Ethics and Teleology

[Tree of Life]

Here's the formal argument:

1. Evaluative language assumes teleology.
2. It is appropriate to evaluate human actions and persons.
3. Therefore human beings must have some purpose.

A brief explanation and defense of the argument:

Premise 1 - evaluative language assumes teleology. When we say that something is right, wrong, good, or bad we are speaking about the relationship between the thing and its intended purpose. When we say "my watch is bad" we may be referring to its inability to tell time. The watch is only bad because it's not functioning as it was intended to function. When we say "this is a good tomato" we are referring to the excellence and maturity of the tomato. A good tomato is being what a tomato is - what the genetics of the tomato plant intend for it to be. Anytime evaluative language is used some teleology is assumed.

Premise 2 - It is appropriate to evaluate human persons and actions. Certain people can fairly be called "good" and others "bad" or "evil". Certain actions can fairly be called "good" and others "bad" or "evil". Kindness is usually good. Cruelty is usually bad.

Premise 3 - Therefore human beings must have some purpose. Because we evaluate humans and human actions and this evaluation is appropriate there must be some purpose for human beings - something a human is supposed to be. A good human is one who is functioning as humans were intended to function. A bad human is one who is not functioning as humans were intended to function.

But as soon as we get into the realm of teleology for human beings we are very close to theism. How can it be said that a human being has a purpose if there is no creator to give such a purpose?

 

[jayem]

Why does the concept of a "purpose" for human beings presume an external creator? We assign purposes to things for our own reasons. The fact that petroleum is good as a fuel, and wood is a good building material are purely human contrivances, based on our needs. And likewise, we ourselves decide what purpose there is to our own lives. No other entity needed.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But as soon as we get into the realm of teleology for human beings we are very close to theism. How can it be said that a human being has a purpose if there is no creator to give such a purpose?

IMV, human beings have a naturally appropriate purpose due to their natures as living beings that have potentialities towards which their actualities aim. A human being has a function and power (for instance, to grow from child to adult) that implicitly carries with it a kind of purpose (or aim), and not because of any deity, but rather because of its nature.

IOWs, I don't think that we are actually as close to theism as all that. Life is naturally teleological, though perhaps the word teleonomic is more apt. As an atheist and a naturalist, I'm not particularly concerned about the theism angle.

A bad human is one who is not functioning as humans were intended to function.

And so you can see, intent has nothing to do with it. What matters is what a human being's natural function is, and that is determined by her nature.



eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tree of Life]

"Nature" seems ambiguous to me. Could you further say what you mean?

 

[bhsmte]

Here's the formal argument:

1. Evaluative language assumes teleology.
2. It is appropriate to evaluate human actions and persons.
3. Therefore human beings must have some purpose.

A brief explanation and defense of the argument:

Premise 1 - evaluative language assumes teleology. When we say that something is right, wrong, good, or bad we are speaking about the relationship between the thing and its intended purpose. When we say "my watch is bad" we may be referring to its inability to tell time. The watch is only bad because it's not functioning as it was intended to function. When we say "this is a good tomato" we are referring to the excellence and maturity of the tomato. A good tomato is being what a tomato is - what the genetics of the tomato plant intend for it to be. Anytime evaluative language is used some teleology is assumed.

Premise 2 - It is appropriate to evaluate human persons and actions. Certain people can fairly be called "good" and others "bad" or "evil". Certain actions can fairly be called "good" and others "bad" or "evil". Kindness is usually good. Cruelty is usually bad.

Premise 3 - Therefore human beings must have some purpose. Because we evaluate humans and human actions and this evaluation is appropriate there must be some purpose for human beings - something a human is supposed to be. A good human is one who is functioning as humans were intended to function. A bad human is one who is not functioning as humans were intended to function.

But as soon as we get into the realm of teleology for human beings we are very close to theism. How can it be said that a human being has a purpose if there is no creator to give such a purpose?

Why can't each human create their own purpose from their own experiences in life? Why does this purpose have to come from a God, any God?

 

[True Scotsman]

IMV, human beings have a naturally appropriate purpose due to their natures as living beings that have potentialities towards which their actualities aim. A human being has a function and power (for instance, to grow from child to adult) that implicitly carries with it a kind of purpose (or aim), and not because of any deity, but rather because of its nature.

IOWs, I don't think that we are actually as close to theism as all that. Life is naturally teleological, though perhaps the word teleonomic is more apt. As an atheist and a naturalist, I'm not particularly concerned about the theism angle.



