How can something that isn’t written down be an OBJECTIVE
moral code? Even the word “code” (aka codex) implicitly describes
something written.
G.Brooks
Gary, I moved this to the Morality and Subjectivity thread as @Roy had asked folks to keep to the OP of his thread, which is fair. Mods created this one for the morality discussion, but remnants are scattered hither, thither and yon.
I think you may have oversimpified the Debate on Morality. Speaking as a christian sort of theist, I see a great deal of disagreement just among Christians regarding many facets of morality.
I agree that this will likely not be resolved, even among Christians, barring further revelation from God, which could include the return of Christ.
I see some value in the discussion, though. Sometimes people realize that there are other perspectives worth considering, or outcomes of views worth rejecting or pursuing. This can lead to constructive (self) criticism, which I see as valuable.
[6] A Deeper Dive into final causality (and Induction)
Considering that final causality provides the rational basis for objective morality and it bridges the so-called “is/ought” divide, it is worth exploring a little further. Bridge is not the best word choice as intrinsic meaning or telos means the is/ought divide doesn’t exist for classical theists.
David Hume is famous not only for the is/ought divide, but also for the problem of induction. Hume’s argument basically says that just because the sun may have risen the last ten-million days, there is nothing logically necessitating or even stating that it will do so tomorrow. We must assume a uniformity of nature that cannot be proven by logic or experience alone. Any attempt to justify induction becomes circular. For example, saying “it has always worked before” assumes it will continue to work, which is the very premise being questioned. Induction is then demoted to habit and the logical basis for assuming unobserved instances of something (e.g. gravity) resemble observed ones is lost.
This stems from Hume’s mechanistic view of nature. In an A-T framework, things have inherent natures (formal causes) that are directed toward specific ends (final causes). The end of an acorn is directed at becoming an oak tree and so too is a struck match directed toward the generation of fire. The basic idea is that A produces B because barring outside interference, it is in A’s nature to produce B. We don’t have to be skeptical that fire might not burn cotton tomorrow even though we only know it does so today. This is because in the A-T framework, things have real, objective ends.
That A generates or is followed by B in a consistent and regular fashion should tell us this is not a chance occurrence. Feser wrote:
“Unless we suppose that an efficient cause A inherently “points” beyond itself to its typical effect (or range of effects) B as toward an end or goal, we have no way of making sense of why it is that A reliably does in fact generate B rather than C, D, or no effect at all.”
Physical things do consistently produce specific effects which means they have inherent directedness. It is not simply a happy accident that pushing a ball does not turn it into a frog some of the time. As Aquinas wrote:
“We see that there are things that have no knowledge, like physical bodies, but which act for the sake of an end. This is clear in that they always, or for the most part, act in the same way, and achieve what is best. This shows that they reach their end not by chance but in virtue of some tendency. (Summa Theologiae, Part I, Question 2, Article 3).”
Unless we suppose that an efficient cause A inherently “points” beyond itself to its typical effect (or range of effects) B as toward an end or goal, we have no way of making sense of why it is that A reliably does in fact generate B rather than C, D, or no effect at all.
The tendency of some modern thinkers is to deny the distinct nature of substances as composites of form and matter and reduce everything to atomic bits. Reality is nothing more than an arrangement of atoms or quarks. Things like table, chairs, acorns, people and so forth, are not real objects in and of themselves. Only the elementary particles or quantum fields making them up are truly real. If such mereological nihilism was true then we wouldn’t exist as distinct substances either since we would be nothing more than an aggregate of cells, molecules and atoms. It seems quite absurd for the self to deny the self exists but such is what happens when reality is atomized.
The regularity we observe in nature provides compelling evidence for built in teleology. That final causality avoids mereological nihilism and solves two very longstanding problems that vex modern philosophers is surely a good reason to consider it carefully. These two problems only arose when philosophy/science started its move to only considering material and efficient causes. For these philosophers and scientists, this was an act of sawing off the branch they were sitting on.
A Key Point About Final Causality:
Extrinsic/Intrinsic: Final causality can be classified as intrinsic or extrinsic. That the purpose of a vehicle is safe and reliable transportation has nothing to do with the nature of the metal and plastic parts making it up. This purpose is imposed from the outside and it is extrinsic to them much in the same way it is for the parts of a watch that is used for telling time. The metal bits making up the watch are just that and timekeeping is not intrinsic to them. Note that a table when left alone will eventually rot and lose its function. The individual atoms and molecules making up an acorn in and of themselves do not have becoming a tree as their end. It is the acorn itself as a substance --a composite of form and matter—that has this telos (as we saw earlier, denying this leads to denying the self exists). It is intrinsic to an acorn to become a tree. No one has to impose this meaning on it. All we have to do is leave it alone. A table, watch or car would be considered an artifact whereas an acorn is a natural substance. In one sense you can say that in an artifact, form is at war with matter. The table will rot as the wood naturally wants to decompose. But for an acorn, a natural substance, matter and form are allies.
Herd/pack animals possess basic rules of conduct (morality?) for all members of the herd/pack. An individual who violates those rules will either be killed or exiled. Herd rules have developed over tens of thousands of years until they are instinctual. An elephant who kills a member of his own herd is often expelled from the herd. All evidence indicates that morality is biologically driven.