How can one teach morality/ethics to a secular audience of very smart university students? Such is a question that I must face.
I have presented the following four axioms to my students in hopes of building a rudimentary morality. Stiff skepticism was their reaction. Here are the axioms with some explanation:
Axiom #1: All life is valuable. Human life has inestimable value.
Some class members thought this axiom was unacceptably anthropocentric. Perhaps they are right, but microbes (although essential and valuable) do not have the same value as humans. Thus, we humans should not feel bad about using antibiotics when ill. Humans should not be restricted from eating meat or even plants.
But, here is the crucial element: I think the real meaning of axiom #1 (via Kant) is that humans should be treated as "ends" never as "means" to an end.
Axiom #2: Well-being should be maximized; suffering should be minimized.
Like Sam Harris (referring to his book The Moral Landscape), I think science can be of considerable assistance to this goal. For example, modern medicine would be based upon this principle. But, I think the principle extends to all disciplines of life.
Axiom #3: Life should be lived within sustainable boundaries.
This axiom intentionally borrows from the field of ecology. It is necessary for humans to exert self-control lest we be driven by the selfish tendencies that result in "the tragedy of the commons."
This axiom (assisted by first axiom) also ties directly into Kant's Categorical Imperative. Actions that cannot be universalized (sustained/maintained by everyone) are not moral.
Axiom #4: The value of one’s life is independent of individual fertility (in terms of sexual reproduction).
Within this axiom I am trying to curtail flawed "Malthusian or social Darwinian ethics" that might equate goodness with "survival of the fittest."
The axioms are not in any intended hierarchy. In fact, I see the axioms as intimately working together as a whole. They are dependent upon each other for deriving any additional moral claims. For example, murder violates #1, #2, and #3. Prevarication violates (at least) #2 and #3. Humanitarian service is consistent with all of the axioms.
Some might accuse me of violating "the naturalistic fallacy" or "Hume's law" that argues that "ought" does not derive from "is." Actually, I do believe there are moral facts of nature, contrary to the position of the naturalistic fallacy, but for now I will merely claim that my axioms are self-evident starting points for building a generic moral system.
Criticism is welcome. Being only human, where have I gone wrong?
Copyright © 2011 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
0 comments:
Post a Comment