And so you can see, intent has nothing to do with it. What matters is what a human being's natural function is, and that is determined by her nature.



eudaimonia,

Mark

What you said. I can't say it any better than that.

 

[Eudaimonist]

"Nature" seems ambiguous to me. Could you further say what you mean?

The nature of a thing refers to its form and function. It is basically that which is involved with existence as that being -- all of its properties and their implications.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tree of Life]

The nature of a thing refers to its form and function. It is basically that which is involved with existence as that being -- all of its properties and their implications.


eudaimonia,

Mark

This is also ambiguous and a bit circular. I said that evaluating human actions depends on humans having a purpose. You seem to agree but you think that this purpose comes from their nature. What is their nature? You say it's their function. But function is another way of saying purpose. So purpose comes from nature and nature is purpose? I'm confused.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I said that evaluating human actions depends on humans having a purpose. You seem to agree but you think that this purpose comes from their nature. What is their nature? You say it's their function.

I said form and function.

The heart has a form and function, which is a contracting muscle with chambers that pumps blood for the sake of the survival of the organism. Think of how the heart is structured, and how it operates. Imagine that you are a medical doctor. What would you know about the heart? Yes, some of what you know is what the heart's purpose is in the human body, but you know more than just that.

But function is another way of saying purpose. So purpose comes from nature and nature is purpose? I'm confused.

Nature isn't purpose, but it involves purpose. There's nothing circular about that.

The nature of a human being is, in part, to grow and mature as a living being, e.g., from childhood to adulthood. Yes, this involves purpose, but consider a human being's biological form as well, which gives her the power to change along certain lines given the right conditions. Form gives some idea of what the function of a biological entity is.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

Here's the formal argument:

1. Evaluative language assumes teleology.
2. It is appropriate to evaluate human actions and persons.
3. Therefore human beings must have some purpose.

A brief explanation and defense of the argument:

Premise 1 - evaluative language assumes teleology. When we say that something is right, wrong, good, or bad we are speaking about the relationship between the thing and its intended purpose. When we say "my watch is bad" we may be referring to its inability to tell time. The watch is only bad because it's not functioning as it was intended to function. When we say "this is a good tomato" we are referring to the excellence and maturity of the tomato. A good tomato is being what a tomato is - what the genetics of the tomato plant intend for it to be. Anytime evaluative language is used some teleology is assumed.

Premise 2 - It is appropriate to evaluate human persons and actions. Certain people can fairly be called "good" and others "bad" or "evil". Certain actions can fairly be called "good" and others "bad" or "evil". Kindness is usually good. Cruelty is usually bad.

Premise 3 - Therefore human beings must have some purpose. Because we evaluate humans and human actions and this evaluation is appropriate there must be some purpose for human beings - something a human is supposed to be. A good human is one who is functioning as humans were intended to function. A bad human is one who is not functioning as humans were intended to function.

But as soon as we get into the realm of teleology for human beings we are very close to theism. How can it be said that a human being has a purpose if there is no creator to give such a purpose?

Awesome argument, and virtue ethics all the way through! Alasdaire MacIntyre used a version of this argument to refute Hume's otherwise brilliant "Ought/Is" fallacy.

But I'm critical of the second conclusion that purpose presupposes a creator. Purpose can easily presuppose evolutionary biological adaptations. Of course, purpose implies language, which implies signs, which implies human beings as sign-using creatures, which distinguishes them incredibly from animals as the only triadic entities in the universe (signifier-signified-self). So although I think purpose does fit well with theism, it isn't an argument for God per se, at least not without complicated details to the stuff mentioned above.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Does a caterpillar figure out how to be a butterfly? Can it reason itself into flight? Does it look forwards to getting out of the cocoon?

The caterpillar is hungry, it eats. The caterpillar is full and swollen, it makes silk. The caterpillar is tired of the world and cocoons himself in seclusion. There he is dissolved and becomes a new creature.

Are humans capable of such a transformation of being?


The caterpillar does not become a butterfly by figuring out all the steps and by knowing what a butterfly is. The caterpillar only knows the step he is on, and he completes it.

Then the next step naturally arises.



In summation; no matter how well you think you "know your ultimate purpose", you will only get there by completing the single step you are currently on. And the steps will change you. The goal is not to see new things, but to grow new eyes! Caterpillars go from 12 light receiving lenses to over 12000!




I love to sit a marvel at the beauty of the whole forest, but I can only actually navigate through it, tree by tree.