What is the problem of good?

Answer

In October 2010, atheist Sam Harris released his book “The Moral Landscape.” In it, Harris argues against basing morality on God and asserts that science is the sole means by which humanity can determine the concepts of good and evil. Unlike other naturalistic philosophers and atheists such as Nietzsche, Sartre, and Russell, who have rejected the existence of objective moral values, Harris opposes moral relativism and subjectivism. He believes there is a valid alternative to moral nihilism and that science offers the solutions people seek regarding moral issues.

To establish his argument, Harris defines his “moral landscape” as a space of actual and potential outcomes where peaks represent levels of potential well-being and valleys signify the deepest possible suffering. The notion of “well-being” is crucial to grasping Harris’s interpretation of good and evil. According to Harris, “Questions about values are essentially questions about the well-being of conscious creatures.” Therefore, for Harris, good and evil revolve around the well-being of conscious creatures (including animals, as atheists view humans as highly evolved animals) and their highs and lows. Harris asserts that science should aim to identify and recommend ways for humans to “flourish,” leading to the realization of the good life.

The central question for Harris and the focus of his arguments in the book is whether the “good” he discusses is moral goodness. This is the key issue that has troubled atheists and materialists who do not attempt to integrate their atheistic stance with Christian teachings they borrow. The prevailing opinion among intellectually honest atheists is that science and naturalism cannot.Make moral judgments or statements of “oughtness” where ethics are concerned.

Can science tell the world what contributes to the “flourishing” of human beings? It certainly can, just as it can explain what contributes to the flourishing of an oak tree. However, this does not lead to a moral conclusion. This is why, years ago, atheist Richard Dawkins observed the natural world and remarked on the existence of good and evil, concluding that life has “no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference” (River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, BasicBooks, 1995, p. 133).

How does a person ultimately determine what is good or bad, what is moral or immoral? Some, like Dawkins, argue that there is no true concept of good and bad. Oscar Wilde, a talented artist who passed away at the age of 46 due to a lifestyle that eventually caught up with him, once said, “Nothing succeeds like excess. . . . Nothing is good or bad, only charming or dull.” Others who follow the teachings and philosophy of evolution to its logical conclusion, such as biologist William Provine, echo Dawkins by stating, “When Darwin deduced the theory of natural selection to explain the adaptations in which he had previously seen the handiwork of God, he knew that he was committing cultural murder. He understood immediately that if natural selection explained adaptations, and evolution by descent were true, then the argument from design was dead and all that went with it, namely the existence of a personal god, free will, life after death, immutable moral laws, and ultimate meaning in life” (emphasis added).

Yet, most human beings do not adhere to this perspective. To his credit, Sam Harris acknowledges this in his book and affirms the existence of objective moral laws. The question lies in what defines “moral” or “good,” where these moral laws originate, how they are identified, and how they are implemented by humanity.

The Problem of Good — Defining Good

What is “good”? In this book, Harris does his best to communicate that “good” is ultimately the well-being of conscious creatures. In fact, he consistently argues that “good” is that which causes conscious creatures to flourish. Harris literally wills into existence his definition of good and ends up arguing that no one can ask the question of why conscious creatures flourishing equates to “good” because that is what he says “good” truly means.

To provide his readers with more insight into why he believes atheists can hold to objective moral laws, Harris provides a few analogies. He says that, for example, in chess there are objectively good and bad moves that a player can make, and the same is true in life. Harris also argues that the supposed fact/value divide between science and morality can be easily bridged because (1) objective knowledge implies values; for example, being logical in one’s thinking is good; and (2) beliefs about facts and values arise from similar processes in the brain.

Is Harris right? First, Harris cannot simply define reality and his concept of good and then expect everyone to follow suit. Second, no one argues that there are good and bad moves in chess, or that the use of logical thought and reason is good to employ. However, Harris equivocates the term good where morality is involved. Is the bad move a person makes in chess, “evil”? Is the person not using logical thought acting in an evil capacity?

Last, just because people use their brains for both fact and value operations, such a process cannot be traced back to buttress Harris’s definition of good, especially where morality is concerned.

The Problem of Good — The Options for a Moral Source

If a person omits a transcendent source of objective moral values, then there are three options left for a starting place of the objective moral law:

1. The natural universe

2. Culture or society

3. The individual person

Can the natural universe serve as the source

Is science a reliable source for objective moral values? Since science acknowledges that an effect must correspond to its cause in essence (i.e., a cause cannot provide what it lacks), it appears implausible that amoral matter could generate beings fixated on moral conduct. Novelist and poet Stephen Crane expressed this concept as follows:

“A man said to the Universe,

Sir, I exist!

