The unexamined life is not worth living for a man — Socrates.
For those interested in the fading of Western Civilization and the role higher education has played in this situation, here is a helpful study published by the National Association of Scholars. Although a few years old, it is still relevant.
Philosophy cannot be measured by the yardstick of science. – Martin Heidegger
[Note: I took the month of July off to spend time with my family. It has become a wonderful tradition for our home and I found that if I center life around the principles of faith, family, and vocation (in that order) everything else has a way of working out. Now that it is August, I am back in the metaphysical game and getting ready for a lot of new writing projects. Soon, I’ll be posting some articles regarding the thought of the early Enlightenment thinker Benedict Spinoza. And I’ll keep posting my thoughts on realism. For now, enjoy this video interview with Ken Samples. I’ll keep this post short so we can get to the video.]
Philosophy and science are often thought of as competing fields. I have even heard fellow philosophers explain that philosophy was once good at asking questions about reality, but now that science has found the essential answers, there is no longer any need for philosophy or metaphysics (the branch of philosophy that examines reality). To me, this seems like an odd position for a philosopher to take but, apparently, some philosophers have conceded that science has solved all the important questions about our world.
I disagree. Science itself rests on a foundation of metaphysical and philosophical assumptions or postulates—first principles that must be taken for granted in order for science to be successful. Here are just a few of the basic first principles that anyone working in the sciences must accept in order to work competently in their field.
1. The fundamental laws of logic. The law of identity, noncontradiction, and excluded middle. These are self-evident laws of being (reality) and can not be denied (to deny them would assume their truth.)
2. The principle of causality. Whatever comes to be has a cause. Everything that comes into being is caused or comes into being by virtue of something outside itself.
3. The principle of universality. The laws of nature are true everywhere in the universe and have been in force for all time.
4. The principle of predictive uniformity. A group of events will show the same degree of interconnection or relationship in the future as they showed in the past or show in the present.
5. The principle of analogy. Like produces like. An effect resembles its efficient cause. Being shares being.
6. The principle of objective reality. Also known as realism. Realism holds that physical objects exist independently of perception, the mind, or one’s theory of reality. This view includes three basic theses: 1. The world is made up of substantial beings really related to one another, which exist independently of any human opinions or desires. 2. These substances and relations can be known by the human mind as they are in themselves. 3. Such knowledge can offer sound and immutable guidance (the law of nature) for individual and social action.
These, and others, are the basic first principles that science must assume in order to get started. Many are not empirically discovered but are, in fact, the metaphysical underpinnings to all reality.
Enjoy this discussion regarding the intersection of philosophy and science with Ken Samples.
Brian Besong. An Introduction to Ethics: A Natural Law Approach, Cascade Books, 2018. (Paperback ISBN:9781498298896); $30.00
The light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the divine light. – St. Thomas Aquinas
Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. – Aristotle
Although it has largely been forgotten, natural law theory has played a primary role in the Western intellectual tradition for at least two thousand years. In his book, An Introduction to Ethics: A Natural Law Approach, (AIE), ethicist Brian Besong presents and defends a very accessible and easy to understand formulation of natural law. AIE itself is written as an introductory text for a college-level ethics course, but it is also a very nice resource for the general reader just wanting a basic understanding of ethics and the main ideas of the natural law tradition. Ethics, of course, is the branch of philosophy that seeks to explain how things like good and evil are applied to personal actions, decisions, and relationships, including one’s interaction in their community and society at large. Our moral values are what help us to determine right and wrong human behavior. Natural law is simply the ethical theory that helps us understand how general and universal rules of conduct, both at the individual and social levels, are derived from natural reason, and the world itself, which is conceived as rationally ordered.
Before we get to the review, I want to make a few comments about the natural law tradition and then posit three key concepts of natural law, which are important as they relate to AIE. As noted, natural law is an important idea in Western thought. It is important because it directly relates to human flourishing. In intellectual history, it can be seen in Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics (Epictetus, Seneca, Aurelius, and others), it was incorporated into Christian philosophical reflection, and is starting to see a re-discovery today. It is not necessary to be a Christian, or theist, in order to hold to natural law theory. Three key concepts of the classical natural law tradition are:
1. Human beings have an essential nature established by God, who designed humans to live and flourish in prescribed ways (philosophers from Aristotle to the Stoics have largely developed this concept).
2. Even without knowledge of God, reason as the essence of our nature, can discover the laws that are necessary for human flourishing (Aristotle and Aquinas primarily develop this line of thought).
3. The natural laws are universal and unchangeable, and they should be used to judge individual societies and their positive laws. Positive (or actual) laws of societies that are not in line with the natural law are not truly laws but counterfeits (mostly from the Stoics).
