Pulp

First, I'm no relativist.

However, I was challenged this by a professor and it troubles me.

It seems tough to me however, I am a theist so I am in no place to rationalise this in objective terms.

Describe the moral value of a human/person without making any reference to a soul/spirit

Just hoping for some guidance/suggestions/brainstorming <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

K

I believe that morality has nothing to do with
a soul. I think that if one accepts that some
form of evolution has worked to bring about our
social species, what we call morality would be
a natural consequence.

In order to survive and perpetuate the species,
each individual must have certain drives - self-
preservation, reproduction, etc. These drives are
strong and readily apparent to the individual.
For reference, we'll call these drives primary.

On the other hand, and individual is more likely
to survive if he/she is part of a social group
that helps ensure the availability of food,
protection, and other basic survivability. In
order to fit in as part of this social group, the
individual must evolve secondary drives that allow
her/him to act appropriately. These secondary
drives would be things like empathy/sympathy. They
would often be in direct competition with the
primary drives. They also are not nearly as
palpable to the individual as the primary drives.

I think morality is the name we give to the
choices we make when the primary and secondary
drives are at odds with each other. If choosing
the primary drive over the secondary drive would
generally be called "evil". Choosing the secondary
would generally be called "good". I believe there
is a tendency to assign this behavior to a soul
because it isn't obvious to us why we wouldn't
simply make choices that satisfied our primary
drives. I think it's telling that we often refer
to a good person as "self-less" and an evil person
as "selfish".

The hidden and somewhat ambiguous nature of the
secondary drives can lead to conflict among only
the secondary drives. I think this is why there
is such a wide range of opinions on the morally
correct choice when our choice will adversely
affect one group or individual while positively
affecting another. For example, is it morally
justified to...

steal from the rich to give to the poor?

fight in a war?

kill someone to prevent them from doing harm to
another?

lie to protect someone else?

There are millions of others that could be added
to this list. But they all seem to have the same
underlying theme. They all involve making a choice
that tries to strike a balance between social good
and social harm.

Sorry about the long post. I hope it gives you
something to think about as you work on your
assignment.

-K

Keith Russell

Greetings:

I'm not sure what you mean by 'moral value'.

I view human beings in terms of 'human rights', based on the fact that (as Ayn Rand observed) we are beings of 'volitional consciousness'. Thus, in order to survive, human beings require the freedom to act on their own individual judgment.

This means that each human being has the right to be free from having force or coercion used against them by others; free to live his or her own life as he or she chooses.

Becuase we each have this right, it is not right to deprive others of their right to live. Murder (unwarranted or unjust killing) is thus wrong.

Because human beings have certain physical needs (food, for instance) which must be met in order for them to survive, it is not right for one to steal what another has earned or created. (If a person does not own their food, or control the means by which they provide themselves with food, for instance) they do not control their own life; their survival is in another's control.

Thus theft and fraud are also violations, and are thus morally wrong.

A systen of morality thus, in my opinion, can logically derived from the observable facts of human existence, without having to refer to dogmatic (and arbitrary) claims of mystical 'revelation' or the 'supernatural'.

Keith.

Jobar

This obviously belongs in the 'Moral Foundations and Principles' forum.