To the Editor:
In his recent column ("The creeping nihilism of Stanley Fish," March 2), Brian Judge argues for the existence of secular, universal normative values by making recourse to what was always my father's favorite logical argument:
1. A is true.
2. Duh.
3. Still don't get it? You're an idiot.
I'd still like to know just where Judge thinks these secular normative values are coming from (I'm not going to touch on religious values here) if he's not just trying to bully us into agreeing with him because the idea that secular, objective normative values don't exist makes him uneasy. Do they exist in nature? Are they like height and color, which exist outside of us and can be perceived by the discerning (moral) eye? Is anyone who can't "see" those values merely blind? If they're out there, Judge hasn't shown me where to find them.
Let's say that it is true that, due to "biological commitments," suffering exists in others. But if I didn't care, and I didn't have any personal pleasure at stake, I'm not convinced Judge would be able to do anything to convince me I'm wrong but give me a scornful wag of the finger. (Nihilism! Shame!)
Now, my own biology may explain why I act as if there are normative reasons. I don't go around punching children on the street because, as I am, doing so results in a most unpleasant gut reaction. Rather, I prefer to soothe injured companions until they stop crying and to eat ice cream sundaes (which are delicious), because, for reasons that stem from my "biological commitments," those things are much more pleasant. But these are, in essence, practical concerns, not truly normative reasons.
Then again, isn't that enough? John Rawls argued that his Theory of Justice was supposed to be an attempt to describe our "considered judgments" (our intuitions after deliberation), not to prescribe universal values; maybe a similar approach could give Judge a sufficiently sound basis for his secular ethics.
Andy Garin '09
March 4