As we will soon discover, AIE does an excellent job explicating these key ideas. Besong’s book has two goals, (first) it seeks to lay out the central concepts of ethics, and why it is important to think about right and wrong human conduct, and (second), apply natural law thinking to the important questions and issues that arise from ethical concerns. As an introduction to ethics, Besong provides excellent illustrations which, I think, naturally resonate with many students today. The book succeeds in meeting these goals, which is not an easy accomplishment.
AIE has these six basic chapters—Foundational Issues, The Pursuit of Happiness, Good and Evil, Moral Responsibility, Rights and Duties, and Virtues and Vices. The book itself comes to 232 pages including two appendices (one on how to read philosophy, the other answering objections to natural law theory), a bibliography, and an index. Unfortunately, however, the book is poorly indexed as key terms are missing (this is probably due to the publisher, not the author, as a good index is expensive to produce). Each chapter has comprehension questions that the reader or student can use to better understand the content of the material. In addition, clear definitions of key terms are always given.
One of the first things that Besong discusses in his chapter, Foundational Issues, is that is it impossible to be a moral relativist. The reason for this is straightforward, if one were to hold moral relativism as objectively true, he or she would then be making an objectively true statement, and hold to an objective position, not a relative or subjective one. Further, our most basic intuitions of right and wrong are rarely incorrect. Who would really argue that torturing babies for fun is morally acceptable, or kindness to others is morally wrong? On occasion, our basic moral intuitions could be wrong (though maybe more rare at the most fundamental levels), they are generally corrected with careful reflection and thoughtfulness. After all, we have the ability to think rationally and carefully about which moral intuitions are correct and how they relate to one another. Human beings do have the capacity for rationality. Besong does a great job pointing out that moral laws have objective validity. The human faculty of reason is an important one.
Throughout the book, the importance of human rationality is highlighted. It is the unique capacity for rationality that makes humans distinct from other animals. Squirrels, kangaroos, and cephalopods do not rationally reflect on their actions or create institutions that benefit their species. Peregrine falcons do not build hospitals, law courts, libraries, or seek an education that promotes their well-being. As Besong points out, when humans reason well, they are using their characteristically highest function (51).
The chapter on happiness is significant and demonstrates the primary motivation in human action and the foundation for natural law. In addition to the natural use of reason in ethical reflection, it is also the drive for human happiness which is the chief concern for the natural law tradition and the key factor in human flourishing. Both Aristotle and Aquinas believe that everyone acts for some good which provides happiness. It is irrational to act towards one’s misery and dissatisfaction. Natural law explains that happiness is that which ultimately supplies human flourishing. When someone makes rational choices for a good end, happiness is the result, just as a well-governed, rational, and just state provides happiness and flourishing for its citizens. The human drive for happiness is easily discovered. When you ask someone why they do what they do, you will find that happiness is the chief end of human activity. Perhaps you have questioned someone, “why do you work so hard?” They might say, so I can meet the needs of my family and buy things.” But when you drill down and ask, “why do you want to meet your family’s needs or buy things?”, you will discover that happiness is the ultimate pursuit. Whatever we do, it is with the end of some form of happiness in mind.
Natural law is an important ethical theory. Brian Besong has done a service by bringing an introductory text to the student and general reader. As noted, one does not have to hold to Christian theism in order to believe in natural law–Aristotle and the Stoics were not Christians while Aquinas was. The important contribution of Western natural law thinking is a compelling and significant view of reality itself. It is the view that social and political values are built into human nature and reality itself. This is the important metaphysical foundation of ethics. Ethical values are properties of being and can be rationally discovered, expressed, and applied.
If you are interested in the intersection of the Christian faith and the facts of science, you might find this resource helpful. I’ve found this site helpful as I have investigated various interpretations of cosmology and issues surrounding the origins and development of the universe and its being and becoming as an orderly system. Christians fall in many different schools regarding the origin of the universe such as the literal 24-hour position, the so-called “Old Earth” school, and what is known as the “Framework Hypothesis”. There are other positions but those three are the most significant. Reasons to Believe belongs to the Old Earth tradition of creation and believes that an old earth interpretation of the Biblical data makes the most sense out of reality as we know it.
It is possible to be a solid Christian and belong to any one of these groups (24 hour, Old Earth, Framework). The reason is, for those of us who belong to a Reformation tradition (such as Anglican, Lutheran, or Reformed), the matter is not a confessional issue. Neither is it mentioned in any of the ecumenical creeds. Christians have the freedom to apply the ministerial use of reason in their investigation of the critical issues central to the creation of the cosmos and Biblical revelation.
I personally don’t agree if everything that Reasons to Believe promotes but we never should accept everything anyone puts forward uncritically. We should always think rationally and carefully about the things we are learning and discovering. That said, if you are curious about the Old Earth interpretive scheme or just want to learn more about the origins of the universe, I think you’ll find Reasons to Believe a helpful point of departure. I think it would be of particular interest to those interested in natural theology.
Recent Comments