Good and Evil

[Neo-Scholastic]

The valuing of health is certainly not a matter of science. That people generally do value health is a matter of fact, but that they ought to so desire it is something quite different from a mere poll of what people value.

According to Hume, the notion that someone could choose poorly negates the possibility of anyone making a valid objective judgment about what is best. But that cannot be because even scientific inquiry is impossible without making value judgments, like determining that a pure sample of something is better to study than an adulterated sample. Anyone can see that the researcher choosing a sample is making an objective value judgment.

Adults tell children that they shouldn’t play in the street because they could get run over. Imagine a smart kid saying, “The fact that I could get run over if I don’t watch out does not mean I shouldn’t play in the street.” Anyone can see that the ‘is-ought’ objection for what it is: juvenile. Life is an essential part of being an animal. The act of making value judgments is a necessary part of rationality. When someone acts irrationally and unnecessarily endangers his life that means that he doesn’t value being human, not that human life is without value. To actually want what undermines your humanity makes you a worse instance of human. You ought to be the best person you can. That is an objective moral imperative.