The "ick" factor: you know what it is. It's when you encounter something that makes you say, "that's disgusting." It's a visceral reaction, not one made after long and reasoned research and debate. Even if you don't want to react with disgust at something (and you might even not let others know how you feel--you've successfully hidden your gag reflex), you still feel...unclean. Violated. Offended.
Maybe it's certain food presented to you, like avocados or tomatoes (full: disclosure--I love both). Or maybe it's even just thinking about eating something that personally disgusts you, like cockroaches or sheep's brains. Even though you've never tried it, you are revolted at the thought.
In discussion of ethics and morality, there is sometimes mention of "the Ick factor" (or the "yuck factor.") I see it frequently referred to in discussions about sexual ethics, and it usually is dismissed as a poor way to build an ethical system, that one's personal prejudices shouldn't be used as a basis for a "rational" ethical system. One's personal disgust is considered a terribly basis for morality, and you must be a Very Bad Person to let your visceral reaction dictate right or wrong. I mean, it wouldn't be fair to ban tofu just because you find it icky, do you?
Friends had a whole episode about the ick factor. Yes, it was icky according to my prejudice. And it made fun of something illegal in most states, that most people find very icky. Ha-ha, look at the pedophiliac--all in good fun, of course.
Why, exactly? Maybe because it's considered unfair, not nice, and...well, icky.
Huh. The fact is, all morality has an element of "ick" factor built in. You may have built an impressive ethical system, but at the very foundation of it are a set of presuppositions that seek to promote the non-icky and seek to limit the icky.
Oh, you might have first principles that many find admirable...stuff like "It's good to be fair" or "It's not nice to be violent." But in the end, why do you find it good to be fair? Why do you not like violence?
You might try pushing it back a step, saying that in order to build a society that is workable, that will not self-destruct in a morass of chaos and terror, you should adopt certain principles like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "everybody wants to be closer to free." Very utilitarian, of course.
But again, why should having a "workable society" be a goal? I mean sure, most of us feel like we want a workable society. But from a materialist perspective, there's nothing inherent in the universe that says "Intelligent Creatures Must Have Workable Societies and Continue to Thrive." No, the universe doesn't think much of your idea that having intelligent creatures around is some teleological goal...again, from a materialist perspective.
Now, it may be true that unconsciously, most people think that it's a good thing to promote human flourishing. Most normal people like the idea that people have healthy, happy lives. Those that don't? Well, they're icky.
But (again, from a materialist perspective) that doesn't make "survival of the species" some kind of noble goal that we should pat ourselves on the back for supporting. It's fairly tautological: if most people didn't feel that way, the human race wouldn't survive long. Two cheers for supporting the obvious.
But the idea of human flourishing tends to change over time, and we tend to find the ideas of human flourishing in the past to be, well, icky: we decry racism, sexism, patriarchy, etc. We've "moved on."
Yet those ancient societies were relatively stable, at least over centuries, if not millennia. The human race managed to survive (if that's your goal). Sure, maybe millions perished in war and genocide, millions were enslaved, but hey, the race survived, so what is your problem with it? Why do you find it "unfair" or "unjust"? Why do yo find it, well, "icky"? All those people would be dead now anyway, so what difference does it make now?
Liberal democracy (with reasonably free markets and a nice social safety net), as much as we might love it, is simply not the only way for humans to survive long-term. And even if it were, so what? There are a few species that would mourn the loss of humankind...others, not so much.
It's certainly fair to argue that one is inconsistent with one's stated first principles. But often ethical judgements come down to this: your view is icky, mine is not--therefore, I am right. Sometimes this is buttressed with the argument that "most people" agree with your ethical perspective. Again, so what? Though that might be a practical argument (that is, if you disagree with the majority's morality, you might find yourself in social--if not legal--hot water), it's hardly a self-evident "good" that "most people" support a certain value. Societies can and do change, and even if you're comfortable with where a society is, and even the direction it appears to be going, that could turn on a dime. Then...will you gladly trade your ethical system for the majorities? (If everyone felt that way, why would ethical norms ever change?)
But again, I've been talking from a materialist point of view. If there is an Inescapable God, the Creator of all that was, is, and ever will be, His views on these things should matter to us. People can have changeable ethical values; societies can change, in ways that we feel are either progressive or regressive; but the Eternal One can offer a stability to ethics that a materialist point of view cannot.
Sure, a materialist can--and often is--a very moral person, judged by whatever standard you want to use. And a theist can--and often is--a very immoral person, even judged by his or her own standards. But the materialist offers no moral facts, nothing outside of personal (or social) prejudice, based on arbitrary first principles.
