Nietzsche talks about how Christian fundamentalism is outdated. And Bishop Spong goes even farther, arguing that theism is no longer a valid way of understanding God. In that regard, he carries on the meme first promoted by Nietzsche that God is Dead. But, that said, it is much harder to prove a negative than it is to prove a positive. The fact of the matter is that despite the advances of science and technology, the Big Bang that started it all is still shrouded in mystery.
But because our origins are shrouded in mystery and our creation is just as mysterious as ever, it therefore follows that we are interdependent on each other as opposed to a God who is far beyond anything we can comprehend. Try as we might, we can never break the interdependence that we have with each other. One can quit work, start blogging, and become successful, yet they cannot become what they are without the goodwill of their readers. An author can't become what they are without the goodwill of the publisher and readers. A start-up business can't succeed without the goodwill of the customers.
And the concept of interdependence applies to many other fields as well. We are dependent on the goodwill of Mother Earth in order to survive despite the way we recklessly pollute this planet. In that regard, the Earth is almost just as much of a living being as we are. We are just as dependent on China and India to come up with ways of reducing carbon emissions as they are on us. Thus, not only does Nietzsche destroy the rational basis for fundamentalism as the basis for thought, he also destroys the basis for the concept of individualism. For instance:
Zarathustra presents the Übermensch as the creator of new values. In this way, it appears as a solution to the problem of the death of God and nihilism. Because the Übermensch acts to create new values within the moral vacuum of nihilism, there is nothing that this creative act would not justify. Alternatively, in the absence of this creation, there are no grounds upon which to criticize or justify any action, including the particular values created and the means by which they are promulgated.
In order to avoid a relapse into Platonic Idealism or asceticism, the creation of these new values cannot be motivated by the same instincts that gave birth to those tables of values. Instead, they must be motivated by a love of this world and of life. Whereas Nietzsche diagnosed the Judeo-Christian-democratic value system as a reaction against life and hence destructive in a sense, the new values which the Übermensch will be responsible for will be life-affirming and creative.
In other words, let's just use the shooting of the seven people in the church in Tennessee as an example -- we have a choice between creating a set of values that are life-affirming that do not confine us into the prison of fundamentalism, or we can retreat into the kind of nihilism wherein we would have no right to criticize the shooting of the seven in Tennessee; after all, there are no more values in this world. Neither would we have a right to criticize the abuses of power within the Bush administration such as torture, renditions, the war crimes, and the attacking of the Constitution.
If we understand Nietzsche's plan as a prescription for humanity rather than a form of right-wing individualism, then we can understand him as calling for a new morality that is based on interdependence, guided by strong personalities who do not fetter themselves for fear of the power of the mob, like many of our leaders are. Nietzsche writes that the death of God leads to the loss of universal principle, putting himself at odds with Kant and others.
But let's go back to his belief that the Ubermensch would be life-affirming, as opposed to life-destroying. If that is the case, then Nietzsche has stated an absolute -- that we must live in the here and now as opposed to some other world. So, even if the rational basis for Christian fundamentalism is destroyed, it does not follow that the basis for universal morality is thus destroyed.
So, instead of that, let's turn to Kant, and his efforts to create a secularized moral system. As stated above, we know that this world in which we live is part of a web of interdependence. It therefore follows that any of his Categorical Imperatives must arise from this web.
Kant thought that human beings occupy a special place in creation and that morality can be summed up in one, ultimate commandment of reason, or imperative, from which all duties and obligations derive. He defined an imperative as any proposition that declares a certain action (or inaction) to be necessary. A hypothetical imperative would compel action in a given circumstance: If I wish to satisfy my thirst, then I must drink something. A categorical imperative would denote an absolute, unconditional requirement that exerts its authority in all circumstances, both required and justified as an end in itself. It is best known in its first formulation:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." [1]
In other words, if we are to make rules of behavior, then they must apply to everyone, not just a select few. All morality must be done for its own sake as opposed to doing something for the hope of some reward. If we propose something as a categorical imperative, it must stand the tests of reason. And given the uniqueness of each human, each person must work these things out for themselves.
A moral act can never be the means to an end -- for instance, we should not engage in charity in the hopes that we would get rewarded either financially or in the afterlife. If we do get rewarded, great -- but that should not be the guiding motif. Instead, acts should be performed because they are the loving thing to do, not because it furthers some selfish interest of ours.
