What is being good?
What is the right thing to do? How can we tell what is right?
Can God tell us how to behave?
Is it right to just feel that some things are good and others bad?
Why bother to keep yourself nice when most other people are selfish?
Is it worth the effort?
1.5
Ethical Conclusions (Statement
5)
The
source of goodness is not some transcendent being or mystical reality but is
within those of us who feel compassion, either instinctively or by choice.
● Goodness
is not ‘transcendent’, it is not an independent property of certain people or
actions.
● Compassion
leads us to non-violence, minimizing suffering and promoting happiness.
● We
cannot believe without question any book or prophet because we must judge
whether their teachings are good or evil;
● We
still need to promote social controls based on personal responsibility, for
those who behave badly, especially those who lack compassion, to the extent
these are effective,
● So
while we may assign responsibility, where it is effective, we need to be
merciful, because of the irresolvable dilemmas and constraints we all face and
our uncertainty.
The next level of detail is shown in this box. See commentary further below.
1.5.1 Ethical concepts are all linked to one another: Virtue is being ready to do your duty, duty is doing the right thing, the right thing is morally correct, and that is being good! Evil is the opposite of good. more (later)
1.5.2 Goodness does not come from God, prophets, sacred texts or spirits, because we must decide whether the suggestion is good. more (later)
1.5.3 Similarly, philosophical, scientific or historical explanations of what happens in the world do not tell us how we should behave. more (later)
1.5.4 Goodness is not something that exists independently in things or events. It comes from within us, based on our choices. more (later)
1.5.5 We can debate whether specific actions are good objectively, because of what we have in common, our reactions and relationships to such actions. more (later)
1.5.6 We have in common our human nature that generated, at the most basic level, the Golden Rule, prohibitions against killing, stealing and lying, and varying controls on sexuality. more (later)
1.6.7 Our judgments of what is good have to take into account the context, such as the time and place, the history and culture, the state of knowledge, and relevant psychological and physical constraints. more (later)
1.5.8 Most of us have some compassion, an awareness of others’ suffering. We want to minimize suffering, promote happiness and allow people to satisfy their own preferences. We advocate non-violence, at least as an ideal. more (later)
1.5.9 People behave badly because of fear, desperation, stupidity, ignorance, thoughtlessness, insanity or selfishness. These are the common sources of evil. more (later)
1.5.10 The compassionate responses are empowerment, equity, support, education, self control and discipline, medical help and forgiveness. more (later)
1.5.11 Some whose compassion is limited may behave in an acceptable manner, simply to make their own life easier, following their enlightened self interest. more (later)
1.5.12 A small number of individuals, probably through no fault of their own, apparently have virtually no compassion, and no desire for self control, and cause harm. We call such people psychopathic, and we need to control them. more (later)
1.5.13 We join together with others into various communities, such as tribes, states, nations and global organizations to create controls on behaviour, and we must, and all societies do, control psychopaths. more (later)
1.5.14 We should treat others as responsible beings only when it is effective in getting them to behave better. We must show mercy because of the constraints and dilemmas we and others face, and our lack of certainty. more (later)
1.5.15 Negative ethical principles ban torture, murder, rape, slavery, sexism, racism, assault, lying and stealing. more (later)
1.4.16 We can debate how to classify our core positive ethical principles, but those offered here are wonder, truth, struggle, compassion, respect, responsibility, justice, mercy, liberty, equality, diversity, beauty, hope.
1.4.17 Secondary Security, Control, Sexuality, Property, Generosity, Fairness, Curiosity, and Enjoyment. more (later)
1.5.18 These are essentially absolute values that we
almost universally share, based on our human nature. Anyone lacking similar values is
inhumane. more (later)
1.5.19 Goodness is everywhere – ubiquitous! more (later)
We cannot take “on faith” the moral teachings
of any book or prophet because we must decide which teachings are good (eg
whether they come from God or Satan). We
cannot follow the religious teachings of one “faith” (such as Christianity or
Islam) without understanding the religious teachings of the other “faiths” and
knowing why they are wrong and our “faith” is correct.
Goodness cannot be simply what god tells
us. If some god did give us a set of
guidelines (such as the Ten Commandments) then we still need to work out
whether these are good rules, because they may have come from Satan, or God may
not be very good.
