Can Materialism Guard Against Materialism?

[Tree of Life]

More specifically, can philosophical materialism guard against ethical materialism? I don't believe it can. Let me explain.

Philosophical materialism is the idea that only stuff exists. Only matter and energy exist. Nothing exists that we cannot interact with using our five senses. We also ought only to believe in things that can empirically be demonstrated. There are no spiritual things like gods, angels, spirits, etc.

Ethical materialism is the idea that only stuff is valuable. Or, to put it another way, stuff is the most valuable. We see this kind of materialism represented in lots of popular music - especially rap and hip hop (I say this as a Drake fan). The idea is that money, cars, clothes, houses, etc are more valuable than relationships, people, spirituality, or "living ethically".

Most all of us - philosophical materialists included - would reject ethical materialism. We believe that people are more valuable than things. Relationships are more valuable than money. And principles like truth, virtue, kindness, and love are more valuable than having nice clothes. I'm glad that most of us reject ethical materialism.

But can philosophical materialism support this rejection of ethical materialism? I don't see how. In order to value people, relationships, and virtues we need to get these values from somewhere other than philosophical materialism, as it is unable to supply us with them.

In other words, philosophical materialism is inadequate because it cannot account for our values. Discuss.

 

[Chriliman]

More specifically, can philosophical materialism guard against ethical materialism? I don't believe it can. Let me explain.

Philosophical materialism is the idea that only stuff exists. Only matter and energy exist. Nothing exists that we cannot interact with using our five senses. We also ought only to believe in things that can empirically be demonstrated. There are no spiritual things like gods, angels, spirits, etc.

Ethical materialism is the idea that only stuff is valuable. Or, to put it another way, stuff is the most valuable. We see this kind of materialism represented in lots of popular music - especially rap and hip hop (I say this as a Drake fan). The idea is that money, cars, clothes, houses, etc are more valuable than relationships, people, spirituality, or "living ethically".

Most all of us - philosophical materialists included - would reject ethical materialism. We believe that people are more valuable than things. Relationships are more valuable than money. And principles like truth, virtue, kindness, and love are more valuable than having nice clothes. I'm glad that most of us reject ethical materialism.

But can philosophical materialism support this rejection of ethical materialism? I don't see how. In order to value people, relationships, and virtues we need to get these values from somewhere other than philosophical materialism, as it is unable to supply us with them.

In other words, philosophical materialism is inadequate because it cannot account for our values. Discuss.

I think some people are ok with thinking their values arise from material, but are not necessarily limited to material. However, I think this means they must admit to the existence of something non-material, something that transcends the material it arose from. This reminds of where Paul talks about the Spiritual coming after the natural.

1 Corinthians 15:46

 

[Archaeopteryx]

More specifically, can philosophical materialism guard against ethical materialism? I don't believe it can. Let me explain.

Philosophical materialism is the idea that only stuff exists. Only matter and energy exist. Nothing exists that we cannot interact with using our five senses. We also ought only to believe in things that can empirically be demonstrated. There are no spiritual things like gods, angels, spirits, etc.

Ethical materialism is the idea that only stuff is valuable. Or, to put it another way, stuff is the most valuable. We see this kind of materialism represented in lots of popular music - especially rap and hip hop (I say this as a Drake fan). The idea is that money, cars, clothes, houses, etc are more valuable than relationships, people, spirituality, or "living ethically".

Most all of us - philosophical materialists included - would reject ethical materialism. We believe that people are more valuable than things. Relationships are more valuable than money. And principles like truth, virtue, kindness, and love are more valuable than having nice clothes. I'm glad that most of us reject ethical materialism.

But can philosophical materialism support this rejection of ethical materialism? I don't see how. In order to value people, relationships, and virtues we need to get these values from somewhere other than philosophical materialism, as it is unable to supply us with them.

In other words, philosophical materialism is inadequate because it cannot account for our values. Discuss.

I'm sorry but I don't quite follow what the reasoning is here, perhaps because you are using the same word—materialism—in two different senses. I think that your "philosophical materialism" is better understood as "philosophical naturalism", which itself may too broad a term, and your "ethical materialism" refers to a cultural phenomenon that may or may not be related to one or more ethical views. Such views aren't themselves necessarily related to what you call "philosophical materialism".

As an aside, there's a new book coming out on the topic (of philosophical materialism), by Brown and Ladyman, which some may be interested in: Materialism: A Historical and Philosophical Inquiry

 

[Tree of Life]

I'm sorry but I don't quite follow what the reasoning is here, perhaps because you are using the same word—materialism—in two different senses. I think that your "philosophical materialism" is better understood as "philosophical naturalism", which itself may too broad a term, and your "ethical materialism" refers to a cultural phenomenon that may or may not be related to one or more ethical views. Such views aren't themselves necessarily related to what you call "philosophical materialism".