Now, we are ready to give some examples of possible categorical imperatives. Let's use stealing as an example -- I propose that stealing is a categorical imperative. But if we were to universalize stealing, then there would be no more property; therefore, stealing would destroy its own basis for existence. Or murder -- if murder was a categorical imperative, then the end result would be the destruction of all humanity.
Now, let's take something that is more plausible -- security, or the belief that we should provide for our own safety. That seems like a good imperative on the surface -- a person concered with their security would take all manner of steps to protect themselves against any and all dangers. If we as a county were to do that, we would never fear invaders or terrorists or anything else.
But recall that I mentioned that we live within a world that is interdependent. Since this is an interdependent world in which we live, obsession over security necessarily involves fear of the unknown. Since acting out of fear breaks or undermines the web of interdependence, it hampers humanity's ability to function. And the fear that someone else will attack us could prompt us to support preemptive warfare, which is exactly what we are trying to avoid. And given the fact that humanity has created the capacity to destroy itself, any action that leads to more wars must be rejected. It may well be a hypothetical imperative to protect ourselves and maintain a strong army. It is a good hypothetical imperative to lock one's car door while in a big city. But using security as a categorical imperative will only lead to the destruction of humanity through wars.
Let's use something that we can classify as a categorical imperative -- love. Love can mean many different things to many different people. But as a matter of public policy, love is any act which strengthens the web of interdependence. One may ask, well, is it loving to fire someone from work who performs poorly day in and day out? After all, they need the money. But I would answer that particular person is in the wrong job in the first place if they are doing that. I read a book by a CEO who was telling all his war stories, and he had someone walk up to him and thank him for firing him -- because that forced him to come to grips with the fact that he was in the wrong job and that he needed to change his path.
Let me put it this way -- one has to consider the well-being of the rest of the employees, not just the person in question. Do the employees really enjoy working day in and day out with someone who does not really want to be there? Let me give another example -- there are kids who appreciate it when someone sets boundaries for them to follow. They might not like it at the time, but they will appreciate it afterwards. In these situations, everybody benefits -- both the person being disciplined, and the people who that person is working with. But if it is not possible to ensure that everyone benefits, then we must at least try to pursue the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
The problem with the Knoxville shooter was that he had separated himself from the web of interdependence that constitutes humanity. He was a loner, without the social skills that are needed to keep a job. He never exposed himself to more and better viewpoints that would have put him on the right path. Instead, what happened was a negative feedback loop that cumulated in his own destruction and the tragic shooting. In his twisted reasoning, it was the other who was responsible for his actions, not him.
Let's bring forward another categorical imperative -- justice. Justice is the equal application of law and policy towards all human beings. Justice is the ethic which states that even the Nurmberg defendants were entitled to legal representation and a fair trial despite all of the horrific crimes that they committed against humanity. Justice as a categorical imperative has been the basis for modern policy and law. One of the main criticisms of the Bush administration is that their removal of habeas corpus throws out 800 years of law and destroys the human of his freedom of autonomy.
Since this is a proposition of morality for its own sake, one possible criticism is that it ignores consequences. The Golden Rule, as formulated by Jesus and many other teachers, is a consequentialist ethic where all actions have consequences. But one problem of this line of reasoning is that it leads to a "what's in it for me" mentality. Another is that it is not always grounded in reality. In other words, people might do the right thing because there is something in it for them as opposed to doing it for its own sake. In other words, we could say that T. Boone Pickens is investing his billions in wind farms not because it is the right thing, but because there is something in it for him. That is better than not doing it at all, but it is still short of the ideal that we are striving for.
The other problem with this line of reasoning is that as much as we wish otherwise, people do not always reap what they sew. North, Poindexter, McFarlane, Gates, Abrams, and all the other figures of Iran-Contra are all walking scot-free despite breaking the law with impunity. Where is the Golden Rule in all that? And there are all sorts of situational ethics in which the Golden Rule does not make sense. For instance, would we kill someone for $10 million dollars? Or would we rob a bank if we knew that we would be able to live on a tropical island in paradise for the rest of our lives afterwards? In other words, a morality based on consequences is not always grounded in reality.
And I refer back to what I said at the top -- this creation is shrouded in mystery. While we get glimpses of the afterlife through near-death experiences, we don't necessarily know what will happen. That, like our origins, is shrouded in mystery. We must therefore focus on what we know to be reality -- the here and now.