We cannot rely on science to tell us how we should behave: science tells us how
things happen. We cannot rely on history
either – we must choose whether to follow the examples that precede us based on
the expected outcomes that we learn from science and history.
|
Contrary to Sam Harris (The
Moral Landscape) we do not arrive at our core values through science. Science helps to work out the effects of
our choices, but does not give us the basis to choose. Sam Harris is correct to say that we can
apply science to morality, ie that we should essentially use scientific
methods to determine our day to day practices and political decisions,
provided we have already chosen our core values, of truth, compassion and
mercy etc. But science doesn’t provide
those core values. |
So goodness cannot come from God or from Science: it must come from within us.
Goodness Is Within
Both religion and science have been wrong to say that a universe without god has no values, that it is little more than a hugely complicated clock just going through the motions blindly following physical laws. There is no need to deny the laws of physics, but this is an unhelpful way to view the world.
Most of us do in fact have an innate sense of empathy for others. Religions have been wrong to say that people are fundamentally bad, that we suffer from original sin, that we are driven primarily by selfish desires.
Science can explain how co-operation and altruism evolved. Cooperation begins at the cellular level, where the organelles inside Eucaryote bacteria, which probably originated as simpler prokaryote cells, cooperate with each other to keep the cell function. Cooperation is required for multicellular animals to live, as each cell adopts a specialised function, and some cells sacrifice themselves for the good of the whole. Cooperation is obviously required for sexual reproduction: the male and female must come together to produce young, and many animals species have long term monogamous relationships (and some of these cheat on each other). Altruism is obvious in raising the young, which in many species involves both parents. Social cooperation is shown in ants and bees nests, in all herd and pack animals. It is not surprising that humans cooperate in sexual relationships, raising children together, and participating cooperatively in social settings. We did this as apes, as early hominids, and as hunter gatherers, before religion was invented.
For some people, the evolutionary outcome is that the feel empathy and compassion. Other might experience this feeling more as a sense of duty, what is fair and right, and of reciprocal obligations. Humans, like apes, appear to have an innate ability to work out who else in the group cooperates and is fair in their dealings.
Goodness Is a Choice
The scientific explanation can also explain how some people evolved with little or no sense of empathy, or no conscience, into people we call psychopaths or sociopaths. Perhaps a few percent of the population are born this way. There are also normal people who have been born into terrible circumstances or who have had such traumatic experiences that they shut off any feelings of empathy, and become unfeeling, hard, ruthless people. If they do not behave well we must join together to control them.
We can show it is rational to co-operate, even if you are not motivated (as most of us are) by an innate sense of compassion.
· The principle of enlightened self interest applies. Many people choose to cooperate with others because they get a payback. Most people are sophisticated enough to know that the payback may not come directly from someone you helped, but may come from someone who has seen you being helpful to others, or who accepts your reputation that you are OK.
· Game theory can show that if there is a system of rewards and punishments (or pleasure and pain) then under some circumstances, which do correspond to many real life situations, there is a better chance for all of us if we cooperate most of the time, on a tit for tat basis with occasional bouts of undeserved forgiveness.
So being good is a choice, based on our feelings of empathy or compassion, our sense of duty or fairness, awareness of our enlightened self interest (or an understanding of game theory if that’s your bag).
The fact that we (or most of us) make the choice to be good does not imply the choice involves transcendental free will, or anything supernatural. We make it naturally, freely or causally.
We must live with the dilemma that we are uncertain of the truth, that free choice may not be real, and that the choices we make may be causally determined or completely random, but we do it anyway, choosing to the extent that we can make a choice, to be good.
There is no absolute reason to make this choice, and you could choose not to be good.
· But our genes and our upbringing both tend to cause us to choose to be good.
· It probably is in your enlightened self interest to be good, at least most of the time.
· The rest of us will oppose your choice the best way we can.
· Society should arrange itself so that enlightened self interest is the better choice.
A Measure of Goodness
Assuming we acknowledge our choice to be good, based on compassion, duty, self interest, or whatever, how do we judge what is good and what is bad. In general we do this by saying actions that lead to greater happiness or reduce suffering are good, and those that do the opposite are bad.
If any god did exist that had a personality and feelings then we would need to take into account god’s feelings too, because our compassion should encompass all sentient beings. But there is no need to give undue weight to the feelings of one (mythological) being over real humans and other animals. But if such as god did exist, the happiness of hundreds or thousands of humans probably should outweigh the happiness of one god.
