Politics Based On 'Questionable Metaphysical Assumptions'?

There is this excellent book I once read, and have to tell you all about. Utilitarianism For and Against by J.J.C. Smart & Bernard Williams. I got it about 20 years ago, in a college bookstore, in fact. I think the two authors are dead now.

Anyways, in it, Smart tries to justify the ethical doctrine of utilitarianism, on meta-ethically nihilistic grounds. (Williams is apparently also a nihilist, I think. But he writes the rebuttal.) Anyways, in one point in the treatise, Smart says a lot of moral theories can be debunked by the fact they rest on 'questionable metaphysical assumptions'. I think he means religion and God.

Now I have to tell you, I still believe in God, but not much else. I don't for example believe in an afterlife anymore. But in my heart of hearts, I think I am a natural law theorist, when it comes to the subject of meta-ethics. I just tend to think there is a higher order to things. And right and wrong is inherent in all of this. (Modern philosophers to hold the same theory as I do are called ethical realists, I think.) But Smart does make an interesting point. If nihilism and atheism are right, then a lot of what is going on in this world is baseless and misguided. In Saudi Arabia they will chop off your arm for stealing a loaf of bread because it is 'Allah's will'. Even in this country, there is a lot of that kind of stuff going on. Christian fundamentalists support Trump, because they want more 'religious freedom', like the right to discriminate against gays and unwed mothers. And they further want original intent judges appointed, ironically for much the same reason.

Are they all wrong? And if they are, what is the solution? Communists want to enforce atheism by rule of law and conquest. But that may be too strong. So what is the solution then, to the problem J.J.C. Smart proposes (assuming it's correct)?

 

Metaphysics is about the fundamental nature of reality. I don't doubt that reality has a fundamental nature, but I'm skeptical we can know what it is. We can only place bets. I place mine on the basis of my judgments based on what I consider to be the best available evidence, reason, intuition, experience, and expert opinion--with full realization that I could be wrong. My own take on human morality is that it's a human invention based on objective human needs an wants, as well as empathy and reciprocal altruism which evolved among other animals because they're functional for the survival of the species. Evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson thinks that humanoids early-on developed modularized brains for processing competing self-interest and social interest, and morality is the result of that. But of course it differs from one society to another because of the different situations and histories of different populations of humans. There is also the problem of motivating people to do what is in the long-run interest of society, as opposed to the short-run interest of themselves. In my opinion, religion is a means of invoking emotionally charged symbols and metaphors to inspire socially responsible conduct. Belief in supernatural agents has historically been a prominent feature of this enterprise--at the cost of pure rationality. In modern times, the development of secular religions like Communism, Fascism, and nationalism attempts to achieve the same end without the supernatural but with emotionally charged appeals that are at least as non-rational.

You specifically mention utilitarianism, which is an ethical system advocating the greatest happiness for the greatest number of individuals in the long run. There seem to be at least two major variants of this: "act" utilitarianism, in which calculations are done on a case-by-case basis, and "rule" utilitarianism, in which the rules, institutions, and practices governing the distribution of benefits and burdens is the subject of utilitarian calculation. I'd argue for the latter, if long-run survival is the ultimate goal. There is also the conflict between Benthamite utilitarians, who put pushpin on the same plane as poetry, and John Stuart Mill, who make qualitative judgments between "higher" pleasures (beauty, truth, liberty, justice) and "lower ones" (sex, drugs, rock n' roll). I'd opt for the qualitative kind. Also, I think Rawls makes a persuasive case that contractarian considerations need to enter into the calculus. What system or set of practices produce social justice--i.e., work to the benefit of everyone or the least advantaged members of society. I think western social democracies make the most sense in optimizing these qualities, but teeter on the verge of relativism and nihilism, which are corrosive to long-run social stability and harmony. Religious fundamentalism and political absolutism remain the greatest threats to social harmony, but "postmodern" relativism is a close contender for third place. Some opinions and belief systems are functional, others dysfunctional, and our choice between the two can have life or death consequences. Life is real and earnest, and actions have consequences. Only our good judgment can get us through, and there is no easy way of determining what that is. I think a society that is seriously considering a second term for Donald Trump is in big trouble, and will pay a heavy price for miscalculation.