What Would say to Tony Soprano and Hugh Hefner

There’s a good review by Beckwith of a book by Larry Arnhart for the conservative case for Darwinism at Right Reason.

Beckwith Argues:
(1) It seems tome that Arnhart is correct that certain sentiments (e.g., love of
family, children) are consistent with a conservative understanding of community.
But these sentiments themselves seem inadequate to ground moral
action or to account for certain wrongs. For example, Tony Soprano’s love
of kin nurtures sentiments that lead to clear injustices, e.g., rubbing out
enemies…..

Arnhart responds:

My response to the Tony Soprano example should be obvious. Murder is condemned in every society throughout history because there is a natural human sentiment of indignation against unjust killing. No society could survive if the moral sentiment against murder were not strong.

GG: I think Arnhart misses the point. Yes, there is a moral sentiment against unjust killing. However, there is also a moral sentiment to protect and advance the family. There is a moral sentiment to seek status, power. Can nature discern which sentiment is correct? Can we trust our sentiments to determine the difference between just and unjust killing.

Beckwith’s second objection:

(2) As I have already noted, Arnhart’s account of morality is, at best,
descriptive, for it does not provide the reason why I ought to follow it.
Granted, it may very well provide us with an accurate description of what
behaviors in general were instrumental in helping the human species survive.

GG: Does evolutionary psychology explain what behaviors helped us survive? Certainly, evolutionary psychology can’t claim that monogamy was any more beneficial to human survival than polygamy. Both still exist today. Are both necessary for survival?

Anyway, here is the heart of the argument, the is/ought dilemma.

But it cannot say why citizen X ought to perform (or not perform) act Y in circumstance Z. For example, it may be that the traditional family, as Arnhart argues, best protects and preserves
the human species if it is widely practiced. But what do we say to the eighty-year-old Hugh Hefner, who would rather shack up with five twentysomething buxom blondes with which he engages in carnal delights with the assistance of state-of-the-art pharmaceuticals?..... Because we have always had in our population Hugh Hefners of one sort or another, it is not clear to me how Arnhart can distinguish between good and bad practices if both sorts may have played a
part in the survival of the human race, unless there is a morality by which we assess the morality of evolution. But this would seem to lead us back to the old natural law, the one that has its source in Mind and that is not subject to the unstable flux of Darwinian evolution.

Arnhart’s response:

My response to the Hugh Hefner example should also be obvious. Although there is a natural desire for sexual mating, there are also natural desires for conjugal love, parental care, familial bonding, and enduring friendship. Mr. Hefner might satisfy his desire for promiscuous mating, but his pleasure will be shallow and momentary. Marriage and family life promote our fullest happiness over a whole life. And that's why the image of an 80-year-old Hefner surrounded by his bunnies evokes both disgust and pity among mature people. We know that such a life is deeply unsatisfying in its shallowness and thus bad because it's undesirable for any sensible human being.

GG: Arnhart proves Beckwith’s point. He must go beyond the evolutionary data and argue for transcendent values against shallowness and momentary delights.


Arnhart:
What would Beckwith say to Hefner? Mr. Hefner, don't you realize that your life of sexual promiscuity violates the commands of Mind? To which Hefner might respond: Mind? Are you suggesting some kind of Cosmic Mind? Would you please explain what that could possibly mean? And why should I obey the commands of such a Cosmic Mind? How would I know that the commands of this Cosmic Mind are good? Wouldn't I need to have some standard of goodness to judge this? But if I already have a standard of goodness independent of the commands, why do I need these commands of the Cosmic Mind? Is something good because the Cosmic Mind commands it? Or does the Cosmic Mind command it because it is good?

GG: Arnhart misunderstands natural law and suggest that it is mere volunteerism. In natural law, good is good not only because God says so, but also because it is good and can be found good through reason.