Morals, Metaphysics and Naturalism
3. Consequences, Duty and Virtue
So far, with the help of the analogy I present in this essay, I've illustrated how societies regulating on-road behaviour on the one hand and social interactions more generally on the other use rules as a powerful lever for moulding agent behaviour. An additional benefit of this analogy is that it illuminates the other essential dimensions of our system of morals that are also entirely natural.
To illustrate my point, consider how the following five natural aspects of the broader traffic control system interrelate to form a mutually reinforcing whole. The traffic control system serves two key objectives: safety and efficiency. Road users want the traffic control system to facilitate drivers getting to their destination as quickly as possible with minimal injury to drivers, passengers and pedestrians. These are the universally desired objectives traffic control system designers and regulators aim to achieve.
As I have explored above, one key component of this system is the rules of the road. These include the rule to drive only on the designated side of the road, to stop at red traffic lights and to drive at or under the speed limit. Even though the system is designed to facilitate speed while minimizing harm, the rules do not allow of exception even in cases in which it is advantageous for a driver to break a rule in a particular situation. For example, the rules do not allow a driver to go through a red light even when there is no other traffic around. Everyone getting the benefits of the traffic control system necessitates barring drivers from deciding at each red light they encounter whether safety and efficiency is optimized by driving through the red light.
The same exclusion of the right to make a personal judgment also applies to deciding at which speed it is best to travel on a given road at a given time. Even when it is safe to drive over the speed limit in a particular circumstance, the traffic rules bar drivers from maximizing benefit in that situation. These examples highlight the deontological ('deon' means 'duty' in Greek) aspect of the traffic control system. Road users have a duty to obey the road rules even when there is an immediate advantage in not doing so. Allowing motorists to make their own calculations of overall benefit when faced with the option of breaking a road rule will destabilize the system as a whole.
So, even though the existence of the traffic control system is justified by the good consequences of efficient and safe road use, these beneficial consequences will not be realized by road users unless road users feel by and large constrained to obey the rules even in those cases in which doing so reduces benefit. These two essential aspects, then, of a functioning traffic control system—beneficial consequences and duty to obey the rules—are comprehensible in straightforwardly natural terms. Appealing to gods or some supra-sensible transcendent realm is not required for their explanation.
The third essential feature of the traffic control system that is equally in no need of metaphysical grounding is having road users of good character—or, to use the term common in moral philosophy, virtuous road users. I already touched on this aspect when I pointed to the requirement for road users to feel constrained by the road rules even when obeying them is not to their advantage. This is a key purpose of driver education; that is, to inculcate driver behaviours that are automatic. For example, driver training teaches students to stick to the designated side of the road, to watch their speed and to observe traffic signage. Training is designed to build the right kind of character traits—the right habits—required for driving safely on the road.
An additional important element of the traffic control system that ties in with duty and virtue is the need for specific roles for the various kinds of players in the system. For example, drivers are required to be licensed before they can take on the role of legal 'driver'. Other roles include that of driving school instructor, license tester, traffic infringement officer and judge for hearing traffic offences. Each of these roles encompasses specific responsibilities—specific duties—the exercise of which allows the system to operate effectively and efficiently. Holders of each role are also required to exhibit virtues specific to that role. For example, drivers are expected to display integrity in obeying the road rules while judges are needed to exercise fairness in the courtroom.
One final integral element of the traffic control system that relates to rules is the system of rewards and penalties. These include safe driver discounts, fines issued, licence withdrawals and other penalties for traffic infringements. Such actions are designed to both encourage lawful behaviour and deter unlawful behaviour.
All five of these natural elements of the traffic control system are mirrored in our system of morality. Our moral system, just as with the traffic control system, serves a social purpose. The existence of each system is justified by the beneficial consequences each bestows on human beings. For each system to obtain the envisaged benefits, agent behaviour is necessarily constrained by duty. The benefits of each system are lost if agents are permitted to decide on a case-by-case basis when to obey the rules and when not.
Likewise, each system performs most efficiently when agents obey the rules out of habit—when they possess the appropriate virtues. This is the function of the moral education of our young. For example, the practice of promising will disintegrate, with all its attendant advantages, if promise-makers are prone to calculate in each instance whether keeping a promise is to their advantage. Moral education inculcates in children the habit (virtue) of keeping promises even in cases where doing so leads to worse outcomes.
System efficiency is also maximized for both systems when there is a division of labour, with specific people performing specialized roles. In the case of the moral system, such roles include lawmaker, parent, judge and teacher. Further, to aid in the learning of roles and responsibilities and to prevent backsliding, both systems rely on targeted rewards and punishments. At its most basic and informal, rewards and punishments in the moral system take the form of praising and blaming individuals for good and bad deeds done. More formal rewards include the bestowing of bravery medals, national honours and commemorative titles. Formal punishments include fines, disfellowship and imprisonment.
Recognizing how all of these mutually supporting elements in the traffic control system are exactly mirrored in the system of morality helps us to appreciate that no metaphysical sauce is required to be sprinkled on the latter for it to make sense. This case study also shows how moral philosophers do not need to choose one moral theory while leaving aside the others. It is usual to think that the dominant moral theories—consequentialism, deontology (duty) and virtue ethics—are in competition with each other. As this analogical study demonstrates, this is a mistake. Seeing the traffic control system and our system of morality as the natural product of human beings evolving to live in increasingly complex societies, the mystery as to their origin and source of obligation dissolves. Consequences for generally beneficial outcomes, duty to obey even when right action is against the interest of the individual and the importance of moral virtue are all part of this naturalist story of morality.
Normativity is not only a feature of the rules of the road and our moral code. It is a natural aspect of other human activities that require sophisticated co-operation and co-ordination, such as games. Sporting and other kinds of games exhibit all of the system dimensions identified in this essay. Football and chess, for example, consist of roles (player, umpire, etc.), game playing rules specifying which moves are allowed and which disallowed, and a system of rewards and penalties (trophy, free kick, etc.). For the purposes of my argument from analogy, I could easily have chosen a game instead of the traffic control system. Human systems that obligate us in certain ways are all around us. And none of them require us believing in gods, supernatural dimensions or transcendent realities to participate in them.
