Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Materialist Ethics and the “Except Me” Tradition

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In this post I asked how a materialist could apply for a position as a professional ethicist. I asked: “Why should I pay someone $68,584 to say there is no real ultimate ethical difference between one moral response and another because they must both lead ultimately to the same place – nothingness.”

My point is illustrated by this quotation from professional materialist ethicist Peter Singer:

Whatever the future holds, it is likely to prove impossible to restore in full the sanctity-of-life view. The philosophical foundations of this view have been knocked asunder. We can no longer base our ethics on the idea that human beings are a special form of creation made in the image of God, singled out from all other animals, and alone possessing an immortal soul. Our better understanding of our own nature has bridged the gulf that was once thought to lie between ourselves and other species, so should we believe that the mere fact that a being is a member of the species Homo Sapiens endows its life with some unique, almost infinite value?

Peter Singer, “Sanctity of Life or Quality of Life?” Pediatrics 72, no. 1 (July 1983): 128-29.

The question at the end of the quotation is fascinating, because it highlights the branch-sawing nature of Singer’s project. People have no more intrinsic worth than pigs. Indeed, there is no such thing as “intrinsic worth,” because “worth” implies the “good” and the “good” does not exist. Everything is ultimately meaningless. But if that is true – and here’s where the branch sawing comes in – why should anyone care what a particularly clever hairless ape who goes by the name of “Peter Singer” says about anything? Are not his pronouncements as ultimately meaningless as everything else? Isn’t his solution to ethics as arbitrary as any other solution?

Here Singer is part of a larger post-modern tradition that I call the “except me” tradition. The post modern literature is full of long books by deconstructionists like Jacques Derrida who insist that long books have no intrinsic meaning (except books written by Derrida apparently). Similarly Singer insists that concepts like “good” and “evil” have no intrinsic meaning, except, apparently, when he says something is good.

The absurdity of all of this is palpable and it is hard to believe that Singer and Derrida don’t know this. Nevertheless, Derrida wrote long books and Singer makes ethical pronouncements. I suppose it is easy enough to understand why. Derrida sold a lot of books and Singer sits in a lucrative, secure and comfy endowed chair at Princeton. What is truly baffling to me is why anyone with a modicum of intelligence would listen to their self-referentially incoherent branch-sawing rantings. It is a mystery.

This brings me to a comment to my prior post by Mark Frank

I suspect Barry’s OP is based on a faulty idea of what an ethicist does. I am sure it is not his/her job to tell medical staff, patients and families what is the right thing to do. That would be incredibly patronising and lead to terrible problems if their own principles were very different from the person they were advising. It would be like Richard Dawkins coming along and telling the pregnant mother she ought to have an abortion because the child is disabled. I am sure their job is to help the people involved decide what is the right thing to do by pointing out precedents, consequences, different ways of looking at things etc.

Well Mark, I do have an idea about what ethicists do, and I hope it is not, as you say, faulty. I suppose that ethicists such as Singer say things about ethics and the basis for ethics (or the lack thereof) such as the Singer quotation above. Singer is a “preference utilitiarian” and in Practical Ethics he wrote concerning killing: “. . . the wrong done to the person killed is merely one factor to be taken into account, and the preference of the victim could sometimes be outweighed by the preferences of others.” (p. 95) Mark, I presume that if he were to advise someone regarding an “ethical” decision, he would bring the view that human beings are merely clever animals with no more intrinsic value than other animals and the view that granny’s desire to live may be outweighed by your desire to kill her to that conversation. Am I wrong?

By the way, I suspect Singer would apply the “except me” concept to considerations of whether his preference to live should be outweighed by someone else’s preference to kill him. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that he is an absolutist concerning the value of his own life.

