Week 12: A Critique of The Five Principles

I think the authors 5 basic principles are a valuable guide, but I do not think they solve the problem of synthesizing all ethical systems together.  The problem remains and goes back to what I have stated earlier in this class about world-views, for example:

The principle of Life:

1. There is no empirical evidence that suggest life has value ?

• The author states: “This principle of life is empirically prior to any other because without human life there can be no goodness or badness, justice or injustice, honesty or lack of it.  The problem with the authors argument is that he claims the principle of life is valid because without life there would be no values, but the author is assuming that values have meaning because of life (without proof) and then life has value because of values (without proof); well which is it?  One does not prove the other it only assumes the other. The argument is invalid.  The question remains: what gives human life its value?  There is no synthesizing a worldview that sees life as a cosmic accident and a worldview that thinks an intelligent and purposeful creator made life because they are contradictory propositions and lead to completely opposing views of reality.

The Principle of Goodness over Badness

• The author states that,”Ethicist may differ over what they actually consider to be good and bad or right and wrong, but they all demand that human beings strive for the good and the right”.  The author is correct except for possibly the relativist ethical system, but since this principle is already found in most ethical systems what makes this principle valuable since it cannot tell us what is good or bad?  It has not resolved the conflict.

The Principle of Justice and Fairness

• Since most ethical systems have a concern for justice, again why do we need this as a principle, and if all ethical systems hold to some form of these five principles, what is the point of synthesizing what everyone already agrees on?  I would say that the problem isn’t a synthesizing of terms but the meaning we have behind the terms. Two groups may use the same word but have entirely different conceptions of  its meaning and/or application.  It is in the defining and practice where the ethical differences are exasperated.

The Principle of Truth Telling and Honesty

• I would have to agree with the author because even if we believe in relativism, ethical egoism, or we are completely selfish, we must communicate, and for communication to have any reasonable advantage there must be truthfulness.

The principle of Freedom

1. What if am into psychological, sociological, biological, or theological determinism?  How can a determinist synthesize with an ethical system that supports freedom when they believe there is no such truth to the concept of freedom?  

Thiroux said “First, it is important to clearly delineate several basic assumptions concerning what constitutes a workable set of standards for morality.”  Assumption are not scientific facts by definition, so if the author rejects an ethical system based on a belief in God because he believes there is no evidence to support the belief, why is it acceptable for everyone to “accept” assumptions that cannot be scientifically or in any other way proved true?

How do you synthesize religious moral conviction with Thiroux's secular humanistic view.  By definition, God is an ultimate power and authority, so if a religious person believes that God has told them something is not morally permissible, how can she negotiate with Thiroux's secular humanistic view?  If I concede to Thiroux's secular humanistic view then God is no longer the person's ultimate moral authority and God ceases to be God, unless God has given a person the freedom to "work out their ethical salvation" within the society he has placed them in.