As an aside, there's a new book coming out on the topic (of philosophical materialism), by Brown and Ladyman, which some may be interested in: Materialism: A Historical and Philosophical Inquiry

I'm using the term in two different senses for rhetorical effect. Perhaps it was not very effective! My basic argument is that PN (philosophical naturalism) cannot account for the ethical sentiments that we commonly hold.

 

[durangodawood]

...In other words, philosophical materialism is inadequate because it cannot account for our values. Discuss.

I think most of our values are natural to us as the sort of creatures we are. We naturally thrive with social contact, in familial relationships, etc. You could ground this in philosophic naturalism, with science as your investigative tool like you'd do for any aspect of animal behavior, dont you think?

 

[Tree of Life]

I think most of our values are natural to us as the sort of creatures we are. We naturally thrive with social contact, in familial relationships, etc. You could ground this in philosophic naturalism, with science as your investigative tool like you'd do for any aspect of animal behavior, dont you think?

Yes. With PN you could certainly discover what human beings value. But you could not discover whether or not these values have any moral authority, whether the values are good or bad, or what we ought to value.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes. With PN you could certainly discover what human beings value. But you could not discover whether or not these values have any moral authority, whether the values are good or bad, or what we ought to value.

OK. So you agree we might have a set of values natural to us. If so, who needs moral authority when we have natural authority? In other words, we ought to do the things that bring us the highest satisfaction according to the kind of beings we naturally are. Why go any deeper?

 

[Tree of Life]

OK. So you agree we might have a set of values natural to us. If so, who needs moral authority when we have natural authority? In other words, we ought to do the things that bring us the highest satisfaction according to the kind of beings we naturally are. Why go any deeper?

You just did go deeper. You say we ought to do the things that bring us the highest satisfaction. Where did you get that from?

 

[durangodawood]

You just did go deeper. You say we ought to do the things that bring us the highest satisfaction. Where did you get that from?

From my natural state as a human being.

Same place as where I "ought" to procure dinner for this evening.

 

[Tree of Life]

From my natural state as a human being.

Same place as where I "ought" to procure dinner for this evening.

Could you unpack that for me a bit?

 

[durangodawood]

Could you unpack that for me a bit?

I cant find the need for any deeper justification for action than enabling a truly satisfying life as a human being, according to the natural facts of being human.

To enable a satisfying life we should: have social engagement, be fed and watered, be healthy, etc. There's also "higher" needs too, that have arisen due to the sort of brains we've naturally evolved, like: be creative, aspire spiritually, gain knowledge.

Basically I dont think we need to import any "oughts" from 'outside the system'. The conditions of being naturally human provide all the "oughts" we need.

 

[Tree of Life]

I cant find the need for any deeper justification for action than enabling a truly satisfying life as a human being, according to the natural facts of being human.

To enable a satisfying life we should: have social engagement, be fed and watered, be healthy, etc. There's also "higher" needs too, that have arisen due to the sort of brains we've naturally evolved, like: be creative, aspire spiritually, gain knowledge.

Basically I dont think we need to import any "oughts" from 'outside the system'. The conditions of being naturally human provide all the "oughts" we need.

These sound like hypothetical imperatives. In other words, we ought to do X if we want result Y because X is necessary for Y. The imperative is hypothetical because it depends on our wanting Y. The trouble with hypothetical imperatives is that they don't seem to account for all of our moral sentiments. Wittgenstein gave this example:

Suppose you're a really terrible tennis player. I say: "You know, you really ought to practice more." You could easily dispense with my admonition by saying: "Oh but you don't understand. I don't care about being a good tennis player!" Well, in that case my ought loses its force because it's a hypothetical imperative.

But suppose you're a really cruel person and you verbally abuse your spouse. I say: "You know, you really ought to be less cruel. Your spouse doesn't deserve the way you're treating her!" Suppose you try to dispense with my admonition by saying: "Oh but you don't understand. I don't care about being a good person. I don't care about the wellbeing of my spouse either." Well, in that case my ought does not seem to lose its force. It seems that you should care about being a good person and you should care about the wellbeing of your spouse.

Do you agree that my ought keeps its force in the second scenario? If so, how do you account for this imperative that no longer seems hypothetical?

 

[durangodawood]

....But suppose you're a really cruel person and you verbally abuse your spouse. I say: "You know, you really ought to be less cruel. Your spouse doesn't deserve the way you're treating her!" Suppose you try to dispense with my admonition by saying: "Oh but you don't understand. I don't care about being a good person. I don't care about the wellbeing of my spouse either." Well, in that case my ought does not seem to lose its force. It seems that you should care about being a good person and you should care about the wellbeing of your spouse.

Do you agree that my ought keeps its force in the second scenario? If so, how do you account for this imperative that no longer seems hypothetical?

The ought keeps its force because the abuser is ignorant and is actually harming his own interests as well as his spouse's. He simply doesnt know any better, but in reality he's making life miserable for himself and risks losing his spouse.

