Note: This series of Facebook comments began as a response to someone I’ve forgotten on a friend’s post that I’ve also forgotten. Through all my decade plus of spiritual doubt, I never lost confidence in—and still have never lost—the observation expressed in this post that without a transcendent reality beyond the material universe, there can be no rational basis for the concepts of Good an Evil. I only have my part of the exchange. Summary comments have been added for clarity. (DL, June 13, 2023).
What the quote [OP’s Name Redacted] posted addresses is a fundamental flaw with philosophical materialism. If there is no reality beyond the matter of this universe, then talking about good and evil is meaningless.
States of matter cannot be good or evil. They are simply configurations of atoms. A supernova doesn’t have moral quality, neither does an avalanche. Both are simply matter in motion.
But if there is no transcendent reality, no noumenal, no spiritual reality, and matter is all there is, then the very thoughts we’re thinking as we engage in this discussion are simply more configurations of atoms in motion. Morally, there is no difference between a supernova, an avalanche, or a brain. It’s all just matter in motion.
Evil cannot be a characteristic of matter, because matter does not have a moral component. From the point of view of the disinterested universe, whatever happens on this planet, whatever pillage or rapine or benevolence that transpires is simply so many waves on an ocean, or flares on the surface of a turbulent star—simply matter in motion.
To even talk about Good and Evil is to adopt the language and perspective of Transcendence—of a reality beyond nature that gives moral meaning to and passes judgement on the volitional actions within the natural realm.
A materialist commenter said that empathy for others is good.
Why is Empathy for Others better than Efficiency and Power?
The commenter argued that maximizing wellbeing and success for the human race can be the basis for a moral framework.
You’re using terms that you haven’t defined or provided a philosophical basis for:
What is “wellbeing”?
In this context, what makes one life state “better” than another?
What is the “success” of humanity?
In evolutionary terms, what is the intersection between quality of life and quantity of lives? How do you even define the quality of a life? How do you measure how many lives can rightly be sacrified to improve the quality of the others? Again, if there’s no supernatural, all we’re taking about is states of matter here. Can one solar flare be better than another in any real sense?
Sam Harris wrestles with some of these questions in his book The Moral Landscape, but despite his best effort, I remain unconvinced that in the absence of the superantural that any state of life can be conclusively called better than death.
If there is no supernatural, than Death is the ultimate peace. A dreamless, undisturbed, eternal sleep. In the absence of Hell, Death is the ultimate ender of pain—the perfect antidote to every sorrow.
Euthanizing animals is widely seen as a moral act in many cases. If there’s no spiritual difference between humans and animals, why should not the same be true in regards to humans?
www.samharris.org/the-moral-landscape
The commenter argued that life is better than death because it's logical and we want to live.
[Commenter’s Name Redacted], I’m having trouble finding a coherent position in what you’re saying.
For one thing, you’re borrowing the language of transcendence again. In the absence of a transcendent order, what is logic, and why is it valuable? Logic is a system for preferring some thoughts to others, privileging some brain states over others, approving some states of neural matter and disapproving others. If matter is all there is, it’s a meaningless endeavor. Unless Order as a Moral Concept is a Real Value, I’m unclear on the value of something being Logical. There is no Order or Chaos. There is only Matter, the Laws of Nature, and Time. Everything that is flows naturally and inevitably from those causes. The “chaos” and “disorder” of the moments after the Big Bang are not less beautiful than the luminous and symmetrical arms of a spiral galaxy.
But to your point:
I ask: Why is life better than death?
You respond: Because we want to live.
Are you not placing the weight of your moral philsophy on the survival instinct and on your emotional states (this feels better to me, making it “count”, and all that)? You’re privileging an instinct! Might as well build a moral philosphy on birds flying South for the winter because that’s what they want to do. “Behold the righteous endeavor of the noble goose as he faithfully endures the arduous journey season by season! Praise to him for his consistency!”
What?
So people want to live. Who cares? People want all kinds of things, often at the expense of others. In the absence of a transcendent order, how are we to sort this all out?
He continued to argue that the fact people don't want to die means that life is morally preferable to death.
What I’m saying is that the preference for life over death can be boiled down to a simple biological instinct—the survival instinct (random Google link on the topic below).
It seems to me that you’re suggesting that the fact people don’t want to die has some kind of moral significance. That their desire to live should Matter.
But it’s not clear to me on your own philosphical terms why it should. Animals also have a surivival instinct, but we euthanize them all the same. You haven’t defined a basis for a difference.
How can a biological instinct be Moral?
adventure.howstuffworks.com/survival/wilderness/wired-for-survival1.htm
He continued to make the point.
“People typically want to survive therefore they act in a way that will foster that.”
. . . which includes annihilating their enemies.
Which takes me back to my original question, why Empathy and not Power and Efficiency?
It seems to me like you feel that Empathy is more moral than Bussinesslike Brutality, but as far as I can see you aren’t providing any sort of independent, nature-based framework for why that should be so—or what it even means to say one thing is “more moral” than another thing.
The materialist commenter tried to argue from the common good.
This really is a deeply ingrained habit you have—borrowing the language of moral philosophy without paying for it.
What is the Common Good?
How do you define it?
On what basis can you call it Good?
He made one last attempt by offering a definition of the common good, and we agreed to disagree.
Yeah, we’re going in circles here, but I have enjoyed the back and forth. It’s probably not worth pursuing further, but I’m still not seeing a coherent position in what you’re saying.
You said: “I never said a biological instinct was moral.”
You also said: “‘Common good’ would be life over death, comfort over discomfort, happiness over sadness, food over hunger, health over sickness, etc.”
Whether you admit it or not, you’re measuring morality in terms of biological states without 1) explaining how death is not better than (or at least comparable to) all of these things, 2) explaining how “thinning the herd” to increase the biological outcomes for the survivors would be a bad thing.