Nevertheless, replied the Universe,

That fact has not created in me

The slightest feeling of obligation.”

What about culture or society—can they be the foundation for objective moral values? This scenario seems unlikely considering the existence of numerous diverse cultures and societies, each with varying moral frameworks. Which one should be deemed correct? For instance, some cultures promote love for neighbors, while others practice cannibalism.

If selecting a single culture as the standard is unfeasible, another option is to allow each culture to determine its own morality. However, this approach becomes problematic unless people worldwide are willing to overlook practices like widow burning (where a living wife is cremated with her deceased husband) or ideologies such as Nazism. The challenge of defining morality within a culture also arises. If the majority deems rape as “acceptable,” does that make it morally acceptable?

The final option for an objective source of moral values is the individual, often found in philosophies like postmodernism or religions such as Wicca, which advocates, “If it harms none, do as you will.” However, this foundation may be purely emotional in nature, rendering nothing inherently wrong. Instead, actions perceived as immoral are merely expressed as “I disapprove of rape” or “Rape is wrong to me.”

During his debate with the atheist Bertrand Russell, the Jesuit and philosopher Frederick Copleston turned to Russell and inquired, “Lord Russell, do you believe in good and bad?” Russell responded, “Yes, I do.”

Russell replied, “Yes.” Copleston continued, “How do you differentiate between good and bad?” Russell responded, “The same way I differentiate between blue and green or yellow and green.” Copleston then said, “Wait a minute, you differentiate between yellow and green by seeing, don’t you?” Russell affirmed, “Yes.” So Copleston challenged him by asking, “How do you differentiate between good and bad?” Russell explained, “I differentiate on those matters based on my feelings, what else?”

The reality is that it becomes impossible for the individual to be the origin of objective moral laws. If two individuals disagree on what “good” is, how is the disagreement resolved?

The Challenge of Good — Recognizing and Applying the Moral Law

Without a transcendent source for the moral law, there are four potential ways to recognize and reach a consensus on what “good” is. These include frameworks that are

1. Utilitarian – whatever generates the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people

2. Pragmatic – whatever seems to be effective where happiness (positive) or consequences (negative) are concerned

3. Subjective – whatever is appropriate for the specific individual in the specific situation

4. Emotive – whatever “feels” right

As has been extensively debated for centuries, none of these is a satisfactory choice on its own. Harris rejects options 3 and 4 as he upholds belief in objective moral values. He is correct in this regard. Furthermore, this is a viewpoint that some intellectually honest atheists, apart from Harris, will acknowledge. For instance, in her debate with Christian philosopher William Lane Craig on the existence of objective moral values, atheist philosopher Louise Antony conceded, “Any argument against the objective reality of moral values will be based on premises that are less evident than the existence of objective moral values themselves.” In essence, it is challenging to argue against the truth that love is superior to hate or kindness in a world where murder is considered a virtue and appreciation a vice.

Ice.

A combination of options 1 and 2 may describe Harris’ way of recognizing good and bad, but if it does, then problems arise. It’s not a stretch to say that such a position could lead to eugenics and the infanticide of babies who are not deemed able to flourish. Euthanasia could also be declared good if it means that the quality of life is raised for the majority by eliminating a minority who are the source of extravagant expense and effort. Left to the sterile choice of science, many human atrocities are possible if carried out in the spirit of improving the flourishing of humanity as a whole. The elimination of undesirables has already been attempted more than once in the past by various regimes. Psychiatrist Victor Frankl—himself a prisoner in death camps twice in his life—once declared, “I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz were ultimately prepared not in some ministry of defense in Berlin, but rather at the desks and lecture halls of Nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”

A more recent example of such a proposal being put forward for the supposed betterment of the world by a naturalistic scientist came at the 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of Science that took place at Lamar University in March 2006. At the meeting, evolutionist Dr. Eric Pianka presented a lecture about how human overpopulation is ruining the earth. Professor Pianka said the earth as we know it will not survive without drastic measures. Then, and without presenting any data to justify his conclusion, he asserted that the only feasible solution for saving the earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number.

And how would Pianka go about reducing the population of the earth? AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world’s population is the airborne Ebola virus because it is both highly lethal, and it kills in days, instead of years. However, Professor Pianka omitted.

And the fact that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs. After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at the audience, and carefully said, “We’ve got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that.” And what was the audience response at the end? The attending scientists gave him a standing ovation.

