be a delegation that would inspect his home weekly for the next 3 months to look for signs of the afore mentioned “crime”. Additionally a separate delegation would meet with Bob weekly to set about teaching him the ethical principle that puppy’s lives are precious. The group sincerely hopes that Bob can be brought back into the “mainstream” through education.
Bob, who was outmatched by the power of the group is forced to agree to these terms, although in his heart he still “knows” that he is right.
Who is right? Why would the opinion of 10 individuals be more legitimate than that of 1? Who is it that dictates that the more powerful group’s idea is right? Does the issue simply come down to who holds power? Is an individual likely to be converted to a more powerful group’s opinion of right and wrong as a result of being forced to comply with their wishes? Is it possible that the individual will retain their view and still practice their heart-felt belief insomuch as they can do so without detection by the more powerful group? What is the opinion of the puppies?
Objections
==========
It seems self-evident that this view of ethics is not commensurate with human experience, or at least is lacking in precision. With some variation, humans seem to have a “built in” concept of right and wrong and it seems to be universal. One would be hard-pressed to find a culture where cowardliness was thought to be a virtue. Or where lying was thought to be “good form” by the one lied to. Or where indiscriminately taking the life of newborn puppies was thought to be “good”. So the seemingly inherent, universal concept of good and evil in people (with some few exceptions) seems to indicate something beyond preference. It seems to indicate a pre-programmed moral compass which directs toward a fixed point or standard. A standard which is broader than any single person or isolated society.
Where does this universal moral standard come from if it is broader than the individual or isolated society? Is it genetic and therefore a product of evolution? It seems that many of our moral concepts lead to conclusions that are counter-productive to evolution’s driving force, “survival of the fittest”. The fittest survives by pragmatism, not by principle. The fittest does whatever is necessary in any given scenario to ensure their survival. Lying, cheating, cowardliness, etc. are all completely acceptable to the pragmatist if these traits further the goal of surviving and prospering. Any self-less actions have no place in a moral standard created by evolution. Yet more commonly than not we approve whole-heartedly of those who perform self-less acts. While we may not understand such acts, or may feel such acts are beyond what we could or would do, yet we seem to think of them as “good”, and many times wish we could be more like that self-less person.
Conclusions
===========
If the moral standard’s source is not an evolutionary process then what is it? There are perhaps several possibilities but one plausible explanation is that there is a standard of right and wrong that is higher than human preference. A standard that’s source is external to ourselves but that has been integrated into who we are as humans. A standard set by a moral law giver. A law giver with the inherent right to say to human beings, “you may do this, you may not do the other”, and with the power to integrate this standard into our being. Following this line of reasoning, this lawgiver would most likely be the creator since the one who makes a thing is most likely to have access to the thing’s “inner programming” and who other than the creator of a thing has the right to demand that the thing adhere to a standard?
Very nice…but I wish your conclusion had a clause that said “Conclusion of a Theist”. MY conclusion would say that “In our highly evolved state, instead of right and wrong being guided merely by the intention of survival, the brain gives humans a ‘conscience’ which often causes them to act without causing bodily harm or injury to others…as most rules of right vs wrong are designed to prevent the harming of others..”. But again, this ‘feature’ is broken in some humans…just like any moral fiber you could mention. I think that this is what most of our sense of right and wrong comes from…most of us do not want to cause others harm…it makes that person or others angry at us to the point that they may direct their spears and/or other weapons in our direction. So I guess it _could_ be considered an extension of our survival mechanism =)
I came to this site looking for a script and leave pleasantly surprised with a good dose of philophy to ponder. It’s nice to see your thoughtful consideration on the subject.
IMHO, people and justification for right/wrong behavior are more complicated than portrayed. I’ve met many people who wouldn’t think twice about lying, cheating, stealing to further their self interests. Those who do show a higher level of moral fiber, do so because they have ‘evolved’ to survive in a ‘civilized’ society (note in a stressful situation many would probably behave differently which is why we value those who act selflessly when most of our survival skill instincts kick in). In general though, our moral compass of cooperation and living by the golden rule is the means to ensuring acceptance, harmony, and personal progress in society.
When I say ‘evolved’ in reality I think this moral compass is a learned behavior. I know as a child I did and said and did many things that were wrong, hurtful, and morally unjustified that I (hopefully) wouldn’t do today. Why? Probably because I thought it furthered my short-term interests. People who are morally grounded are typically taught or eventually learn that even if there is a short-term gain to self-serving behavior, the lasting consequences far outweigh them. People who don’t learn this lesson tend to be more narcisstic and will justify and rationalize what you or I might consider immoral conduct.
Of course, the bigger issue is what is immoral? I think a lot of it is a really grey area. The puppy killer portrayed in your example is clearly portrayed in a negative light (killing for fun of it is hardly ever a justified action). Let’s take your example, and modify it a little. What if Bob, a renowned scientist, was close to finding a cure for cancer and was ‘sacrificing’ the puppies to achieve that goal? Or what if the puppies were born with a rare disorder that caused them excrutiating pain to the point where they couldn’t function, whined constantly, and were clearly suffering and Bob was merely putting them to sleep and out of their misery? What if Bob didn’t kill dogs at all, but instead hunted deer for sport and had a lease with a deer feeding stand. Every season he sits in his heated blind waiting for a deer to come to get bite and BLAM! Another one bites the dust.
Depending on your perspective, these above examples could be totally rationalized (Big Game Hunter), or clearly immoral (PETA enthusiast). That goes back to the learned behavior and values we have come to learn on our individual journey as human beings. Therefor, everyone’s compass is unique and varied in a very personal way.