Who's Happiness?

This is a continuation of my discussion on ethics. If haven't read my last few blog posts, you might want to read the ones on purpose & morality for some context first.

Three Systems

Once you arrive at the conclusion that morality is about the happiness of intelligent agents, there follows a very important question: Who's happiness should I be morally concerned with? There are three schools of thought on this question:

1. Egoism: The idea that morality is concerned exclusively with one's own happiness.
2. Altruism: The idea that morality is concerned exclusively with the happiness of others.
3. Utilitarianism: The idea that morality is concerned with both one's own happiness and the happiness of others.

While we examine these three ethical systems, it's important to understand that we are, fundamentally, attempting to define what we mean when we say "morality." A good definition needs to be:

1. Useful (giving us a method for determining the morality of a given action.)
2. Objective (giving us the same answer regardless of who's perspective we happen to have.)

Usefulness

As far as usefulness is concerned, all three systems seem to fit the bill. It is clear established weather or not the happiness of each affected entity should be weighed. Egoism is cognitively the easiest because there is only one entity to consider. Altruism and Utilitarianism, however, are more complex because more than one entity may be under consideration. In political decisions, even entire populations would have to be considered.

How much weight of consideration would we give each affected entity under Altruism or Utilitarianism? The rational answer to that should go back to the root of morality and values: intelligent agency. The degree with which an agent is "intelligent" is the same degree with which we give it moral consideration. This has some fascinating implications with respect to controversial issues like abortion & the humane treatment of livestock. But we'll save exploring that for another time.

Regardless of the added complexity associated with Altruism and Utilitarianism, they are still very useful and provide clearly defined guidelines for establishing the morality of a given action. All three systems pass this first test.

Objectivity & Equality

As far as objectivity is concerned, only Utilitarianism gets a passing grade. It should be clear that Egoism and Altruism are subjective (by definition) since they define morality in the context of a particular perspective. Consider what would happen if two men stumbled upon a diamond in the dirt at the same time:

1. If the two men were Egoists, they might fight each other for it if the happiness derived from walking away with the entire diamond is worth more than the cost of taking a few punches. The outcome is both good (for the man who walks away with the diamond) and bad (for the man who lost.)
2. If the two men were Altruists, they might encourage the other man to take it leading to an endless tautology of selflessness: "You take it"; "No, you take it"; "No, I insist, you take it". In the end, one of them might give in. If so, that outcome would be morally bad (for the taker) and good (for the other man).
3. If the two men were Utilitarian, they might recognize that their interest and right to the diamond is objectively equal. They would seek out a way to maximize the happiness derived from the diamond between the two of them. This might mean taking it together to a pawn shop and splitting the earnings. Both men derived happiness from the event and no one was left in a state of unnecessarily suffering.

The interest of any man, if viewed objectively, is no more important than the interest of any other. This observation of equality is foundational to establishing a proper understanding of morality. Utilitarianism, then, is the proper moral system of choice.

Values, Morality & Happiness

Just as the concept of purpose is derived from intent, so is the concept of value. When something is able to fulfill its purpose, we call that thing "valuable." A car only has value if it runs. Value is also tied with the concept of desire. Follow an object's chain of purpose to the intelligent agents that gives it value and you will see what I mean. If all of humanity no longer wanted to travel anywhere, cars would no longer have any value. Also, if all the oil and gas on Earth suddenly vanished, cars would no longer have any value. So let's establish the prerequisites for value:

1. The object must have a purpose (given by an intelligent agent.)
2. The object must be in such a condition that it can fulfill its purpose.
3. The object must be desired by (by an intelligent agent) for its purpose.

Think about these three conditions for a while. You should begin to see that "value" simply describes the purpose relationship between an intelligent agent and another object.

Self-Assigned Value

If value is the purpose relationship between an intelligent agent and an object and intelligent agents are self-purposed, then it follows that intelligent agents are the beginning of value. This makes perfect sense when you consider a hypothetical universe that has no intelligent agents... just rocks, planets & galaxies bumping into one another. Is there any value in such a universe? Does the concept of value even make sense in that universe? I don't see how.
As intelligent beings, humans define their own purpose. This means that the "ultimate" value is a direct function of our own desires. Stated another way, the existence of desires from intelligent beings is the source of any meaningful value. This is how I understand the solution to the classical "is/ought" distinction. Our desires exist ("is") and so we have values ("ought").

Happiness: The Highest Value

To reach the final step in my value system, we need to make two basic observations:

1. Happiness, by definition, is is a desirable experience.
2. Morality, by definition, is ideal (or desirable) behavior.

The conclusion to reach, then, is that morality is fundamentally about the happiness of intelligent agents. More happiness is what we call "good" and less happiness is what we call "bad."

Morality, then, is the science of maximizing the happiness of intelligent agents.

What About Purpose?

Before we can approach the topic of morality in an atheistic context, we need to address a more basic issue that theists often bring to the discussion: purpose. It is frequently claimed that an atheistic world-view offers no "ultimate" purpose or meaning. Let's unpack that assertion.