There comes another question -- if we argue for morality for its own sake, as opposed to what is good for you, then why hand out consequences for right and wrong to kids? I would argue that there are three levels of behavior -- selfishness, doing good for reward, and doing right for its own sake, in that order. Doing the right thing for the purposes of reward is always better than acting selfishly. But the ultimate goal is to be able to teach kids that they must do the right thing for its own sake as opposed to doing the right thing because they will get rewarded. In other words, rewards and consequences are necessary; however, we must always encourage our children to do the right thing without thought for reward.
That is the whole problem with Joel Osteen and other teachers of the Prosperity Gospel -- they teach that those who follow their teachings will create health and wealth. But we can examine these as categorical imperatives. The first question is, should the striving for health be viewed as a categorical imperative? My answer would be yes on the surface. We owe it to both ourselves and the rest of humanity to stay as healthy as possible. But this reasoning is based on love, not health for its own sake. And no matter how well we take care of ourselves, everyone up to this point has died in the end.
This reality creates problems with trying to adopt health as its own end. I used to be a fundamentalist wingnut, and back in those days, there was a huge struggle between the orthodox fundies and the prosperity crowd. There were people in the latter crowd who would say that God gave us unlimited health and wealth and that if we got sick, then we therefore did not have enough faith. There was even a couple that I knew of who took their son off his diabetes medicine because God was going to heal him and therefore, they didn't need doctors or medicines. But the son died, and the parents subsequently spoke out against the practices of the prosperity movement.
The question becomes, are we going to say that Senator Kennedy has fallen from grace because he has health problems? Is Senator Tim Johnson a bad person and is his brain hemmorage a consequence of not taking care of himself? Was the person who shot the people in the Knoxville church an agent of divine retribution? So, while the striving for health for its own sake is all well and good, it is merely a hypothetical imperative. It must be secondary to the striving for love and justice.
The same answer applies to the striving for wealth. It is all well and good to strive for wealth. But the problem is that wealth is a finite resource, and not everyone can live on $300,000 per year, have all their debts paid off, and live in three-story mansions with Cadillacs. If we try to strive for wealth as an end in itself, then the problem is that we will necessarily deprive other people of wealth. And as we have seen, the closure of factories all over the country and the systematic efforts at wage suppression have ripped apart the web of interdependence on which all humanity depends. Communities, schools, churches, and families have been torn apart all over the countries as factories have closed and jobs have shipped overseas. Again, the striving for having enough money for financial independence is a good hypothetical imperative -- but it is not an end in and of itself.
Finally, one of the main criticisms of the categorical imperative was supplied here:
One of the first major challenges to Kant's reasoning came from the Swiss philosopher Benjamin Constant, who asserted that since truth telling must be universal, according to Kant's theories, one must (if asked) tell a known murderer the location of his prey. This challenge occurred while Kant was still alive, and his response was the essay On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives (sometimes translated On a Supposed Right to Lie because of Philanthropic Concerns). In this reply, Kant agreed with Constant's inference, that from Kant's premises one must infer a moral duty to be truthful to a murderer.
Kant denied that such an inference indicates any weakness in his premises: telling the truth to the murderer is required because moral actions do not derive their worth from the expected consequences. He claimed that because lying to the murderer would treat him as a mere means to another end, the lie denies the rationality of another person, and therefore denies the possibility of there being free rational action at all. This lie results in a contradiction in conceivability and therefore the lie is in conflict with duty.
However, I would give a different answer to this. Recall that all universal imperatives must be based on reason. Therefore, I would argue that Kant's answer is based on the faulty premise that all human beings are rational. Psychopaths like the person described believe that the world revolves only around them. And those of us who have lived through the horrors of the Bush administration know that there are a lot of people who do not act rationally, and they are at the highest levels of power. I would argue that the loving thing to do -- for the sake of both the murderer and the potential victim -- is either to lie or refuse to answer -- depending on the circumstances. After all, we are not under any obligation to tell the police anything if they arrest us. We are always told that we have the right to remain silent.
It might then be argued, well, would that mean that the lies of the Bush administration are therefore justified? I would argue no -- the fact that the Bush administration lied about Iraq means that they did not have sufficient respect for the collective intelligence of the American people. Kantian ethics require that one must have respect for the intelligence of humanity as a whole even if there are individual people who cannot be trusted.