Comments
StephenA: "I find myself actually agreeing with Acartia_bogart for once. " Please warn me before you do this. A man my age should not be shocked like this (unless I am being shocked by a paramedic).Acartia_bogart
September 10, 2014
September
09
Sep
10
10
2014
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
I find myself actually agreeing with Acartia_bogart for once. Cannibalism is unfortunately common in the animal kingdom in my experience. When I was young my family caught a young wild pig. We decided to keep it until it grew big enough to eat. Awhile later we caught most of a litter of much younger piglets. We went and put them in the same pen as the older piglet, only to discover that every few days one of the small piglets would go missing...StephenA
September 10, 2014
September
09
Sep
10
10
2014
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
Cabal #63: "I only wonder why we rarely see cannibalism in the animal kingdom. Meat is meat so why not eat your relatives? Even “wild humans” seem to respect human lives more than animal lives. Strange." Actually cannibalism is quite common in the animal kingdom. In some cases, it may better be described as scavenging. But in others it is a strategy that works well. For example, adult perch are too big to effectively prey on zooplankton. But their young is not. They broadcast thousands of baby perch to the environment, who can effectively feed on zooplankton. The adults then eat the baby fish. As long as enough survive, this strategy works well. But with humans, baby eating is frowned upon.Acartia_bogart
September 10, 2014
September
09
Sep
10
10
2014
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
MF:
Or is it a more pragmatic job to help people and organisations navigate their way through the many conflicting and ambiguous views of what is ethical that exist in the real world based on his/her deep knowledge of those views and their implications.
Assuming, of course, that the implications don't actually include being objectively right or wrong. If the blind leads the blind, how will they not both fall into the ditch?Phinehas
September 10, 2014
September
09
Sep
10
10
2014
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
Phinehas I rephrased it in 67 to avoid that problem. MarkMark Frank
September 10, 2014
September
09
Sep
10
10
2014
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
MF: But do you not see the problem in characterizing the objectivist's advice as "based on his own personal view of what is right or wrong?" That's like assuming what is at issue and then criticizing the objectivist based on the assumption.Phinehas
September 10, 2014
September
09
Sep
10
10
2014
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
#68 Phinehas Please see my #67 which maybe explains my point a bit better.Mark Frank
September 10, 2014
September
09
Sep
10
10
2014
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
MF:
But I don’t think they would expect his advise to be based on his own personal view of what is right or wrong.
Exactly right. They'd want it based on something a bit more objective than that. That's the point.Phinehas
September 10, 2014
September
09
Sep
10
10
2014
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
#65 Stephenb
A materialist ethicist, who doesn’t believe in the existence of virtue, should not accept payment for his advice because he isn’t really an ethicist at all. He is an anti-ethical materialist.
That brings us full circle as to what an ethicist job really is. Is to provide moral guidance and hold people and organisations accountable based on his/her deep knowledge of what is really ethical (assuming he/she really does know and hasn't made a mistake). Or is it a more pragmatic job to help people and organisations navigate their way through the many conflicting and ambiguous views of what is ethical that exist in the real world based on his/her deep knowledge of those views and their implications. And now I must do some work ....Mark Frank
September 10, 2014
September
09
Sep
10
10
2014
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT
Mark
I see no reason why a subjectivist would perform this task any worse than an objectivist.
Well, you know my position. A subjectivist would fare better in an unjust organization, and a realist would fare better in a just organization. As I argued, in the unjust organization, leaders will want to appear ethical while being unethical. So, they will not hire an ethicist, they will hire a corrupt expert in communication to help them fool the stakeholders. In a just organization, leaders will want to be ethical and promote ethical standards and will, therefore, be more likely to hire an ethicist, who will encourage everyone to practice virtue and avoid vice. So, I think Barry's point holds. A materialist ethicist, who doesn't believe in the existence of virtue, should not accept payment for his advice because he isn't really an ethicist at all. He is an anti-ethical materialist. That is a different from asking how well he will fit in. If an unjust organization mistakenly hires him, he will survive by saying "amen" to their immorality; if a just organization hires him, he will soon be fired.StephenB
September 10, 2014
September
09
Sep
10
10
2014
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT
#63 StephenB As you know I do not agree that there is only one ethic. But even if there was - the question was not what is the right thing for the ethicist to do but why would I the employer pay him? You yourself write:
Since secularists run most of the major institutions in the West, it is the second category that prevails.
Assuming that is true, such institutions will not want to pay a theist to tell them if they are morally right or wrong based on his knowledge of the natural moral law. They might well want to pay someone to tell them where they are transgressing cultural and institutional norms; are likely to have ethical issues with clients, employees or other stakeholders; and help resolve these issues where they arise as well as possible. I see no reason why a subjectivist would perform this task any worse than an objectivist.Mark Frank
September 10, 2014
September
09
Sep
10
10
2014
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT
Mark
Going back to Barry’s original question – why pay this guy? The organisation might well be paying him to advise them on what is ethical much as they would pay him to advise staff and patients. But I don’t think they would expect his advise to be based on his own personal view of what is right or wrong. They would expect reference to some broader legal context or agreement – plus possibly mixed with appeals to what they all accept as moral. The ethicist who told the board that abortion was wrong because he knew that to be true based on the natural moral law would not be doing what they were paying him to do and would very likely get the sack. The ethicist who told them abortion was in contravention of the principles of their Catholic founders or some such thing would be doing their job. As would the ethicist who pointed out consequences they had not considered.
This is a very interesting comment because it lends itself to a clarification of principles and away from unnecessary disputes. I hold that the ethicist is accountable to everyone in the organization and even beyond. The quality of the relationship between the organization and its employees is always reflected in the quality of the relationship between the organization and its clients. If I know that a company has not been fair with its workers, then I also know that it will not be fair with me. Thus, the first and most important job of the ethicist is to promote virtue within the organization, knowing that its effects will reverberate far beyond its borders. As we learn from tradition, there is no such thing as business ethics or legal ethics or medical ethics. There is only the ethic, the natural moral law that can bring everyone together in a spirit of unity precisely because it holds everyone accountable to the same standard. Accordingly, there is not one standard of morality for privileged managers and another for new employees, not one standard for organizations linked to the government and another for small businessmen, not one standard for rich people and another for poor people--but rather one ethic that everyone can know, honor, and follow. It stands on the obvious truth that virtue and vice are real and that the former is always better than the latter.StephenB
September 10, 2014
September
09
Sep
10
10
2014
12:41 AM
12
12
41
AM
PDT
Do we presume morals and ethics are unique to people of certain religions? I only wonder why we rarely see cannibalism in the animal kingdom. Meat is meat so why not eat your relatives? Even "wild humans" seem to respect human lives more than animal lives. Strange.Cabal
September 10, 2014
September
09
Sep
10
10
2014
12:09 AM
12
12
09
AM
PDT
Stephenb, WJM Thank you. Some reasoned arguments about what the role of an ethicist would involve. I was thinking it would never rise above "I am obviously right. Therefore you are stupid or dishonest." It is a good point that an organisation should be prepared to listen to the ethical views of its employees. This is true of all its employees, although I guess a clinical ethicist might have more to say and have more credibility than most. To that extent I was wrong and my definition needs modifying. Going back to Barry's original question - why pay this guy? The organisation might well be paying him to advise them on what is ethical much as they would pay him to advise staff and patients. But I don't think they would expect his advise to be based on his own personal view of what is right or wrong. They would expect reference to some broader legal context or agreement - plus possibly mixed with appeals to what they all accept as moral. The ethicist who told the board that abortion was wrong because he knew that to be true based on the natural moral law would not be doing what they were paying him to do and would very likely get the sack. The ethicist who told them abortion was in contravention of the principles of their Catholic founders or some such thing would be doing their job. As would the ethicist who pointed out consequences they had not considered.Mark Frank
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT
AB,
In my mind, a non-theist would be better suited to make an unbiased recommendation in this situation than a theist would.
It seems to me that a Christian or Catholic Theist would be just as likely as a non-theist to question the morality of an Islamist who demands special treatment in the name of religion. Indeed, I suspect that the theist, who is grounded in objective morality, would be more qualified than the non-theist to differentiate between unreasonable religious extremism, which violates the natural moral law, and reasonable religious conviction, which doesn't. The non-theist is reduced to relying on his personal preferences and feelings, which can provide no real direction.StephenB
