Is “Right” and “Wrong” Simply a Matter of “Human Flourishing”?

When it comes to moral truth, where do we get our notions of right and wrong? Can we generate binding, obligatory concepts without grounding them in the nature of a Holy God? As an atheist, I thought so for many years. Like Sam Harris (author of The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values), I argued that we can establish the moral value of any particular action by simply evaluating its impact on human well-being (something Harris typically refers to as “human flourishing”). Harris, a committed and vocal atheist, accepts the existence of objective moral truths but likens the establishment of such truths to a game of chess. In any particular game, each player must decide how to move based on the resulting effect. If you are trying to win the game, some moves are “good” and some moves are “bad”; some will lead you to victory and some will lead you to defeat. “Good” and “bad” then, are evaluated based on whether or not they accomplish the goal of winning the game. Harris redefines “good” (in the context of human beings) as whatever supports or encourages the well-being of conscious creatures; if an action increases human well-being (human “flourishing”) it is “good”, if it decreases well-being, it is “bad”.

Right Wrong Humans

What, however, do we mean when we talk about “flourishing”? It’s one thing to evaluate a behavior in terms of its impact on survival, and if we are honest with one another, this is really what drives Natural Selection. But Harris recognizes survival, as a singular goal, can lead to all kinds of morally condemnable misbehavior. History is replete with examples of actions that secured the survival of one group at the immoral expense of another. Harris suggests the goal is something more; the goal is “flourishing”. Human well-being involves more than simply living, it involves living a particular way. Human flourishing comprises a particular quality of life; one in which we honor the rights of others and seek a certain kind of character in order to become a particular kind of human group that has maximized its potential. See the problem here?

Harris has already imported moral values into his model, even as he seeks to explain where these values come from in the first place. One can hardly define the “maximization” of human wellbeing without asserting a number of moral values. What, beyond mere survival, achieves our “maximization” as humans? What does this even mean? The minute we move from mere survival to a particular kind of “worthy” survival, we have to employ moral principles and ideas. Concepts of sacrifice, nobility and honor must be assumed foundationally, but these are not morally neutral notions. Human “flourishing” assumes a number of virtues and priorities (depending on who is defining it), and these values and characteristics precede the enterprise Harris seeks to describe. Harris cannot articulate the formation of moral truths without first assuming some of these truths to establish his definition of “flourishing”. He’s borrowing pre-existent, objective moral notions about worth, value and purpose, while holding a worldview that argues against any pre-existing moral notions.

If, as a police officer, if I was watching Harris’ chess game and observed one of the players make a “bad” move, could I arrest the player? No. the definitions of “good” and “bad” Harris offers here are morally neutral. On the other hand, if one of the players was able to successfully cheat (without detection) and managed to win the game in this manner, could we call this behavior bad? He did, after all accomplish the goal of winning the game. We can only call this behavior “bad” if we begin with a notion about winning that identifies undetected cheating as a prohibited act; a moral truth that pre-exists the “chess game” and ought to govern its moves. Even though there are times when cheating can help us win (or survive) without any physical or emotional consequence, we theists recognize we’ve done something that “damages our soul” and offends the Holy nature of God (even if our behavior goes undetected by our peers). When the atheist recognizes human flourishing as something more than mere physical or emotional survival, he too acknowledges the spiritual and moral nature of our existence, as he borrows from our theistic view to construct his own.


Free CrossExamined.org Resource

Get the first chapter of "Stealing From God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" in PDF.

Powered by ConvertKit
14 replies
  1. John B. Moore says:

    It’s easy to understand human flourishing if you’ll just stop and think. For example, did you ever consider the long term versus the short term? Many of the “morally condemnable” problems with consequentialism disappear when you consider the long term. Don’t be too short-sighted.

    Another aspect of human flourishing that people tend to ignore is that of the individual versus the society. Many of the “morally condemnable” problems arise from narrow individualism, but human culture is built on cooperation. Individuals tend to thrive best within a cooperative culture.

    Christians are too quick to dismiss moral consequentialism. It takes a lot more thoughtful consideration.

    Reply
    • InfiniteTruth says:

      Why is human flourishing good? I don’t think it’s good. Overpopulation will just destroy the planet. Also why should I cooperate? Cooperation will simply produce human flourishing and destroy the planet.

      Reply
    • Mike says:

      “Evolution selected us to be social animals,”–how so ? Process?
      “so we have traits like compassion and trust as well as envy and anger.”- can you support how evolution created these non material attributes and why ?

      Reply
      • Andy Ryan says:

        Mike, you can breed these traits into dogs within a few generations, despite them being ‘non material attributes’. As for ‘process?’, read a decent book on evolution if you’re unclear on the science.

        Reply
        • Ed Vaessen says:

          Andy,

          This shithead Mike is not interested in your answer. He is only wanting to keep you busy and with a few sentences he can make you spent all your time in vain.

          Reply
    • Mike says:

      Short term, long term–still implying a moral judgment though.
      “but human culture is built on cooperation. Individuals tend to thrive best within a cooperative culture.-” no one is arguing this, sure, but who decides whats best ? what is the initial guide here to establish this culture? and is this inclusive of all cultures? whats about what is best for what culture means taking the other culture out ?
      “Christians are too quick to dismiss moral consequentialism.”—what study research brought you to this conclusion that all Christians do this ?

      Reply
  2. Bob Seidensticker says:

    “Can we generate binding, obligatory concepts without grounding them in the nature of a Holy God?”

    Why make it so hard? Evolution selected us to be social animals, so we have traits like compassion and trust as well as envy and anger. There’s no evidence that morality is binding (except by law).

    Reply
    • InfiniteTruth says:

      Yes, but you’re presupposing that compassion is good and envy and anger is bad, thus your argument is circular. Morals are not by themselves obligatory, they’re simply prescriptive. As such, they will always come from a command, law, or ought. Since objective morals exist, they must come from an objective moral giver; God.

      Reply
      • Andy Ryan says:

        What makes God an objective moral giver?
        What’s your evidence for the existence of objective morals?

        Reply
        • James Shiers says:

          Andy, From where do you derive your concept of the highest standard for comparison, i.e. absolute “good” or perfection. From what does your vision or construct present itself, other than your own mind?

          Reply
          • Andy Ryan says:

            James, it would be nice if people could answer my questions before they ask me to address theirs. I keep answering people’s questions here and they seldom get around to mine. For the record, I don’t know what you mean by ‘absolute good or perfection’. They both imply in turn another standard. If you talk about a chess player having a ‘perfect game’ then it’s in relation to the rules of chess. A perfect circle relates to the mathematical definition of a circle. By contrast, ‘absolute good’ as a separate platonic ideal doesn’t seem to make make sense. You’d need to first define the standard that is being perfectly embodied.

  3. Devon Cray says:

    If God wasn’t real. If everything was put into place by pure chance. Then no one has a true purpose. No one “matters”. If this is the case then, it is “okay” to murder someone because all they are is a sack of molecules. If morals are objective then there has to be a higher being [God] putting that into place. If you believe that its “wrong” to murder a child then your argument that morals are subjective is completely illogical.

    Reply

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] APOLOGETICS Is “Right” and “Wrong” Simply a “Matter of Human Flourishing?” […]

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *