If what we want is what is good for us, and we have to distinguish between what appears good and what is good, how do we make those judgments?
In short, we rely understanding and studying human nature. What does our biology and psychology tells us about what is a natural good for us? This is not an easy question to ask, for, as Midgley argues, facts and values go hand in hand. So what science tells us will be influenced by our values. We can see this in, for instance, the way science was used in the past to justify slavery.
In the 1800's, scientists studied the science of craniums and compared Caucasian skulls to African skulls. They concluded that Caucasian skulls were larger, implying that whites had larger brains and thus larger brain capacities and were smarter. But the original question is how did they determine which skulls were Caucasian or African in the first place? And why would size matter with relation to mental power? Of course, it matters to some extent. We know that a species has to have a certain brain size in proportion to the body. But that leaves open a large range.
However, if we forego science, we have nothing really to ground our actual wants in. We have to truly study human nature in its real socio-historical reality if we are going to provide an understanding of what is truly good for human beings.
Relying on religion here leads nowhere if the religion does not include a science of human beings. Religion can tell us what we value on one level, but it cannot do so without some understanding of what the human person is. To say that out end is God is not a simple value statement -- it is a factual statement or it means nothing.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The word that really jumped out at me in the commentary was the word "natural." Can we think of anything being really "natural" anymore? A thought of a baby sucking milk from the mothers breast would seem to be a natural occurrence. But with the amount of chemicals that human beings consume these days in the foods and drinks that have become a part of our daily life, what can be considered natural? The milk that the child drinks may be laced with whatever is in the mothers system.
All sorts of what one would consider natural foods; tomatoes, lettuce, bananas, etc... may be laced with chemicals or other additives to increase production. Even when you look at what is considered organic is not completely natural. Laws allow for leniency for spraying when infestation is widespread.
How does the amount of chemicals we ingest change us as humans? Is what we presume to be a good affected by an alteration in the chemical makeup of our mind? What effects do these chemicals have on our biological and psychological make-up? Does our culture change us in these unseen ways?
Dr. Nick,
When you say, "Relying on religion here leads nowhere if the religion does not include a science of human beings," what do you mean by the word "science"?
Patrick Hurley
Let's be objective Patrick.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
I'll post on this one and the next one this weekend..
I appreciate Matt's link, and think it works well.
In the Aristotelian-Thomistic paradigm, science is knowledge of causes (all causes -- efficient, material, first, and formal). For Aristotle, ethics was the highest science -- but it did not require the same degree of exactness as, say, the natural sciences (which Aristotle invented).
Dr. Nick,
In the part of paragraph 2, "So what science tells us will be influenced by our values". Do you think the same was true for certain religions in the Olden Days? Like the 1960's. Thanks
James, I don't understand your question, first off, and I don't like to think of the 60's as the olden days.
You say that "we have to truly study human nature in its real socio-historical reality if we are going to provide an understanding of what is truly good for human beings." However, what is "real" socio-historical reality? Since the fall of man (which is all of known history) human nature has been tweeked. We have constantly disregared nature and have sought to please our senses. Civilizations rise and fall. History is filled with their tales of unimaginable cruelty, sexual perversity, cannibalism and pagan rituals. Is this natural? I don't think so. Science is good, but it will only lead so far. What we need is divine assistance in order to help us discern what is good and natural.
JP
I don't know that there's such a lack of value in relying on religion in such matters. Religion sheds enlightenment on a lot of issues that science does not (such as the soul). And religion cannot (and should not) try to provide a science as you suggest, although they are two complementary disciplines. But trusting in religion is a definite good, especially for the uneducated. The mean between reasoned faith in a thing and doubt of a thing is uninformed right belief. Also, to suggest that study is necessary to discern what is good for human beings seems academically elitist, in my opinion. Why should only the educated be able to judge ethical questions? Or perhaps I am misunderstanding the topic at hand.
Post a Comment