Den Beste has put up a letter I sent to him in response to a previous post of his about the idealist and, ultimately, morally muddled positions of some contributors to the New Democracy Forum.
I won't reproduce my note here--go there to read it--but in response, he brings up the source of the vague unease I felt after writing:
"Their morality, like that of a theistic believer, is deontological; that is, they believe that the rightness of an action is determined by something other than its consequences. In this case, it's not God but their Ideal, their "cause." This is opposed to the consequentialist morality that you and I seem to agree upon: the rightness of an action is determined solely by its consequences."
The problem, as Den Beste rightly points out, is that word, "solely." He thinks that pure consequentialism leads to some terrible problems, which it does...the Spock's Death Scene "Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one" moral code being the least of them. It also lends support to things like infanticide and the general devaluation of individuals. So clearly, being too practical when considering moral issues is a problem.
My question, then, is simply this: if consequences cannot solely determine the moral value of an act, then of what is the balance of that value composed? Budziszewski argues for the impossibility of creating an ethos without God, and surely that's one answer. His ideas rest upon the notion of our obligations to God as our creator. I do not find his arguments persuasive, because many of his characterizations of anti-theistic positions are straw men, and he seems to appeal to a sort of common sense most readily available to theists, which to my mind doesn't truly answer the difficult questions.
Maybe it's because I'm tired and semi-full of cheap wine and Open House delicacies like warm cheese and small meatballs, but I'm supremely baffled at the moment. If one rejects pure consequentialism and utilitarianism, of what is the balance of moral value composed? Is it some abstract Ideal, in which case it bears more than a passing resemblance to an obligation to God?
From whence conscience?
Sometimes, when I really, really think about these matters, the hairs on the back of my neck stand up and I feel like God is about to burst forth and punch me in the head.
Hasn't happened yet.
You write: "Budziszewski argues for the impossibility of creating an ethos without God, and surely that's one answer. His ideas rest upon the notion of our obligations to God as our creator. I do not find his arguments persuasive, because many of his characterizations of anti-theistic positions are straw men, and he seems to appeal to a sort of common sense most readily available to theists, which to my mind doesn't truly answer the difficult questions."
I'm curious to know what characterizations you think are straw men, and what you think are the difficult questions that can't be answered by his brand of common sense.
Posted by: Craig | December 20, 2002 10:36 AM