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT
StephenB, an employee's job is not to hold the employer accountable, but I do agree that a good employer would seek input wherever they can get it. Yes, part of an ethicist's job is to make the employer aware of the various ethical issues. But, contrary to what Barry would have us believe, they are not black and white, objective. For example, what if a fundamental Islamic male came in as a patient and didn't want to be cared for by single female nurses? As much as you and I may be offended by this, what should the hospital's position be? Frankly, I don't know the answer to this, but at some level the patient's religion, however much we disagree with it, must be taken into account. This would be something that an ethicist woul be called on for a recommendation. In my mind, a non-theist would be better suited to make an unbiased recommendation in this situation than a theist would.Acartia_bogart
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT
Arcatia_Bogart
Do you seriously think that a hospital (or whatever) would expect an ethicist, employed by them, to completely undermine the ethos/morals/ethics/mission statement/vision, that the employer has already established?
If an institution has true moral leadership, it's mission statement and its supportive strategies will also have a moral texture. Under these circumstances, the decision makers will not want "yes" men around them. On the contrary, they will search for someone who will hold them accountable. Truly moral people want to be evaluated and scrutinized because they understand that moral improvement can take place only in an environment where moral mistakes are identified and corrected. Thus, any such institution would reward an ethicist who calls them to account. If, on the other hand, an institution lacks moral leadership, then its mission and its policies will reflect that same lack. In that case, the decision makers will not concern themselves with ethical subtleties. Seeking every advantage, they will hire a communications expert who will teach them how to appear ethical without actually being ethical. Immorality always hides from the searchlight of objective morality and will persecute anyone who tries to illuminate the environment. A true ethicist (one who promotes objective morality) would not be welcome in such a place. Since secularists run most of the major institutions in the West, it is the second category that prevails. Accordingly, moral subjectivists do not begin each day asking how they can serve their clients. For them, the issue is, "how can we fool 'em' today." Fortunately, most small businesses are not like this. However, the secularists in the major institution are trying to destroy small businesses and it appears that they are going to succeed. The problem is and always has been the world view of the ruling class. Materialists destroy everything they touch.StephenB
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT
Peter Singer will never quit his day job and put out a shingle that says "Clinical Ethicist, 5 cents" and here is why. He knows that either he won't get hired if he sticks to his logically extended moral vision, applying it to ethical decisions that few institution can stomach or weather public reaction, or he would have to abandon his moral vision and become a yes-man to the . . . man. As far as I know Professor Singer, and that is not too far, he is no yes-man. And, in the Canadian hospital example (A_B @49), the Christian looking for work as a clinical ethicist faces a parallel, but different, dilemma. He can't work out his moral vision without being fired (I'm brushing in broad strokes here), but being a yes-man is equally repugnant. All I draw from this is an indictment of Singer's philosophy and featured aspects of Canadian health"care" that share in the culture of death. It should come as no surprise that governmental bio-ethicists do not tolerate Christian ethics (or outspoken Christians) in their formulations (or as committee chairs). If all compromises continue to inch into darkness, what light can be tolerated? I take it back. Should he desire to explore the wonders of ice-fishing, perhaps jobs await Professor Singer just north of our border . . .Tim
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
Mark Frank:
(Subjectivists do have reasons for their beliefs – just not ultimate reasons)
You say that as if they OUGHT to have reasons for their beliefs.Mung
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
Mark put's on his ethicist hat:
I guess it is your legal training and not your Christian values that leads you to quickly jump to accusations of dishonesty.
Just keep working on those qualifications and you might land the job!Mung
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
StephenB: "That was before Mark introduced his whacked out definition of an ethicist." Fair enough. But I have not heard a reasonable alternate. Do you seriously think that a hospital (or whatever) would expect an ethicist, employed by them, to completely undermine the ethos/morals/ethics/mission statement/vision, that the employer has already established? Yes, they should certainly have input to its evolution (don't you just hate that word?) but if they aren't willing to follow it, they should look for another job.Acartia_bogart
