BETWEEN TWO ‘ETHICS’ — WHICH WILL I CHOOSE? — PART III

The Old Testament, in its account of the beginnings of human history, provides us with an illustration of authoritarian ethics.  The sin of Adam and Eve is not explained in terms of the act itself; eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil was not fundamentally evil/bad.  In fact, the ‘People of the Book’ religions (Jewish, Christian, Muslim) agree that the ability to differentiate between good and evil is necessary for us humans.  Their sin was disobedience, the challenge to God’s authority (as an aside, why Adam and Eve never ate of the fruit of the tree of life is beyond me — they were not forbidden to eat of the fruit of this tree.  What does this say about us?).

Humanistic ethics, in contrast to authoritarian ethics may likewise be distinguished by ‘formal’ and ‘material’ criteria.  Formally, it is rooted in the principle that we humans can determine the criterion for virtue and sin, and not an authority transcending us.  Materially, it is rooted in the principle that ‘good’ is what is good for us as humans and ‘evil’ is what is harmful to us as humans — the main criterion, for some the sole criterion, of ethical value being our welfare as humans.

Humanists believe that man is ‘the measure of all things.’  The humanistic position is that there is nothing higher and nothing more dignified than human existence.  Against this position it has been argued that it is in the very nature of ethical behavior to be related to something ‘transcending’ man, and therefore a system which recognizes man and his interest alone cannot be truly moral, that its object would be merely the isolated, egotistical individual.

Humanists say that this argument is based on a fallacy, for the principle that good is what is good for man does not imply that man’s nature is such that egotism or isolation are good for him.  It does not mean, they say, that our purpose as humans can be fulfilled in a state of unrelatedness to the world outside of ‘humanness.’  It is, they contend, one of the characteristics of human nature that man finds fulfillment and happiness in relationship to other human beings.  To ‘love one’s neighbor’ is, therefore, inherent in our nature.  Love is not a higher power nor is it our duty.  Love is our nature.

So, which ethic will I choose?  Why this choice?  And is it, as some suggest, truly and ‘either-or’ choice?  How would it be if I decided that it is a ‘both-and’ choice?  And what would such a choice look like?  What are the consequences — intended and unintended — of such a ‘both-and’ choice?