clearly defined lines of doubt and uncertainty

the good, the bad, and the other

We all want to be “good”. We want to believe that what we think and do makes us “good people." We all have a set of ideals and values that we adhere to that make us the "good guys."

The question I’m asking here is what makes an ideal/value (or the actions resulting from that ideal/value) “right” or “good”?

The question makes me think about the movie, “Hero”. In “Hero” the Emperor was conquering surrounding nations with the purpose of unifying them. There were assassins that wanted to kill him because he was an imperialist trying to conquer their lands.

Which was “right”? Who was the “good guy?” The emperor was appealing to the ideal of peace. The assassins were appealing to the ideal of liberty. Which is the greater ideal? Why is either an ideal at all?

The ideals we hold seem to be nearly universally rooted in the intrinsic value of the human being. Giving to charity is good because it helps our fellow humans. Murder is bad because a human life was taken. Wearing seatbelts is good because it protects humans. Disease is bad because it hurts humans.

Even the values of the environmentalist seem to be rooted in the value of the human. We don’t want to destroy the earth as quickly because we want more humans to be able to experience it and to experience it well.

But why is the human valuable? Is the value of the human so in-born that it doesn’t need to appeal to a higher authority to obtain its value? Many would say “yes”, but I would disagree.

I would say that the value of the human has to come from a higher authority, from a Creator that assigns his creation of man a unique value. As a Christian I am afforded this belief.

Those who don’t believe in a Creator or who believe the Creator is unconcerned with his creation are not. I believe this leaves them with no solid basis for seeing the human individual as valuable which leaves them no rational basis for a sense of what is “right” or “good”.

Ok, so what’s my problem with seeing humans as intriscially valuable? Intrinsic human value seems, at first glance, entirely plausible, even obvious, but I believe that under some scrutiny the idea (as is commonly held) breaks down.

What makes a human intrinsically valuable? Is it because that’s what we are and we’re conditioned to value our own kind for the purpose of survival of the species? This means that the value we assign to humans is, fundamentally, no different then the value frogs assign to other frogs and cows assign to other cattle? Some would say that we are “higher” than the other animals, but this isn’t very helpful because it leads us in a circle (humans are valuable because we are humans which distinguishes us from the animals because we are more valuable).

Some might concede that “No, there is no intrinsic human value, but that our ideals are based on something higher, that is society. That is what defines ‘good’. ‘Good’ is what is beneficial to society.” I would ask here “What makes society ‘good’?” Is society nothing more than a group of individuals and the resulting relationships? Why is a group of humans valuable if the individual human isn’t valuable? Are the relationships valuable? Why? Are the products of society valuable? Why?

So where does this leave our ideas of “right” and “good”? What do these ideas stand on? Why is Kerry wrong and Bush right (or vice versa)? Why does it matter that Americans are killing people (and getting killed) in Iraq? What motivates you to say that you are right and someone else is wrong?” Is it nothing more than a conditioned sense of “survival is good”, or is it something else? If anyone's interested I'd love to discuss this.

Posted by amduffy at October 19, 2004 04:24 PM | TrackBack