What is Purpose?

If you look up "purpose" in the dictionary, you will see immediately that purpose is function of creative intent. We make pencils for the purpose of communicating. We make cars for the purpose of traveling. In this sense of the word, the claim that humanity has no "purpose" is legitimate because purpose is only a property of created things. Let's call this "intrinsic purpose."
However, things that were not created can be given purpose by creative entities. Consider a shard of obsidian. It wasn't crafted by an intelligence but by natural volcanic forces. Even so, men in Earth's early history picked up obsidian shards and used them as cutting tools. In other words, it seems that purpose can be given by an intelligent entity. Let's call this "extrinsic purpose."

Intrinsic Ultimate Purpose

What is meant by "ultimate purpose"? Let's consider the definition of ultimate purpose as "the end of a purpose chain." First let's try this in the context of intrinsic purpose.
Consider a pencil sharpener. What is it's "ultimate purpose"? Well, it's direct purpose is to sharpen pencils. But then we must ask, "What is the purpose of a pencil?" The pencil's direct purpose is human communication, etc, etc. We could follow this chain of purpose until we reach the end.

1. The purpose of a pencil sharpener is to service a pencil.
2. The purpose of a pencil is to service human communication.
3. The purpose of human communication is to service humanity.
4. Humanity has no intrinsic purpose; it was not created.

This chain ends with nothing. We would say the pencil sharpener has no "intrinsic ultimate purpose." What if there was a God?

1. The purpose of a pencil sharpener is to service a pencil.
2. The purpose of a pencil is to service human communication.
3. The purpose of human communication is to service humanity.
4. The purpose of humanity is to serve/worship God.
5. God has no intrinsic purpose; it was not created.

It seems that, even if there were a God, there would still be no "intrinsic ultimate purpose." Adding God in the chain doesn't stop us from concluding that God has no purpose external to himself.

Extrinsic Ultimate Purpose

The theist might interject at this point and claim that God gives himself his own purpose. Such a claim is certainly legitimate if we are allowing extrinsic purpose to enter the discussion. Just as the un-created obsidian shard is given purpose by an intelligence, so to can an un-created God be given purpose by an intelligence (himself.)

However, this kind of reasoning supposes that intelligent agencies can give themselves "extrinsic ultimate purpose." And if that is so, then humans can also give themselves "extrinsic ultimate purpose." This is the beginnings for a moral framework based on human values: humanism.

Intelligent Agents Give Purpose

It should be noted that any intelligent agency is capable of manufacturing extrinsic purpose. Purpose is something that is established once an intelligence makes up its mind toward some goal. Even in a theistic framework, humans can manufacture purpose for themselves.

At least one intelligent agent is necessary for a rational framework of purpose, but not God specifically. To think that God is necessary for purpose is to confuse the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic purpose.

Why You Shouldn't Believe in God

Should you believe in God? The answer to this question is exquisitely clear once you understand a few things about the nature of the "god" concept.

When Pigs Fly

Believing in God is a lot like believing in a species of pig that can fly. Both beliefs...

• lack a method by which you could test it. (non-falsifiable)
• have no physical (repeatable, testable, scientific) evidence to back them up.
• violate our current understanding of the world based on physical (repeatable, testable, scientific) evidence.
• rely exclusively on "eye-witness" testimony for validation.

You don't have to be rocket scientist to know that beliefs fitting these criteria epistemologically cry out for our disbelief. But if you remain unconvinced, let's get straight to the heart of my disbelief. In particular, the third bullet point: they violate our current understanding of the world.

"Supernatural" Really Means "Anti-natural"

You and I don't believe in flying pigs (even if someone claimed they saw one) primarily because their existence would be inconsistent with things we know about the world we live in:

• Pigs don't have wings (at least not naturally.)
• Pigs lack an aerodynamic shape, size and density. The lift generated from the pig's wings would be insufficient to sustain flight.

God belief is similar because the "god" concept would also be inconsistent with something we know about the world:

• Intelligence is a direct consequence of physical brains.

To accept that God exists is to deny (at least in part) that intelligence is a product of brains. This is the trouble with supernatural claims in general (water to wine, resurrection, reincarnation, etc.) Metaphysically, they claim something that's "beyond" nature. An existence behind existence as it were. Epistemologically, they claim something that's contrary to nature (as we know it.) Putting verifiable, scientific facts against the "someone said so" of testimony should be a no-brainer.

What About Abductive Reasoning?

Some people (usually Christians) will point to God as the "best" explanation for some event or feature of the natural world (cosmological anthropics, the resurrection, etc.) To understand why I reject this form of reasoning, read my previous post on abductive reasoning. God is like the "invisible aliens" explanation in that post. We don't have any knowledge about "god" nor do we have any positive evidence for it. Before you can abduct to an explanation, you must first have some inductive knowledge about that explanation that justifies suspecting it.

What are your thoughts on the God question? Are there any epistemological angles that I am neglecting?