Two

A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF A CLASSIC MORAL SCIENTIST: ARE THERE ANY MORAL FACTS TO DISCOVER?

Howard M. Ducharme

1. Living in the Age of Science with its By-Product, the Death of Moral Facts

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) lived in the seventeenth century world of ideas and we live in the modern world of ideas. He lived in a world of ideas dominated by Aristotelian teleology, souls, and authoritative religious paradigms; we live in a world dominated by methodological naturalism, no souls, and the authoritative scientific paradigm. He lived when dualism of mind and body was both the common view and the academically dominant view; we live during the heyday of monistic Physicalism. He lived during those centuries when knowledge of objective ethical values -- ethical realism (ethical non-naturalism) -- was dominant; we live in an era dominated by moral skepticism -- where only versions of Ethical Anti-Realism (Ethical Naturalism) are deemed to be intellectually creditable. Ethical Anti-Realism, also called Ethical Naturalism, includes all theories of ethics that believe moral features of the world and language reduce to non-moral properties of the natural world and the natural sciences. For example, where all theories of ethics might linguistically agree that we are FDOOHG ³PRUDO DJHQWV´ WKH DQVZHU WR WKH TXHVWLRQ ³MXVW ZKDW FRQVWLWXWHV D moral agent"´ ZLOO UHYHDO WKH FRPPLWPHQW WR DQG YDULRXV VWUDQG RI HWKLFDO anti-realism. The common species of ethical anti-realism include the following:

(1) Moral Nihilism -- ZKHUH ³PRUDO reasoning´ UHGXFHV WR JRRG political, psychological, or strategic reasons, but moral values and moral agents exist just like Santa Claus, tooth fairies, and Easter bunnies; (2) Subjectivism, Ethical Egoism, and simple Divine Command Theories ± ZKHUH³PRUDO UHDVRQV´IRUDFWLRQDQG³PRUDODJHQWV´UHGXFH to sentient biological organisms possessed by self-interested desires; 26 HOWARD M. DUCHARME

(3) Cultural Relativism (per Ruth Benedict), and Sociology/Social Constructivism (per Emile Durkheim) -- ZKHUHD³PRUDO DJHQW´UHGXFHV WRDQDPRUDOEODQNVODWHDWELUWKZKLFKPRUSKVLQWRD³PRUDODJHQW´YLD the nurturing of socialization; (4) Utilitarianism (per Bentham and Peter Singer) -- ZKHUH D ³PRUDO DJHQW´UHGXFHVWRDVHQWLHQWUDWLRQDOFDOFXODWRURISDLQDQGSOHDVXUHIRU DOOWKRVHDIIHFWHGE\RQH¶VDFWLRQV (5) Contractarianism, Modern Religious Worldview Ethics, and Existentialism -- ZKHUHEHLQJD³PRUDO DJHQW´MXVWPHDQV\RXOLYHXQGHU a human construct or political contract that stipulates rights and wrongs, or where one picks and chooses the set of values one prefers among a plurality of worldviews on offer, or where special circumstances of DXWKHQWLFFKRLFHFUHDWHWKH³PRUDODJHQW´\RXFKRRVHWREH (6) Neo-Aristotelian Naturalism (per G. E. M. Anscombe, P. T. Geach, early Philippa Foot, Martha Nussbaum, and Judith Jarvis Thomson), and Kantianism -- ZKHUHD³PRUDO DJHQW´UHGXFHVWRa rational will that must be regarded as autonomous, or free in the sense of being the author of the law that binds it. The fundamental principle of morality, the Categorical Imperative, is the law of an autonomous will.

So, what can we possibly learn from Hobbes? The answer, I will argue, is that we may be able to learn much more about our own unquestioned assumptions about ethical values, science, and moral reasoning from a careful DQGFULWLFDOORRNDW+REEHV¶PRUDOSKLORVRSK\ than we are likely to learn from studying a modern moral philosopher ± someone who is unwilling or unable to identify and challenge fundamental modern dogmatic assumptions, in particular, the dogmas of scientism. We may be able to learn much more from +REEHVSUHFLVHO\EHFDXVHZHDUHDEOHWRWDNHDQRXWVLGHREVHUYHUµVYLHZRI his moral science. From such a vantage point we can readily understand and critically evaluate his science and method of moral reasoning and thereby be more insightful and critical of our own unexamined assumptions that silently inundate our understanding much more than we realize, for instance, are there any moral facts to be discovered and known? This essay integrates and critically evaluates the classical moral science of Thomas Hobbes with our modern theories of morals ± theories of ethics that are overly determined and limited by the modern scientific paradigm, which I will call the Science-First Paradigm (SFP). Modernism is dominated by presumed self-evident truths for any modern thinking person. The de facto axioms of the SFP include epistemology (empiricism only), ontology (Physicalism, anti-Dualism), casual theory (methodological naturalism only), and method of investigation (third-person outside observer only). A positive argument ± that critically evaluates the SFP -- is also developed throughout this essay, focusing upon the question, are there any moral facts to discover?