To naturalists like me, the universe often seems like it's just a collection of particles moving about. Naturalists have a problem explaining what concepts like good, bad, right, and wrong can possibly refer to. My own view, however, is that consciousness is the one and only thing of value in the universe, and these words all make sense once you realise that.
It's my contention that a joyful experience inherently contains an affirmation of its own value, and a miserable experience contains the opposite. I would argue that nothing else in the universe contains such an affirmation, which is why I think conscious states (or possibly conscious beings) are very plausible candidates for the foundation of value and morality.
Can non-conscious things affirm their own value? I could certainly write a sentence that said "This sentence is valuable." But it's just ones and zeros on a computer somewhere, or pixels on a screen. There's no inherent meaning in the sentence. Is there inherent meaning in conscious states? I think so. I challenge anyone to sincerely affirm the sentence: "My thoughts have no meanings."
Likewise, I don't think anyone can deny that their own joy or misery is good or bad. And once you realise other people feel exactly the same way, it's easy to make a fairly straightforward extrapolation to utilitarianism.
A fairly well-known philosopher, J. L. Mackie, said that for morality to exist, there would have to be queer entities, very different from everything in the universe. I agree with him. But I think consciousness is queer enough to fit the bill.
Written: 2008-07-13
allancrossman.com