Forrest Mims, one of the scientists in attendance, summed up the response this way: “I still can’t get out of my mind the pleasant spring day in Texas when a few hundred scientists of the Texas Academy of Science gave a standing ovation for a speaker who they heard advocate the slow and torturous death of over five billion human beings.” Evidently, the other attending scientists must have believed they would not be included in the 90 percent of humanity Dr. Pianka advocated being eliminated.

The Problem of Good — Another Obvious Alternative

Harris’s attempt at defining, sourcing, recognizing, and implementing a moral law within the natural universe is somewhat original for an atheist; he must be granted that. However, his attempt at redefining good, his equivocation of the term good, and the inescapable conclusions of where his philosophy leads all point to his position being untenable.

What happens when the other obvious alternative for objective moral values is considered: a transcendent source of an objective moral law that defines what good truly is and implements a way for good to be ultimately implemented? What about God?

Make no mistake, Harris is right when he says that people don’t need to believe in God to discern moral duties or understand that objective moral values exist. That has never been the argument of the Christian theologian. The Christian argument is that, in order to ground an objective moral law, you need to have a transcendent source of an objective moral law.If those values.

This is something that those who founded the United States clearly understood and why they grounded the rights of American citizens in the way they did: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Nothing similar can be found in a statement made by any other nation: moral well-being hinged on a creative act. Life . . . Liberty . . . Happiness. It sounds very much like conscious human beings flourishing and experiencing well-being. Moreover, the term self-evident communicates the concept of the moral law being undeniable, or objective (so does “truths” instead of “opinions”). Sam Harris would, or should, be proud.

But, due to his naturalistic presuppositions, Harris won’t consider God as a possible source of the moral law, and this, in the end, becomes his undoing. Harris does not understand an important truth: good cannot be defined without purpose, and purpose cannot be defined without cause. Atheists believe the universe (their only reference point for eternality) is purposeless and without meaning. Yet Harris wants morality, which cannot be had without purpose and meaning. Harris’s cause has no way of producing either the purpose or meaning he desires, and because a cause cannot produce an effect that has something it does not possess, he is left twisting in the wind for an explanation of how the morality he desires can possibly come about. The atheist’s formula of Impersonal Matter + Time + Chance fails to produce the effect he desires. In fact, it seems to have produced the opposite. This is something well stated in the end of Steve Turner’s poem “Creed”:

“If chance be the Father of all flesh,

Disaster is his rainbow in the sky,

And when you hear

State of Emergency!

Sniper Kills Ten!

Troops on Rampage!

Whites go Looting!

Bomb Blasts Schoo

It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.”

Without a cause possessing meaning and purpose, there can be no morality in effect. This leads right back to honest atheists like Nietzsche who admitted that, without God, there can be nothing called “good,” nor can there be anything called “evil.” The logic works this way: if there’s such a thing as evil, you must assume there’s such a thing as good. If you assume there’s such a thing as good, you assume there’s such a thing as an absolute and unchanging moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. If you assume there’s such a thing as an absolute moral law, you must posit an absolute moral law giver, but that would be God—the one whom the atheist is trying to disprove. So now rewind: if there’s not a moral law giver, there’s no moral law. If there’s no moral law, there’s no good. If there’s no good, there’s no evil.

The simple fact is moral laws imply a moral law giver (a “giver” that possesses meaning, morality, and purpose itself). Even Harris admits there is an objective moral law, so the obvious conclusion should be there is a moral Law Giver.

The Problem of Good — The Conclusion

Atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie has stated, “We might well argue that objective intrinsically prescriptive features supervenient upon natural ones constitute so odd a cluster of qualities and relations that they are unlikely to have arisen in the ordinary course of events without an all-powerful God to create them.” Honest thinkers will reach this conclusion at some point if they follow the logical order of where the arguments lead, but what they do once they reach that point is hard to say. C. S. Lewis eventually made it to that place and describes it this way: “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.”

Atheists like Harris have noObjective straight line to grab hold of. Few materialists have the courage of Nietzsche to understand and then embrace the real consequences of what the death of God means. Instead, most are like Harris who blink when they stare into the face of atheism and end up with ill-conceived ideas of morality that have no able cause to produce the effect they know is present and real.

The Bible declares, “No one is good but God alone” «And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. », (Luke 18:19). Good is grounded in the very nature of God, and what He wills is good because He is good. Just as many things can have “being” (or life), but there can only be one thing that actually is Being (or life), the concept of good works the same way. Many things may have some good in them, but there can only be one thing that is good. And this good God invites everyone to “taste and see that the Lord is good” «O taste and see that the LORD is good: Blessed is the man that trusteth in him. », (Psalm 34:8).