Back to Chapter Six
Back to Table of Contents
Chapter Seven: That’s Why They Call Them "Animals.”
Donna (breaking the silence): You know, I took several philosophy courses in college, too. You’re reminding me of something we studied. Some philosopher once said, “It’s better to be a discontented Socrates than a contented pig.”
Donald: Socrates was recognized as a shining example of morality—wasn’t he?
Donna: Indeed.
Neville: So what was that philosopher saying—that the life of a morally principled man is superior to that of a brute animal?
Donna (thinking): I believe that’s part of it. But there’s more. He also means that any man who permits himself to be driven in action by his urges or impulses is no different or better than an animal. After all, animals too experience and act on their desires.
Donald: So human beings can and should act on moral principles—not urges.
Donna: Right. And I think the philosopher’s belief was that Socrates acted on rational moral principles—you know, ideas that he had thought out carefully, not just feelings or emotions of the moment.
Neville: Rational moral principles—you mean, for example, that “honesty is the best policy” or “early to bed, early to rise makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise.” Ideas like that?
Donna (nods): Well, those are more like slogans than moral principles, but that’s the basic idea. For example, someone in a given set of circumstances might feel that lying or stealing is in his best interest. But in contrast, the principle that “honesty is the best policy” asserts a conviction that a man’s long-term, rational self-interest is served by honesty, not by dishonesty—and in all instances, not merely under special circumstances or unusual conditions. A very similar conclusion to the one that Donald and I have argued for tonight.
Neville: So is it accurate to say that morality is a rational subject or field—not simply ideas that come from an individual’s emotions?
Donald: Well, philosophers often disagree. But I think it is safe to say that many of them agree that morality is a rational discipline. Certainly, Socrates held that—and whomever Donna just quoted regarding Socrates.
Neville: And the word “rational” means what—a reference to thinking and studying and using one’s brain? Not guiding one’s choices and actions by drives or instincts or feelings?
Donna: That’s part of it.
Neville: So, immoral people act on urges, not reason. I guess that’s why we call violent criminals “animals.”
Donna: Yes. And “rational” also means that your conclusions, your convictions, your basic beliefs are grounded in facts. You both took a logic class in college, didn’t you? (They both nod.) Remember the way the professor stressed the need of evidence to support a conclusion? To be rational is to act, not on emotions, but to always provide facts in support of your desires and beliefs, to keep your thinking tied to the things you can observe through your eyes, ears, sense of touch, etc., and not to lurch into fantasy beliefs simply because they make you feel good or suit your pre-conceived notions or prejudices.
Neville: So let me see if I’ve got this straight. According to many philosophers, a moral person may feel a desire to lie or cheat or steal—but he won’t do it. He refrains not necessarily because of a powerful countervailing feeling, but because rationally, in his mind, in so many words, he holds some such principle as “honesty is the best policy.” In effect, he understands, just as we’ve discussed tonight, that moral virtue not only benefits other people, but is also an indispensable aid to his own quest to live a happy and fulfilling life. That morality is necessary for human beings—all of them— to live a flourishing happy life. Is that right?
Donna: Yes, I believe it is.
Neville (thinking carefully): That’s interesting. I’ve never been religious and I’ve always been taught that morality is the province of religion, of faith in the Bible and its teachings. I know, of course, that both historically and currently, many philosophers are not religious. But I never really thought about the difference between a religious morality and a secular one. What about religious faith and the Bible? According to you, isn’t that the basis of a proper morality?
Donald (his eyes growing wider): That’s what was irritating me like an itch I couldn’t scratch. While we’ve been talking tonight—(he looks at his watch)—and it’s getting late—but while we’ve been speaking, something bothered me. Many good points have been made—all sorts of things for us to think about. But some concern was tugging at the fringes of my mind, and I couldn’t quite identify it. But that’s it.
Donna and Neville (together): What? What is it?
Donald (slightly conflicted, but genuinely excited): I always thought it was a waste of time to try to teach an atheist about morality. I always thought an atheist could never understand why they should be moral. Well, look at what we’ve discussed so far. We’ve argued, convincingly I may add, that every single one of us benefits enormously by being hard-working and productive, rather than being a parasite mooching off of others—that every individual also gains from being unfailingly truthful, rather than being a liar—and, finally, that justice, rather than injustice serves a man’s long-term self-interest. No doubt, we could continue, making more points along these same lines—but at some point we are justified in drawing an overall conclusion. And I think it is pretty clear what that conclusion must be.
Donna: That people can live well if they are moral—and that they cannot if they are immoral. Just the opposite of what you proposed earlier – that happiness and success require immorality.
Donald: Right. I think what we have established is that morality is a necessary condition of a fulfilling and flourishing life.
Donna nods vigorously, Neville in a way that shows he is starting to be convinced.
Donna: And that’s a good thing—right?
Donald: Without a doubt. But for you, Neville, there’s a hitch.
Donna and Neville nod, seeing what’s coming:
Neville: Go on.
Donald: To put it simply, we have won the challenge. Good and evil are not based on the personal desires or whims of any individual. Also: just as you required of us, there is no mention of God in our argument. What does the Bible and faith and religion have to do with any of our points? We’ve actually established a rational, secular approach to morality, not a religious one. We’ve shown that men must be virtuous in order to have a good life, not in order to have a good afterlife. We’ve shown that if they lie and cheat and steal, they will suffer harmful consequences in this world too, not be condemned to suffering only in the next one. We’ve actually demonstrated that human life requires morality, not that it is only a supernatural power which does.
Neville (Stopping to think about the case that Donald and Donna have made.) I very much like what you’ve said—and I’m increasingly inclined to agree with you. And to thank you. (He shakes his head.) I didn’t think it possible, but you have shown me a moral code without using the crutch of religion. Quite the reverse, in fact.
Donna: But remember—all of these points come eventually from God. He created the world, He created man, He set human existence up such that virtue leads to joy and vice to misery, He is responsible for all of this—not man.
Neville listens quietly, then shakes his head sadly: That’s not what you’ve shown. You’ve shown that morality is utterly secular—that it is a requirement to live well in the here-and-now—and then you’ve stuck God on at the end as an afterthought. You’ve given an endless series of facts to prove your main point—your entire discussion was presented in earthly terms—and then you introduced God at the end without providing any evidence whatever. A man—of the type you praised—would accept only your fact-based arguments.
Donald (sadly): Yes it’s true that regarding both God’s existence, and His role in morality, there is no escaping the need for faith.
Neville: Correct. For the past two millennia, religious philosophers have fallen back on faith when their rational arguments for God have failed. I do not believe that there is a rational way to establish the existence of a supernatural being in the way you established the existence of an earthly morality. One is a matter of proof. The other is a matter of blind faith.
Donna (shaking her head): I don’t agree. I do not believe that God and morality can be split in the way you suggest.
Neville (rising): Well, I don’t envy you the task of attempting to prove God’s existence—or any link between God and the worldly moral code that you have demonstrated. (He pauses.) But it’s after eleven, and any theological discussion will have to wait for another night.
Donna (smiling): I’m warning you. I’m inviting you back for dinner and a discussion to establish God’s existence.
Donald: Amen.
Neville: (also smiling): OK, but don’t expect the same kind of success you’ve had tonight. But thanks for a great dinner—and an even greater discussion.
(Neville shakes Donald’s hand, hugs Donna, and the friends say goodnight.)
Back to Chapter Six
Back to Table of Contents