How to Vote 2: Natural Law

The phrase "natural law" is used in various ways. When it comes to ethics or morality, people can use it in reference to some moral structure built into the universe.

I personally have never been able to make sense of the idea that people have some sense of right and wrong either built into the human conscience or into the universe. Whether you accept evolution or not, survival of the fittest seems to be the modus operandi of life.

To be sure, as a Christian I believe that God often intervenes in the causal chain of events of the world. I believe in miracles and I believe in prayer. How God does this is a mystery to me. Does He in some way work through the causal chain, having built in the appropriate causes from time immemorial? This does not seem likely to me. It seems much more likely that at times He introduces new "stimuli" to the system of the world, calculated to answer our prayers or effect miracles.

But despite God's interventions, an unprejudiced survival of the fittest seems more the rule of the game. If we want to speak of a "natural" law, it seems to me that it is this: the cleverest and the fittest tend to survive while the less fit, less crafty don't. Those who turn the other cheek only survive if the oppressor does not kill them or if they live in an environment that rewards them by calling such an attitude virtuous (e.g., I doubt Ghandi would have lived long under Ghengis Khan). I of course believe God will reward them in heaven, but on earth this is the rule unless God intervenes.

How should an atheist then live? In general, an atheist should be an egoist--they should do whatever gives them the most pleasure and least pain over time. From an atheist's perspective, it is difficult to see a problem with Nietzsche's superman or Machiavelli's prince. If an atheist has the power to do whatever brings him or her pleasure without bringing pain--murder, stealing, genocide--it is hard to argue logically against it in terms of their perspective.

However, most atheists do not have the power to murder or steal and experience long term pleasure. Most of us are not rich enough or clever enough to do these things and not get caught or escape the wrath of the vengeful. The genius of the seventeenth century "social contract" was the way it set up a system of corporate egoism. We set up a system of freedom that allows each individual to do whatever pleasures him or her within a structure that restricts only when my freedom might impinge on the pleasure of others.

Killing or stealing might be to my individual advantage, but it is almost certainly to the displeasure of someone else. We set up a system of so called "justice" with police and armies to enforce the rules for the mutual benefit of all. We set up a bill of rights and a system so that we can have maximum freedom and maximum pleasure.

This system seems to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals. It seems to me to negotiate natural law in the way that brings maximal benefit to all. Since I and most of us are neither clever enough nor empowered enough to keep others from oppressing us, it is in our best interest to perpetuate this system.

How should an atheist vote according to natural law? A rich, pychopathic, genius atheist should do whatever he or she can get away with. But for the average atheist a system under such a social contract seems ultimately more beneficial. If the structure were in question, it would ultimately be in our best interest to try to perpetuate it. However, within the existing structure, an atheist should vote for whatever he or she perceives to be in his or her greatest interest.

If I invoke stereotypes, a relatively poor person should generally vote Democratic, unless there are specific issues or individuals that give them great pleasure or pain. Those with greater means should probably vote Republican, again unless specific issues or individuals give them great pleasure or pain.

Next entree: The Social Contract and Ethical Expectations