Don't get me wrong--I am not saying that we should all obey God simply because He'll punish us if we don't. Whether or not that's true it's not the point. The point is, a God who designed the cosmos has a depth of understanding and intimate familiarity with His creation that we can never approach. Just like the engineer who designed a complex mechanism would understand its purpose and proper functioning far better than the untrained layman, the Former of the worlds understands far better than anyone else what can truly bring human flourishing.
You might find that restrictive and controlling. That's your prerogative. I suppose it's also the prerogative of an eagle to think it's a chicken and refuse to fly. And in the end, maybe the eagle will sing "My Way" and be proud that it never allowed itself to be forced into soaring over the mountains. Yay for "free will."
We might have sharp disagreements about what God deems "good" and "evil"; but in the end, seeking this God offers a far firmer foundation for an ethical system than any arbitrary principle. And of course, I haven't addressed the possibility of an "evil God" scenario. God willing, I'll leave that for another post.
Now, it may be true that unconsciously, most people think that it's a good thing to promote human flourishing. Most normal people like the idea that people have healthy, happy lives. Those that don't? Well, they're icky.
But (again, from a materialist perspective) that doesn't make "survival of the species" some kind of noble goal that we should pat ourselves on the back for supporting. It's fairly tautological: if most people didn't feel that way, the human race wouldn't survive long. Two cheers for supporting the obvious.
But the idea of human flourishing tends to change over time, and we tend to find the ideas of human flourishing in the past to be, well, icky: we decry racism, sexism, patriarchy, etc. We've "moved on."
Yet those ancient societies were relatively stable, at least over centuries, if not millennia. The human race managed to survive (if that's your goal). Sure, maybe millions perished in war and genocide, millions were enslaved, but hey, the race survived, so what is your problem with it? Why do you find it "unfair" or "unjust"? Why do yo find it, well, "icky"? All those people would be dead now anyway, so what difference does it make now?
Liberal democracy (with reasonably free markets and a nice social safety net), as much as we might love it, is simply not the only way for humans to survive long-term. And even if it were, so what? There are a few species that would mourn the loss of humankind...others, not so much.
This little guy (Pediculus humanus capitis--aka, the head louse) might miss us, as he has no other host species. I'm not sure if cows and pigs would shed too many tears, though.
One might build a nice ethical system--a logically consistent, beautifully constructed system--on a few first principles. But those principles are, in the end, completely arbitrary (in a materialist worldview).It's certainly fair to argue that one is inconsistent with one's stated first principles. But often ethical judgements come down to this: your view is icky, mine is not--therefore, I am right. Sometimes this is buttressed with the argument that "most people" agree with your ethical perspective. Again, so what? Though that might be a practical argument (that is, if you disagree with the majority's morality, you might find yourself in social--if not legal--hot water), it's hardly a self-evident "good" that "most people" support a certain value. Societies can and do change, and even if you're comfortable with where a society is, and even the direction it appears to be going, that could turn on a dime. Then...will you gladly trade your ethical system for the majorities? (If everyone felt that way, why would ethical norms ever change?)
But again, I've been talking from a materialist point of view. If there is an Inescapable God, the Creator of all that was, is, and ever will be, His views on these things should matter to us. People can have changeable ethical values; societies can change, in ways that we feel are either progressive or regressive; but the Eternal One can offer a stability to ethics that a materialist point of view cannot.
Sure, a materialist can--and often is--a very moral person, judged by whatever standard you want to use. And a theist can--and often is--a very immoral person, even judged by his or her own standards. But the materialist offers no moral facts, nothing outside of personal (or social) prejudice, based on arbitrary first principles.
Don't get me wrong--I am not saying that we should all obey God simply because He'll punish us if we don't. Whether or not that's true it's not the point. The point is, a God who designed the cosmos has a depth of understanding and intimate familiarity with His creation that we can never approach. Just like the engineer who designed a complex mechanism would understand its purpose and proper functioning far better than the untrained layman, the Former of the worlds understands far better than anyone else what can truly bring human flourishing.
You might find that restrictive and controlling. That's your prerogative. I suppose it's also the prerogative of an eagle to think it's a chicken and refuse to fly. And in the end, maybe the eagle will sing "My Way" and be proud that it never allowed itself to be forced into soaring over the mountains. Yay for "free will."
We might have sharp disagreements about what God deems "good" and "evil"; but in the end, seeking this God offers a far firmer foundation for an ethical system than any arbitrary principle. And of course, I haven't addressed the possibility of an "evil God" scenario. God willing, I'll leave that for another post.
No comments:
Post a Comment