Is “Right” and “Wrong” Simply a Matter of “Human Flourishing”?
When it comes to moral truth,
where do we get our notions of right and wrong? Can we generate
binding, obligatory concepts without grounding them in the nature of a
Holy God? As an atheist, I thought so for many years. Like Sam Harris
(author of The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values),
I argued that we can establish the moral value of any particular action
by simply evaluating its impact on human well-being (something Harris
typically refers to as “human flourishing”). Harris, a committed and
vocal atheist, accepts the existence of objective moral truths but
likens the establishment of such truths to a game of chess. In any
particular game, each player must decide how to move based on the
resulting effect. If you are trying to win the game, some moves are
“good” and some moves are “bad”; some will lead you to victory and some
will lead you to defeat. “Good” and “bad” then, are evaluated based on
whether or not they accomplish the goal of winning the game. Harris
redefines “good” (in the context of human beings) as whatever supports
or encourages the well-being of conscious creatures; if an action
increases human well-being (human “flourishing”) it is “good”, if it
decreases well-being, it is “bad”.
What, however, do we mean when
we talk about “flourishing”? It’s one thing to evaluate a behavior in
terms of its impact on survival, and if we are honest with one another,
this is really what drives Natural Selection. But Harris recognizes
survival, as a singular goal, can lead to all kinds of morally
condemnable misbehavior. History is replete with examples of actions
that secured the survival of one group at the immoral expense of
another. Harris suggests the goal is something more; the goal is
“flourishing”. Human well-being involves more than simply living, it
involves living a particular way. Human flourishing comprises a particular quality of life; one in which we honor the rights of others and seek a certain kind of character in order to become a particular kind of human group that has maximized its potential. See the problem here?
Harris has already imported moral values
into his model, even as he seeks to explain where these values come
from in the first place. One can hardly define the “maximization” of
human wellbeing without asserting a number of moral values. What, beyond
mere survival, achieves our “maximization” as humans? What does this
even mean? The minute we move from mere survival to a particular kind of
“worthy” survival, we have to employ moral principles and ideas.
Concepts of sacrifice, nobility and honor must be assumed
foundationally, but these are not morally neutral notions. Human
“flourishing” assumes a number of virtues and priorities (depending on
who is defining it), and these values and characteristics precede
the enterprise Harris seeks to describe. Harris cannot articulate the
formation of moral truths without first assuming some of these truths to
establish his definition of “flourishing”. He’s borrowing pre-existent,
objective moral notions about worth, value and purpose, while holding a
worldview that argues against any pre-existing moral notions.
If,
as a police officer, if I was watching Harris’ chess game and observed
one of the players make a “bad” move, could I arrest the player? No. the
definitions of “good” and “bad” Harris offers here are morally neutral.
On the other hand, if one of the players was able to successfully cheat
(without detection) and managed to win the game in this manner, could
we call this behavior bad? He did, after all accomplish the goal of
winning the game. We can only call this behavior “bad” if we begin with a
notion about winning that identifies undetected cheating as a
prohibited act; a moral truth that pre-exists the “chess game” and ought
to govern its moves. Even though there are times when cheating can help
us win (or survive) without any physical or emotional consequence, we
theists recognize we’ve done something that “damages our soul” and
offends the Holy nature of God (even if our behavior goes undetected by
our peers). When the atheist recognizes human flourishing as something
more than mere physical or emotional survival, he too acknowledges the
spiritual and moral nature of our existence, as he borrows from our
theistic view to construct his own.
[By the way, J. Warner’s book is on sale for less than $4.00 (Kindle and eBook) for a very limited time.]
