DivineRageFromSpace wrote:In this example, there is a very clear, black-and-white answer: and you either marked the correct one or you marked one of the wrong ones. Every rational person who can figure maths agrees that the correct answer is indeed correct. The correct answer could be representative of intrinsic morals, as you intended it to be, and the rational mathematicians accepting the correct answer could be representative of the "normal" portion of society accepting those morals. Of course, since the example relies on the answer being a definite thing that society can clearly see for themselves, it shouldn't apply to something as undefined (and even subjective, in some cases) as morals. I mean to say that morals, at least in certain circumstances, are something of a Sorites paradox, as the dividing lines between what is moral and what is immoral are often too vague to draw.
Let's make sure we keep separate the discussion
how we know what is moral? from
what is morality?. The former is an epistemological question. The latter is an ontological question. By way of analogy, suppose you were talking with someone about evolution and creationism, and you were explaining what the views are in extensive detail. Then in response, supposed you were asked, "But how do you know the Bible isn't compatible with evolution?" Now, that's certainly a valid question, but it is a different question from one pertaining to the nature of evolution and the nature of Creationism. Answering the question of the nature of the two concepts will certainly provide you with some bases for a discussion of the epistemological question, but that doesn't make them equivalent.
It may be true that it is difficult at times to know what is right and wrong. But that doesn't challenge the fact that morality itself is an objective part of reality. I'd also make one more point on this: morality is really no harder to figure out than any other aspect of nature. In fact, I'd suggest that even at its hardest, it is easier than most other aspects of reality. How many people can do the math necessary to answer questions about particle physics? I can't. Maybe you can. But does the difficulty change the fact that there is a really correct answer that is correct precisely because that is how reality is? And so it is with morality. Just because some people have difficulty getting their moral sums right doesn't mean that morality itself is difficult to figure out or that there is therefore no objective answer.
And what are morals, in and of themselves? Moreover, how can we be certain that what we're doing follows these morals? "It's just human nature" seems very subjective to me, equivalent to saying, "I felt it was the right thing to do", and "It just came naturally to me". If it just comes naturally to a psychopath to kill a man, then it was in his nature to do so -- and therefore he could argue that it was just human nature, because he's human and it was in his nature. (Granted, such an argument on his part wouldn't hold up in any objective discussion.) What separates his jaded morals from the proper morals of "normal" society?
Again, I'll leave the epistemological question to the side for now ("how can we be certain that what we're doing follows these morals?"). As to the first question, I think I've talked about intrinsic order enough. Let me try a slightly different approach.
Morality is that which is consistent with the good. Immoral behavior is that which intentionally deviates from the good.
That should be an easy enough to accept definition, but it raises another question: what is "the good"? In my view (which, full disclosure, is Aristotelian/Thomistic), good is that aspect of being that emphasizes desirability. What the?!? Bear with me and let me explain!
Get out a piece of paper and draw a circle freehand. Now, next to it, use a compass and draw another circle. If I ask you, which is "better" I have little doubt that you would say that the one drawn with the compass is the better circle. It is "more good" (to use terrible English). What we mean here is that one circle better exemplifies what a
true circle actually looks like. To the extent that your circle deviates from a
true circle, it is a
bad circle. The more it conforms to the
true, the
better ("more good") it is. In other words,
the more the circle you draw actualizes the form of a true circle, the more we call it good. And the less it actualizes that form, the less we call it good (note, by the way, that the same can be said for the word 'true'). We obviously aren't talking about moral goodness yet, but we'll get there. I just want you to see what goodness in general is first.
Now, let's step back a little more and talk about the words "form" and "actualize" in the bolded statement above, because they are key. The "form" of a thing refers to
what a thing is. Think about a man. What is a man? Physically, he's just a collection of atoms in this particular configuration. But what makes that particular configuration a
man and not a tree? After all, a tree is just a collection of atoms in a particular configuration, too. The key is "in a particular configuration." That
particular configuration is a pattern. Matter is
informed and therefore behaves/is configured in a particular way. I would submit to you that the forms "man" and "tree" are not something the human mind invents, but rather they are things that the human mind discovers in nature. In other words, there
really are men and trees in nature. We don't just see this configuration and decide to label it "man" (NB - I'm not talking about the word "man"; that is arbitrary. For some, the label is
ish, for others
anthropos, etc. I'm talking about the concept to which all these languages point!). We recognize this configuration is an objective part of nature, and then we come up with a word for that configuration. That configuration is what Aristotelians call "form." Everything that exists has form(s).
