Upon further consideration, I've decided that a bit more background information is required before I can boldly offer my account of morality and my explanation as to how morality is compatible with the belief that: (1) God is responsible for the existence of each human being; and (2)morality would have authority over human conduct even if God did not exist and, for this reason, Plantinga failed to fight the "Argument from Evil" to a draw.
So, without further adieu, the additional background information.
Three approaches to moral reasoning/decision making dominate the history of moral philosophy. Listed in no implied order of priority, they are:
Consequentialism;
Deontology;
Eudaemonism.
Consequentialist moral theories hold that the moral status of any act, rule, practice, or policy (hereinafter "act"), is a function of the act's
reasonably anticipated consequences. The basic idea is that acts calculated to generate beneficial or desirable outcomes are morally superior to acts expected to generate harmful (or undesirable) outcomes. Most consequentialists agree that our moral analysis must focus on what an actor had good reason to believe would happen as a result of his or her actions, rather than on what actually happened. This is because, as we all know, "shit happens."
Modern consequentialists fall into two main camps: (1) Egoists - those who think we have duties to maximize our own utility; and (2) Utilitarians - those who believe we should act in ways that increase the net aggregate utility. Both theories are traceable to the Ancient Greeks.
Aside from the myriad complexities - such as what kinds of things count as positive outcomes, how do we quantify and compare various kinds of benefits and harms in a consequentialist analysis, whose benefit counts (animals? future generations?) and how much each entity counts - the basic consequentialist idea is unassailable. To some extent, nearly everyone is a moral consequentialist. Virtually no one advocates a moral analysis that completely ignores expected outcomes.
However, virtually no one thinks that morality is entirely a matter of anticipated consequences. If you disagree, ask yourself whether your moral objection to prostitution - assuming you have one - and you should - would vanish if someone could waive a magic wand and immediately eliminate all the adverse consequences of prostitution? What if no one got hurt or sick, physically or emotionally, from prostitution? Would you still object to prostitution, based merely on the nature or character of the activity?
Most of us would. Similarly, most of us agree that "honesty is the best policy," but also believe that there is something morally problematic about lying, even when it creates good outcomes for everyone affected. Most people think it is immoral for a married person to cheat on his or her spouse, even when the cheating will never be discovered and will result in no negative consequences.
By admitting our non-consequentialist moral sentiments, we out ourselves as
deontological moralists. Deontological moralists care about our duties, to ourselves and others. Such duties are deemed to be based on non-consequential considerations, such as the inherent dignity of human beings.
Modern deontology achieved its most definitive statement in the work of Imanual Kant. However, Kant's deontology was derived directly from the Ancient Greek and Roman Stoics.
Eudaemonism takes a differnt approach to moral reasoning - starting with the types of questions it asks. Consequentialism and Deontology are "act" oriented moral theories - they attempt to answer questions about the moral permissibility of specific acts. Eudaemonia, to the contrary, is an "agent" centered moral theory - it attempts to answer questions about what constitutes a well lived life. The basic idea is that human life can be lived well or poorly. The task of ethical reasoning is to: (1) identify the features of human well being - features like financial stability, a cultivated intellect, physical emotional health, satisfying and nurturing personal relationships, and so forth; and to then (2)identify and cultivate practices and habits that lead to these outcomes.
Think about the movie "Mr. Holland's Opus." The point of that movie was to celebrate a beautiful, albeit ordinary, life. Mr. Holland never finished his musical opus - his opus was his life! That's the central idea of eudaemonism - life as a work of art.
Eudaemonia is closely associated with the notion of "virtue." The ancient Greeks understood virtue as a "functional excellence." For the Greeks, a thing's virtue was whatever made it good at its function - e.g. the virtue of a race horse is its speed, while the virtue of a plow horse was its strength - different function, different virtues. According to Aristotle, the function of a human being was to live well - to live life in accordance with our rational natures. Thus, the human virtues were those acts or practices that constitute living well and lead to human well-being. These ideas are also closely connected to the notion of "habit."
Now, I'm sure you all realize that I have vastly oversimplified each of these moral traditions. I'll also admit that I am a eudaemonist (I believe eudaemonism subsumes and incorporates consequentialism and deontology). But these short summaries should provide at least the rudimentary theoretical information regarding how moral theorists have approached the subject of morality.
What is relevant to our analysis of the relationship between God and morality, and to the success or failure of Plantinga's "Evil proves the Existence of God" argument, is that the core insight of each theoretical approach is
value realization. Proponents of each type of moral outlook are advocating the realization of, or the showing of respect for, certain types of value.
So in my next post on the subject, I'll examine the concept of "value" and the role it plays in human existence.
Stay tuned.
Joe H.
Posts