(There's a real tiny minority of people who are naturally sociopathic or even psychopathic. For them, the ought truly doesnt apply in any natural sense, and so society has no alternative but to keep them in line by force if necessary for the benefit of everyone else.)

 

[Tree of Life]

The ought keeps its force because the abuser is ignorant and is actually harming his own interests as well as his spouse's. He simply doesnt know any better, but in reality he's making life miserable for himself and risks losing his spouse.

(There's a real tiny minority of people who are naturally sociopathic or even psychopathic. For them, the ought truly doesnt apply in any natural sense, and so society has no alternative but to keep them in line by force if necessary for the benefit of everyone else.)

So you would admit that for some people there is no moral obligation to be kind rather than cruel?

What about whole societies or cultures? Germany in the mid twentieth century wanted to eradicate everything non-German from their population. They specifically wanted to eradicate Jews. If you were to explain to Nazi leaders: "You know, you really ought not exterminate Jews in the gas chamber." They would have responded: "Oh but we want to exterminate them! Yes, it's an ugly business but it's necessary for the good of society."

Did the Nazis treat the Jews unjustly during WWII?

 

[Tree of Life]

The ought keeps its force because the abuser is ignorant and is actually harming his own interests as well as his spouse's. He simply doesnt know any better, but in reality he's making life miserable for himself and risks losing his spouse.

(There's a real tiny minority of people who are naturally sociopathic or even psychopathic. For them, the ought truly doesnt apply in any natural sense, and so society has no alternative but to keep them in line by force if necessary for the benefit of everyone else.)

Or suppose that the man wants to be miserable and wants his wife to be miserable as well. The wife, however, does not want to be miserable and wants to escape the marriage. Does the ought remain in force in that scenario? If so, how?

 

[jayem]

So you would admit that for some people there is no moral obligation to be kind rather than cruel?

What about whole societies or cultures? Germany in the mid twentieth century wanted to eradicate everything non-German from their population. They specifically wanted to eradicate Jews. If you were to explain to Nazi leaders: "You know, you really ought not exterminate Jews in the gas chamber." They would have responded: "Oh but we want to exterminate them! Yes, it's an ugly business but it's necessary for the good of society."

Did the Nazis treat the Jews unjustly during WWII?

13 posts before Godwin's Rule comes into effect. Not too bad.

The Holocaust probably wouldn't have happened (or at least not on as monstrous a scale) if not for centuries of religious teaching by both the RC and Protestant churches that Jews were a cursed race. If belief in God is supposed to promote better morals, then why didn't Germans rise up en masse against the Nazi's when their Jewish neighbors were being viciously persecuted and deported to concentration camps? With some exceptions (notably Pastors Niemoller and Bonhoeffer) most of the German population looked the other way. And that's because Europeans had for centuries been inculcated with the idea that Jews were responsible for Jesus's death, and were treacherous parasites on Christian society. That's the problem with claiming God is necessary for moral authority. History has proven over and over that God can be invoked to justify all manner of cruelty and brutality.

As Blaise Pascal (a devout Christian best known for his wager) said, men never do evil as cheerfully or as completely as when they do it from religious conviction.

 

[Tree of Life]

13 posts before Godwin's Rule comes into effect. Not too bad.

The Holocaust probably wouldn't have happened (or at least not on as monstrous a scale) if not for centuries of religious teaching by both the RC and Protestant churches that Jews were a cursed race. If belief in God is supposed to promote better morals, then why didn't Germans rise up en masse against the Nazi's when their Jewish neighbors were being viciously persecuted and deported to concentration camps? With some exceptions (notably Pastors Niemoller and Bonhoeffer) most of the German population looked the other way. And that's because Europeans had for centuries been inculcated with the idea that Jews were responsible for Jesus's death, and were treacherous parasites on Christian society. That's the problem with claiming God is necessary for moral authority. History has proven over and over that God can be invoked to justify all manner of cruelty and brutality.

As Blaise Pascal (a devout Christian best known for his wager) said, men never do evil as cheerfully or as completely as when they do it from religious conviction.

Thanks for this. I don't see how this is relevant to the question at hand, but I agree with your general observations!

 

[Tree of Life]

@jayem I had to look up Godwin's Law. I don't believe what I've said applies to that. I think that the Nazi regime can be used as a legitimate example of cultural evil. I wasn't comparing something else to the Nazi regime in order to end a discussion.

 

[jayem]

Thanks for this. I don't see how this is relevant to the question at hand, but I agree with your general observations!

It's just an example that belief in a supernatural higher power doesn't necessarily correlate with morality. And certainly not with moral virtue. Such a belief, even if held sincerely, can enable bigotry, persecution, war, and mass murder.

 

[Tree of Life]

It's just an example that belief in a supernatural higher power doesn't necessarily correlate with morality. And certainly not with moral virtue. Such a belief, even if held sincerely, can enable bigotry, persecution, war, and mass murder.

I agree with you. But this observation, however true, is not relevant to the argument I'm making in this thread.