So there exists a form called 'circle.' That is, circles are real things. But how do they come into existence? Take the one you drew. You had a piece of paper and a pen. That paper and ink had the potential to form a circle. Put differently, the ink had the potential to exemplify the form of a circle on the paper. That potential, however, would forever be potential until you come along and actually draw that circle. That is, you
actualize the potential presently existing in the ink and paper. That is to say, you actualize the form "circle." You bring it into existence.
But how good is your circle? That depends on how closely your circle corresponds to the real form of a circle! So now we can say something more specific about goodness:
something is good to the extent that its form is truly actualized. Your freehand circle doesn't actualize the true form of a circle nearly as well as the one you drew with a compass. But notice further that "actualization" means "to bring into existence" (more technically, it means to bring something's potential into reality). That is, the circle
exists now though it did not before. And this is key:
everything that exists, exists to the degree that its form has been actualized. Think about that a second and I think you will agree. Things have potential to be lots of things that they aren't, but what they
are, they
are because they had the potential to be that, and that potential was actualized (made exist) by something else. And to the degree that a thing's potential remains potential, it does not exist. I am sitting. I have the potential to be standing. So I
really exist as a sitting thing. Soon, I will
really exist as a standing thing (once that potentiality is actualized).
But now we are in a position to see something rather profound: to the degree that something exists (= has been actualized) it is good. Why? Because to be actualized is to have the potential of your form be brought into existence. The more of the form "circle" the circle you draw actualizes, the better a circle it is. But what of imperfections? Do they not exist? STRICTLY, imperfections do not exist. STRICTLY, imperfections are the non-existence of a perfection. Blindness, for instance, does not exist. Blindness is actually the non-existence of the ability of the eye to see. For the eye has the natural potential for sight; in a blind person, that potential is never actualized, and we call that imperfection an evil (thus, we learn that evil is always a privation). Likewise, darkness and cold do not exist.
So the general principle is that evil does not exist except as a privation of good (that is, the non-existence of some aspect of a particular form).
Finally, then, we can bring this to bear on moral evil. Mankind has a nature. Part of that nature includes rationality. It includes the recognition of the order intrinsic to the universe (both in its parts and in the whole). Because man recognizes the forms of the universe, he recognizes the natures of things in the universe; therefore, he recognizes what things do and don't do by nature. That is, he recognizes what they are for and not for. That includes himself. He recognizes his own nature. He recognizes, for instance, that being kind to his fellow man is something that is part of his proper nature. He can prove this by giving
reasons that he ought to be kind; in fact, reason shows him that he
ought not be cruel. But what is reason here? Reason is simply our ability to see and process our own natures. Just as the form of a circle has a particular nature (a 360 degree 2D figure that has a center equidistant from every point on the line), so too the human form has a nature. And just as the circle can be exemplified more or less perfectly, so the human nature can be exemplified more or less perfectly. When we "do good," (e.g., when we are kind), we are exemplifying our nature "better" than when we deviate from our nature (cf. a shape that deviates from what would be a good circle).
But it is evident that we
desire our own fulfillment--that is, we desire to have our potentiality actualized. Everything you
want, you want because you do not have it. You want it because your nature is such that you have certain potentialities that long to be filled. So a drawn circle "wants" to be "perfectly" circular; so too you want this or that "good." Sometimes, of course, you do evil to get what you perceive to be good. You cheat on a test to get an A, but that is because you desire something good. Your means of acquiring it simply were not appropriate to your nature.
So goodness is that aspect of being (remember, all being is that which is potentiality actualized) presented from the perspective of desirability. Really, good and being are synonymous--they differ only in idea. Applied to ethics, when you act in a way that is contrary to your intrinsic nature (your natural order), you are preventing your true nature from being actualized, and therefore, you have done evil (since that potentiality remains unactualized; which is to say, it does not exist, like the potentiality of the blind eye to see is never actualized). God is Perfectly Good, precisely because He is 100% fully actualized. There is no potentiality in Him whatsoever. Further, God is our ultimate end, so in attaining Him, we are perfected (insofar as all of our potentialities are actualized). Since we desire to have our nature perfected (actualized), God--whether we know it or not--is the ultimate desire. Which is to say, God is pure Being, pure Good considered as desirable.
Now, I know this has been rather technical and long. But I hope this helps you get a hand on what I'm saying. Your thoughts?