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
AB to Barry:
Yet, you have stated that only a theist could accept this job in good faith.
That was before Mark introduced his whacked out definition of an ethicist.StephenB
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
AB:
StephenB, I agree, I don’t know why a grocery store would need an ethicist.
The point is that no one needs an ethicist if the job description is as Mark describes.StephenB
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT
StephenB, I agree, I don't know why a grocery store would need an ethicist. But this aside, many grocery stores do have a policy to destroy perishable food rather than give it to a food bank. Is this ethical? I would argue that it may be. Is it ethical to give food to people that you know is potentially hazardous?Acartia_bogart
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Mark F, So, essentially, you're saying that an ethicist is really nothing more than an enforcer of company policy, correct?William J Murray
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
Anyone (subjectivist or objectivist) would have to rule in favour of destroying the food if they were to satisfy the job description and justify their salary.
Just for fun, can you tell me why the ethicist so bound by his job description is needed? Can you tell, in keeping with the spirit of the post, tell me why he should be paid for saying, "Amen?" Meanwhile, I will now comment on your side story, which served well to distract from the main topic. Would a moral subjectivist find it easier to sell his soul for the money than a moral realist? Yes. No problem there.StephenB
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
Barry #27
I am saddened by Mark Frank’s refusal to acknowledge the obvious.
Barry #35
BTW, when you deny the obvious I will always call you on it.
Barry #41
When you make absurd statements (e.g., an ethicist does not make ethical judgments) you are either stupid or dishonest.
Mark
barry One of your favourite arguments is “I am obviously right therefore you are stupid or dishonest”. Once you get to that stage I can only assume you have no reasons to justify your position.
Mark, very astute observation. I have a question for Barry. Many hospitals in Canada perform vasectomies, tubal ligations, abortions, sex reassignment surgeries, stem cell research using material from aborted fetuses, etc. And in many cases these are covered by provincial health care. Is the job of the hospital employed ethicist to try to convince the patient that their choice to receive one of these procedures is morally and ethically wrong? I think that any hospital employed ethicist who tried to do this would be fired for cause and promptly escorted out the door. Yet, you have stated that only a theist could accept this job in good faith. How is this possible? If they accepted the position with the objective to get the hospital to refuse to offer these services (or convince the patients not to opt for any of these procedures), they would be accepting the position under false pretences, which, I have been told, is not ethical. Whereas if they accepted the position and performed it as directed by the job description, a theist (and especially a devout catholic) would be performing the job in bad faith.Acartia_bogart
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
#46 WJM Just read this one. Anyone (subjectivist or objectivist) would have to rule in favour of destroying the food if they were to satisfy the job description and justify their salary. I think we are missing each other's point here.Mark Frank
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
12:46 PM
12
12
46
PM
PDT
WJM I think there is a misunderstanding here. I thought you were asking why would a subjectivist as a person find the store's policy unethical. Many people find aspects of their job unethical. But this is different from the ethical stance in their job description. In the most extreme example an SS officers job description would be deeply unethical to most people but to satisfy that description the officer would have to act in accordance with the values of the nazi party. Of course most hospitals etc have values which are far more acceptable to most people. But they may, probably will, differ from the ethicist's principles to some extent, who then may either choose to do their job and give the employer good reason to pay them or follow their own principles. My argument in this thread has always been about how the ethicist should behave to satisfy their job description and thus make it worth the employer's while to pay them. I suggest a subjectivist might find this easier than an objectivist (on the whole).Mark Frank
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
BTW, MF, the grounds for my ruling would be that ethics are rooted in natural law morality, and that some things are unethical regardless of laws or policies or personal beliefs otherwise. Relieving needless suffering when one can is a universal, objectively true ethical obligation. Since you have no company policy or legal grounds for ruling in the manager's favor, and you claim to not represent your own subjective ethical views, your only option would be to rule in favor of destroying the food.William J Murray
September 9, 2014
September
09
Sep
9
09
2014
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply