One question that always baffled me in the history of ethics was the rejection of inherent final cause or purpose, also known as teleology.

If you have a long and productive discussion with anyone about a disagreement in ethics, it will likely boil down to this principle. Historically, humans took for granted the premise that everything has a built-in purpose, or telos, to it. This built-in purpose applies even to actions themselves. Teleology, which is developed in the “Metaphysics” and “Ethics” of Aristotle, provides the foundation for natural law theory.

Natural law theory traces its roots back to pagan Stoic philosophy and the Roman orator Cicero. It was then adopted by Christian philosophers, most notably Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas then developed natural law theory as the primary source for the Western legal tradition since the Middle Ages.

Natural law states that the determination of the right or properly ordered action is derived precisely from the final cause or purpose of the substance itself. Someone who assumes the opposite premise, that things or actions do not have a built-in purpose, will often come to a different conclusion about whether an action is right or wrong.

Those who reject teleology come up with plenty of alternative explanations. Perhaps things have no inherent purpose because things have no purpose at all, some may say. This resembles moral nihilism (nihil = nothing). Maybe things only have the purpose we give to them, others say. This view falls under the umbrella of moral subjectivism.

The consequences of either of these views of morality are clear and frightening, and naturally follow from a rejection of teleology, which can be summarized in the popular aphorism, “One cannot derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’.” This idea, which paraphrases the main thesis of David Hume’s “Treatise on Human Nature, Book III: Morals,” means that one cannot create moral laws, oughts, from observations of reality, is-es.

This rejection came from an arbitrary separation between metaphysics (is) and morality (ought). Because teleology, the study of final causes, describes the nature (is) of a substance, and informs the proper use (ought) of that substance, it maintains that this connection cannot be broken.

In order to determine the truth of anything, one must begin with the idea that truth reflects reality. For me to know 2+2=4, that fact must be true even if I am unable to recognize it. The “being true” part is determined by metaphysics.

This knowledge applies to more than just moral issues. Even if one disagrees about a math or historical fact, either side of the disagreement is founded upon some reality that grounds the belief. And if one or both sides are mistaken, both beliefs are still founded upon the idea that what they know to be true is based upon reality. It is only because both sides of the disagreement believe that their beliefs are equally real that there is disagreement about which belief supersedes the other. This is usually described in terms of “rights,” like the right to life versus the right to bodily autonomy.

From the assumption that morality is separate from ontology, which is the study of existence itself, it follows that morality does not share the same plane of reality as other, real-er, things. This follows an assumption of philosophical materialism, which believes that only the things we can see, feel, and/or measure, are the only things that really exist. Other immaterial things, including ideas and beliefs, do not actually exist.

This assumption about reality, namely, what is, has dangerous consequences. If one’s ideas or beliefs, including ideas or beliefs about right and wrong, are not as real as other things, then they will not persuade us as strongly as the things we can see or feel. If my feeling of fear is more real than my belief in standing up for others, I will surely cower when courage demands I fight. If my feeling of despair is more real than my belief that my life has value, why should I continue struggling to live?

One of the most important consequences of Aristotle’s presentation of teleology is that everything that exists, just by virtue of existing, has a built-in purpose, or telos. This means that every person, just by virtue of existing, has a purpose as well. It also means that every action we perform has a built-in purpose as well, and we can know what that purpose is. This makes every action of ours meaningful and purpose-full. Our life matters, and the things we do in life matter, so we should live accordingly.

—

This article was made possible by The Fred & Rheta Skelton Center for Cultural Renewal.

Image credit: Unsplash