Spires and Spirituality: The Reasonableness of Religious Faith: George I. Mavrodes "Queerness of Morality"

“Why Should I Be Moral?”

George I. Mavrodes, examines various worldviews in an attempt to answer this basic question.

The first view he analyzed was held by the Philosopher, Historian, Bertrand Russell.

Bertrand Russell’s worldview is what Mavrodes calls the “Russellian World,” within A Free Man’s Worship. The most relevant features of this worldview being (1) such phenomena as minds, mental activities, consciousness, and so forth are the products of entities and causes that give no indication of being mental themselves. To Russell, the causes are “accidental collocation of atoms” with “no prevision of the end they were achieving.” (Robinson pg.77-8) (2) Human life is bounded by physical death and each individual comes to a permanent end at his physical death. (3) Not only each individual but also the human race as a species is doomed to extinction “beneath the debris of a universe in ruins.” (Robinson pg.77-8)

Living in a “Russellian World” would grant “Russellian benefits”, such as living to an old age, sexual pleasure, or a good reputation.

So could the world be “Russelian?”

In the actual world we experience we do not only have moral feelings, but as Kant claimed we have moral duties. Actions fall into the sphere of morality with obligations to act (or refrain from acting) in certain ways. “N ought to do (or avoid doing)_____” or “It is N’s duty to do (or avoid doing)____.” (Robinson pg.78)

For Immanuel Kant, in a “Kantian world” we have moral demands that are only reasonable if reality itself is committed to morality; only if there is a moral demand on the world and only if reality will satisfy this demand. So by fulfilling our moral duties we are granted “Kantian benefits” such as going to heaven. For Kant, a truly moral action is undertaken purely out of respect for the moral law and with no concern at all for reward in this life.

(The Bhagavad-Gita also provides an alternative religious account of moral duty within Hinduism).

In a “Russelian World” moral feelings are not weird, but moral obligations are weird because in the actual world we do have moral obligations that sometimes provide no personal benefit. Thus there is a possibility, that there is a certain amount of personal danger, or a “Russelian loss,” of fulfilling moral obligations in a secular world, such as adverse judgment. You can potentially suffer from fulfilling moral obligations in a “Russellian World,” although, it does not necessarily follow that just because you fulfill an obligation you will not benefit from it personally.

Mavrodes examines an argument from Kurt Baier; it is in everyone’s best interest to be moral which can be applied to Russelian terms. The argument is as follows; (Robinson pg.84-5)

(A) It is in everyone’s best interest (including me) for everyone (even me) to be moral.

(Supported by Thomas Hobbes Leviathan; without morality or a basic social structure, man lives in a “state of nature,” which is chaotic, brutish, and short).

(B) It is in my best interest for everyone (including me) to be moral.

Which then comes back to the question as to “why should I be moral?”

If (C) is true, then moral obligations are not strange. But Mavrodes states this argument is invalid.

The derivation of (B) from (A) may be all right, but the derivation of (C) from (B) is invalid and should be followed by

(C’) It is in my best interest for me to be moral if everyone else is moral.

This argument runs that in terms of personal interest to be moral on assumption that everyone else in the world is moral; if I act morally, then everyone else will.

Now,

(A) “everyone’s best interests” either collectively or distributive can be taken as the best interests of the whole group considered as a single unit, or the best interests of each individual within the group.

If (A) is collective then (B) does not follow. It may not be in my best interest for me to act morally but perhaps the best interest of the group is to sacrifice my interest. On this interpretation, the argument does not answer the question, “Why should I be moral?”

Hobbes may have been right that life in the state of nature is short, but the fact is some lives are short because of what morality demands. So, it can be observed if I act immorally then so will other people but it can also be observed that other people will act immorally regardless of what I do.

In a “Russelian World” morality would be an “emergent” feature, such as the wetness of water is an emergent feature, it is not a property of either hydrogen or oxygen which is the actual composition of water.

We have duties and we can choose to fulfil them and be moral and refuse them to be immoral-which is absurd by a secular viewpoint. It is also absurd to propose that by acting morally, everyone will act morally.

Richard Brant asked, “Is it reasonable for me to do my duty if it conflicts seriously with my personal welfare?” = “Given that doing x is my duty and that doing some conflicting act y will maximize my personal welfare, will the performance of x instead of y satisfy my reflective preferences better?” (Robinson pg.85-6).

Plato’s view of morality?

Plato seems to have thought that goodness, or something that is related to morality was the ultimate fact about the world. The Platonic world is more similar to a religious viewpoint than to a “Russelian” one. Plato, according to Mavrodes, would not find any validity in the “accidental collocations of atoms” nor would have taken “so nearly certain,” with any type of certainty. A Platonic man sets himself to live in accordance with the Good aligns himself what is most basic in existence. Whatever values a Platonic world imposes are in which the Platonic world is committed. (Golden Rule; ethic of reciprocity; “Do not unto another that you would not have him do unto you. Thou needest this law alone. It is the foundation of all the rest.”- Confucius 500 B.C.E.).

To Mavrodes, Morality may be a vague feature of some deeper feature that we possibly cannot identify, but the more we give our duties spiritual qualities the more they can easily “make sense.” But even in the elements of his own religion, Christianity, have a strange process of “gift and sacrifice” (you get what you give) and has little to do with rights and duties (rights and responsibilities), but when we give our obligations any spiritual quality we are giving our actions value; we are not only responsible for our actions concerning other individuals, we are also responsible for our actions to a higher deity or being, (Vishnu/Krishna, Yahweh/Jehovah, Christ, Allah).

What does Breaking Bad have to do with morality?

The main character in the AMC's show Breaking Bad is Walter White (D.B.A. Heisenberg), a chemistry-teaching, family man that is diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer. He does not accept charity and claims that everything he does is for the good of his family. But it is very apparent that there are few benefits in upholding, as he claims (at least within seasons 1-3) because it is his duty to provide for his family.

Are his actions justifiable either by “Russelian” or “Kantian" ?