Measuring goodness according to whether we will be rewarded or punished is also not real goodness. In our childhood, “good” behaviour is enforced by rewards and punishment. As adults we should be motivated to be good without rewards and punishments. Behaving one way because you expect it to lead to reward or punishment may be prudent, politic or sensible, but it I not good.
We could try to measure goodness according to the intentions behind the behaviour. If the intent was to promote happiness and alleviate suffering then the action was good. We could alternatively try to measure goodness according to whether the actions conform to some rule, such as thou shalt not kill or thou shalt share thine excess goods with those who are starving and homeless. If the actual outcome was bad, then perhaps we can view that as just bad luck. The goodness of an action is measured partly by the effort we take to ensure the expected outcomes are realistic. Negligent behaviour, or lack of awareness, is not good.
A commonly used measure is that ones actions should be such as to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. We must qualify this to add that some sources of happiness are somehow better than others, and we must not make a small number suffer for the benefit of the rest.
Philosopher Peter Singer says we should measure by people’s preferences rather than our estimate of their happiness.
While we can debate the precise definition of what goodness is, and debate whether some particular action is good or not, depending on the intentions, conformity to some accepted rules, and the outcomes, in many situations the choice is fairly obvious and in others there is no definitively correct answer. So choosing the good is an ongoing struggle.
Responsibility
Our innate calculus of right and wrong, of who plays fair, prompts us to wish to punish those who do us wrong. We also, of course need to counter simple acts of unprovoked violence, bullying and intimidation. We need to control the psychopaths and sociopaths and those damaged by their upbringing. We need to control who choose NOT to be good. We need to enforce some conformity even on otherwise completely decent people just so that society can be effective. We must all drive on the correct side of the road, we should all be polite and considerate to others.
On a personal level and on a society level we need to agree on some rules with others and on some ways to enforce these. On a personal level this is mostly cultural norms, which are enforced by ostracising those who don’t play the game. On a society level, we have laws and socially sanctioned punishments.
History shows that in the past these were enforced by the tribal chief, the king or queen, or the local tyrant, whether he be the lord of the manor, a noble of the court, or a totalitarian dictator. History shows that the best way to enforce social laws is what we now call a liberal democracy.
But we must clarify when cultural or legal intervention is appropriate, consistent with our choice to be compassionate.
· We cannot arbitrarily impose social controls with harsh punishments if the suffering caused this way is greater than the suffering we are trying to avoid.
· There is no point in punishing someone if it has no effect on their behaviour: harsh penalties for stealing will be ineffective for someone who is starving who has the opportunity to take a loaf of bread. Should we treat this as stealing or are they exercising a human right? Punishment is only warranted if it changes someone’s behaviour.
· The harshness of the punishment must also be judged in the same way. It should be just sufficiently harsh to change the behaviour, otherwise we are being needlessly cruel.
· Those who have no effective control over their behaviour, cannot be deemed responsible.
· There is no point saying someone is responsible for their actions if nothing they or we could possible do would change their behaviour.
· We assign responsibility where social, legal or cultural intervention might be effective.
Justice and Mercy
Justice is the shared commitment with others to enforce what we agree to be correct behaviour, according to the agreed rules.
·
Plato hoped philosopher kings would rule
justly. Any hopes that this might happen
in the modern world have been dashed by totalitarian regimes such as Communist
Russia,
· Theories of justice put forward by modern philosophers such as John Rawls and Amartya Sen emphasise that justice involves being fair, not promoting one individual’s or groups self interest, and being balanced, taking into account the potential views of an external independent observer.
Mercy is what we apply when
· we understand that the person was not truly responsible, ie a simplistic application of the rules would be unfair because the proposed intervention would not be effective in preventing the misdemeanour or
· the proposed punishment would not effectively motivate the perpetrator or perhaps the wider society to behave better.
We do join with others to motivate others, as
well as ourselves, when we are moved by fear, desperation, stupidity,
ignorance, thoughtlessness,
insanity or selfishness,
establishing legal systems and cultural controls for empowerment,
equity, support, education, self control and discipline, medical help and
forgiveness.
Struggle
Some will despair that there can be no good in a materialistic world without god and without an afterlife. But this life is even more precious, though it can be a struggle, because it is so transitory. We can hope that goodness and mercy will follow us, and laud those who are compassionate and merciful. And if the reality is that being good seems so insignificant, then it is even better to persist with the struggle in face of this.
Be good, for goodness’ sake, because that’s just the way you are!