Three Brothers: Part 3, Malcolm's ethics

"I wake up, do the best I can, go home and sleep with a clean conscience at night. The hell with what everyone else thinks. " I flashed a cynical smile. "Work is what it is; it is neither inspirational nor life-defining. The equations I solve, the code I write, they amount to nothing more than either academic details unread in obscure technical journals, or temporary fads simply for the churning of the company PR machine. In general, technology is no more than the fashion of the day; it will soon be replaced by another and be well forgotten. In the grand scheme of things, have we actually improved human lives by our scientific endeavors? I say no more than the undesired adverse side-effects we have created in the process. The combustion engine enabled convenient transportation like trains and automobiles, but it also meant unclean consumption of fossil fuels and subsequent uncontrolled emission of CO2 on a global scale that threatens our environment today. The proliferation of the Internet enabled the ease of disseminating information worldwide, but it also meant the perpetration of hate groups, terrorist organizations and sexual predators. At the end of both the industrial and information revolutions, are the human conditions better? I argue the answer is inconclusive at best."

"But surely you would agree that the GDP per capita, in real monetary terms, have increased over the years, and Luther here will tell you medical advances have cured previous deadly diseases and extended human lives. Would you not admit these are indications of strictly positive human progress?" Anthony spoke with a puzzled expression.

"What you just stated is simply that the quantity of material goods and the quantity of living hours per person have increased, and these numerical facts no one can deny. But what about the quality of life? Are people truly better off just because they have more things and more hours per lifetime? For example, can you say that you live a better life, or that you are a better person than the generations that come before you?" I asked in earnest.

"First properly define goodness, then I will tell ya whether I am a better person than my pops," Anthony smirked wryly, like a professor listening to a graduate student's argument that he knew beforehand was naively wrong.

"Aha, this leads to the definition of ethics; now we are getting somewhere," I smiled, welcoming the challenge. "I have studied enough philosophies to know that without the existence of a single omniscient God, there is no basis for absolute ethics. We can have social ethnics, where right and wrong are determined by popular votes, or utilitarian ethics, where right and wrong are determined by tabulating the net sum of utility in an ethical decision (I know: possible in theory, infeasible in practice). But without a God that knows all and exists for all time, these are just haphazard metrics determined by humans, each of whom has a finite lifetime, who can't agree as a race at any given time in history anyway. What I am interested, and what the real topic of the current conversation, is true right and true wrong, concepts that exist and are unchanging for all time and space. That necessitates the existence of God, which I still do believe."

"I think we are still in agreement here, right?" Luther looked Anthony and I in the eyes, seeking confirmations. Luther, Anthony and I met in a college church group as freshmen, and had subsequently struggled variously with our faith through the years. But Anthony averted Luther's question and asked curtly instead, "So you still believe in God--which is no big revelation in itself. How does this relate to the modern human conditions?"

"It matters because God offers an absolute metric for evaluation of the modern human conditions," I responded. "With God's ethnics, we can now theoretically measure, for example, our generation's goodness versus our previous generation's goodness. Now, Tony, tell me: are you better than your pops?" I broke into a sinister smile as the words slipped from my mouth.

Anthony, of course, was too smart to take the bait. "Hold your horses, Malcolm. You merely said what ethics ought to be, NOT what it is. In other words, you still have not define the term precisely." Anthony simply did not stir and calmly took a gulp of his iced water. "I think you were merely begging the question."

Unsettled with the direction of the exchange, Luther interjected, "Hold on. Surely we can extract meaning of ethics from the Bible. This is the basis of Christian ethnics, and Christians have been doing that for thousands of years. What is the big conundrum?"

I took a deep breath and spoke as steadily as I could, "What I am saying is simply this: If God exists and He is there, He is not saying much while we struggle in the vacuum. Let me explain."