Written to a devotee who tries to create an argument for vegetarianism based on Darwins teachings:
—
Dear Prabhu! Pamho, agtSP!
I don’t think you can use Darwinism to argue in favor of any morality. It’s the naturalistic fallacy to try to derive an “ought” from an “is”. On Darwin we might as well argue that just as animals commit no moral wrong in killing, so we humans, who on Darwinism are also just animals, do no wrong in killing. In fact, many atheists will say that an alien race superior to us would do no wrong in killing us, so they would have no problem with your argument.
This reminds me of the movie “Predator” where some aliens come down to hunt humans for fun. They are far superior to humans. So just like we can hunt animals, they can hunt us. Of course the movie challenges us humans – hunters and meat-eaters – to admit they are inconsistent if they claim these aliens are doing something wrong. But it can do not more than that; you can’t change it into a Darwinistic moral argument for vegetarianism.
—
Further thoughts:
Some might argue that it’s good if we also can establish vegetarianism on a Darwinian view, but it is crucial to understand that from a naturalistic world view no normative morality can be derived. If God does not exist then everything is permitted. The whole problem with saying that we can derive a normative morality from Darwinism is that it contradicts our scriptures and will allow the atheists to tell us that we don’t need God as the ontological foundation of morality. Thus we will hamper our own preaching.
4 responses so far ↓
JRD // 01/03/2009 at 09:17 |
Ajitakrishna prabhu,
Hare Krishna.
Thank you for the comment, although I have to say I don’t think you are being logical or reasonable. I think you have deviated from the philosophy of Krishna consciousness.
Regarding the naturalistic fallacy, many philosophers reject this. Have you read Hilary Putnam? If someone says the house is on fire, doesn’t that also imply an ought statement? The house is on fire = get out of the house. What about the many thousands of statements in the Bhagavatam that say the world is a place of suffering, therefore you should try to get out? Or: the soul is a servant of Krishna, therefore you should serve Krishna and not your senses. I think you are offensive because you are implying that Bhagavatam and Srila Prabhupada are fallacious. Prabhupada wanted philosophy to serve God, not to undermine shastra, which is what you have done. Have you read his purport on 1.5.22? I think you should study this purport and give up your offensive mentality. Your arguments go against Srila Prabhupada’s desires.
You are also inconsistent. On the one hand you say I can’t use Darwin to argue for vegetarianism, yet you say that people or aliens could use Darwinism to kill humans. So can Darwinism be used inspire certain actions or not? You want to have it both ways: Darwinism can’t be used to justify good moral action, but Darwinism must be used to justify bad moral actions. Is that your position?
Your servant,
Janakirama dasa
Ajit // 01/03/2009 at 21:15 |
Dear Janikirama Prabhu!
Let’s take a look at it:
“If someone says the house is on fire, doesn’t that also imply an ought statement? The house is on fire = get out of the house.”
There is, obviously, no ought implied in the statement “the house is on fire”. The two statements are completely different in nature. It’s as silly as saying “there is a bus” = “therefore you ought to take the bus”. The problem is: Where do the ought come from? When giving a valid deductive argument the conclusion is implied in the premises. But there is no ought in the premises of this argument:
1. The house in on fire
2. You are in the house
3. Therefore you ought to get out of the house
The conclusion is a non sequitur.
“What about the many thousands of statements in the Bhagavatam that say the world is a place of suffering, therefore you should try to get out? Or: the soul is a servant of Krishna, therefore you should serve Krishna and not your senses.”
It’s common in argumentation that we use hidden premises – which means that we are not stating all the premises – because some of them are so obvious that we don’t need to state them.
In regard to one of your examples:
1. All souls ought to serve Krishna and not their senses (hidden premise)
2. You are a soul
3. Therefore you ought to serve Krishna
No “ought” comes from a “is” unless a hidden premise of an absolute moral law exist. To accommodate your ideas we might say that an “ought” can come from a “spiritual is” which means that if we imply the existence of Krishna and His moral laws then we can deduce an “ought” from statements like “you are a soul”. But then again, to imply Krishna’s moral law would be precisely the same as arguing with a hidden premise – which Prabhupada and sastra do a lot since it is normal practice.
But from a “material is” comes no “ought” and that’s the problem with all naturalistic world views – like Darwinism. “Oughts” are not a material thing.
“You are also inconsistent. On the one hand you say I can’t use Darwin to argue for vegetarianism, yet you say that people or aliens could use Darwinism to kill humans. So can Darwinism be used inspire certain actions or not? You want to have it both ways: Darwinism can’t be used to justify good moral action, but Darwinism must be used to justify bad moral actions. Is that your position?”
My point is not that you can justify it. My point is that “no justification is needed”. If Darwinism is true then there’s nothing we ought to do or not to do. Everything is permitted. It’s neither morally wrong nor morally right to kill for fun. It just is! There’s a total absence of any objective normative morality. Thus it becomes impossible to condemn killing other for sports and you can therefore do it if you feel like it. Just like you can take take red socks on if you like. It’s all morally neutral.
JRD // 02/03/2009 at 09:29 |
Ajitakrishna,
Generally we consider someone mentally retarded or insane if they don’t respond to statements about nature with intelligent action. If someone doesn’t understand “leave the house” from “the house is on fire,” then they are considered a harm to themselves and others, and perhaps eligible for state funding. Your philosophy has no connection with reality, which is against the basic premise of KC, therefore you are offensive.
I think your is/ought philosophy is a contamination you’ve picked up from Western philosophy. You are so arrogant that you think you know who is a deviant and who isn’t, but you haven’t even corrected yourself.
You haven’t even understood Darwinism. If you want to make comments about Darwinism and morality, you should at least read the books on it, eg James Moore’s latest book. I see you’ve read the book on Darwin and Hitler, but there is of course more to the story than just that.
Preacher heal yourself!
Ajit // 06/03/2009 at 16:08 |
Dear Prabhu,
The only reason we sometimes understand “leave the house” from “the house is on fire” is because we are able to supply the hidden premises in the argument the person addressing us trying to make. That person knows that we, due to our moral education, should be able to supply these premises and thus doesn’t need to state them. But the premises are not within the words “the house is on fire”. In fact, if we should follow that line of thinking we might as well come to conclude “get in the house and save the children and the dog” or “put more fuel on the house, Osama Bin Laden is in there”. We have to look at the context and our previous moral education in order to be able to supply the hidden premises. If you were to say “there is thin ice on the lake” to a small child the child might not be sufficiently educated to know that then “I should stay away from the ice” and it’s not that the child will learn this is you repeat “there is thin ice on the lake”, “there is thin ice on the lake”, “there is thin ice on the lake” etc. Why? Because the “ought” is not implied or hidden somewhere in the words “there is thin ice on the lake”. They have to by supplied by the child and this requires that the child has been sufficiently morally educated.
My moral philosophy is picked from Prabhupada who said – and this is common sense – that without the existence of God there’s is no question of morality. Thus there can’t be any morality on a naturalistic world view like unguided evolution.
See:
http://vaisnavaapologetics.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/the-moral-argument/
http://vaisnavaapologetics.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/prabhupada-used-the-moral-argument/
Darwin’s morality can be found in his own books and other writings. I have it from them and from scholarly sources as well. He was a moral relativist, but he was inconsistent with his own views in that he held a normative moral position inspite of his believing in moral relativism.