To continue the trend set by Dev, I was also going to respond to the blog with a long comment. Fortunately, this long enough to stand on its own. So I advise you to read the first blog, then Dev’s response, and then this. I apologize for all that work.
There are several major problems with the evolution example. According to Hume, natural justice is a subjective institution that is established by society. Society chooses to approve of actions that become institutionalized and accepted as just. So, if justice is a conscious decision that is made by society, your five fingers example doesn’t work. Society chooses what is just or unjust, evolution does not give humans the ability to consciously choose between 3 or 5 fingers. The key difference is choice. Your example removes the crucial choice element.
However, your evolution example does help to highlight another major problem with cultural norms. Even if we can recognize a cultural norm and even if we can widely agree that it is just, how do we change it? In other words, can society change its mind and deem something that was once acceptable as now unjust? For example, if it accepts slavery as just, can it ever change its mind? If it can, then how long does it take to implement that slow-as-molasses process? That is the problem with cultural norms. It is ambiguous because it does not provide clear rules or procedures to follow. Instead, we should rely on a set of universal laws that guide our conduct.
Secondly, we aren’t at disagreement that justice exists everywhere. However, the fact that justice exists everywhere is not at all what “universal law” means. That is exactly the opposite of “universal law”. By definition, universal laws are laws that must be the same everywhere. They are absolute. The whole point is that morals are not relative. We have one set of values (given by God or inherent in nature) that guide us. Certain actions are always wrong and unjust because they conflict with the natural law. That is why Hume’s description of natural justice is problematic.
What I think is missing in your summary of the evolutionary progression of justice/ human hands is that in both cases humans have a limited sense of choice in the matter. Our hands have five fingers because we as a species chose to use our hands as would necessitate the use of five fingers. If the whole of the human race decided not to use their hands for a few generations, then there might be an evolutionary jump to handless human beings.
ReplyDeleteIt is the same with justice. On a minute level, we choose what is just and what isn't with our actions in exchange with each other. But those actions are already largely prescribed to us by those who came before us.
Lastly, my disagreement with you argument isn't really much of a disagreement. You use the words universal and natural interchangeably, and I see no reason why we should be loose with our language.
Maybe we can continue this debate at the next symposium.
I look forward to that conversation. I have just one last point of clarification (its the very last thing, i promise).
ReplyDeleteI am absolutely not using universal and natural law interchangeably. Universality is a key component of natural law. Natural laws, by definition, must be universal, and eternal. So when i am talking about universal laws, i am only emphasizing that component of the natural law