1 of 1

Write now Article Tools

Page 2 of 2

than B.' Last night's class was no different. Some people claimed that we ought to let invasive species run their course. Others objected and said that we should curb the effects of these species. Anytime you make a claim that someone ought to,' or that you should,' or that one course of action is better than' another you are a making a value judgment. Very few people argue that we should discount value judgments. The controversy is in how we justify these value judgments. Let's take a quick look at how naturalists and supernaturalists justify making value judgments.

Supernaturalists, as their name suggests, make a claim to a standard that exists outside of nature to justify their value judgments. [Note: Supernaturalists believe that something exists outside of nature and includes many of the world religions including Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. Not everything has a natural explanation.] For example, Christianity justifies its claims that some actions are right (and thus better) than others on the nature and character of Yahweh. Buddhists call upon the Tao' (a pre-existent standard outside of space and time) to justify their judgments.

Naturalists, on the other hand, often have to rely on other philosophies to justify themselves. Many in my field rely on Darwinism to guide their actions. Survival of the fittest' is their battle cry. But this rationale quickly disintegrates when applied to human actions. Imagine if we used survival of the fittest' as a business model. We could justify industrial espionage, fraud, and even murder, because "hey, we're just trying to survive." This principle works in the animal world but not in human society. Other naturalists try to use humanism as a justification. They claim that certain actions are good because they bring relief to man's estate or will better ensure the survival of our species. But this just pushes the problem of justification back another step. Why should we strive to bring relief to man's estate or ensure the survival of our species? Just because? No acceptable answer has been presented to this author.

Without inciting some kind of standard outside of Nature there is no viable way to justify value judgments. If your philosophy cannot justify value judgments you have unwittingly given up your ability to make any value judgments at all. The inability for naturalism to justify value judgments should make those who hold to this philosophy reexamine their beliefs.

Learn more about this author, M.B. Davis.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2

Add your voice

Know something about Naturalism: A philosophically viable option??
We want to hear your view. Write now!