In the ethics world there’s a familiar question concerning ‘is’ vs. ‘ought’. Can a person make a ‘you-ought-to-do-this’ statement while using a ‘this-is-true’ statement for motivation? Can I say “you ought not steal from your mother, because it is wrong”? Does this logically make sense? Another way of saying the same thing is to use the words ‘fact’ and ‘value’. The fact in my example would be: “it is wrong to steal…”. The value would be “you ought not steal”. Is it logically acceptable to say “why shouldn’t I steal?”…and, answer “Because it is wrong”? Or, have we skipped a step?

Thousands of pages have been written on this concept/question. Arthur Holmes adds his contribution through his book Fact, Value, and God. He takes a unique angle on the topic by offering a historical approach, examining not just fact and value, but also how God has played into this philosophical discussion over the years. As Holmes puts it, does “ethical realism depend on belief in God”? (p. 179)

Holmes begins his discussion of the history of philosophy before Plato and Aristotle with the Pre-Socratics. He continues through history until he arrives at Friedrich “God is dead” Nietzsche. In between our two bookends, Holmes neatly convinces us that each of these philosophers built off the ideas of their predecessors. While the philosophy slowly adjusted itself through the years, the idea of God was slowly erased. And, as God was erased, the connection between fact and value also disappeared.

As an example, we can look at the philosophy of Aristotle. “‘God and nature’ says Aristotle, ‘create nothing that has not its use.’ ‘Nature never makes anything without a purpose.’” (p. 25) Holmes explains Aristotle on this point by saying: “Nature’s ends, while not always conscious, are not matters of chance; they are potencies inherent in the essential nature of things.” (p. 24) Therefore, we have a connection between fact, value, and God (“Unmoved Mover” in Aristotle’s case).

We can skip ahead 30 pages (or 1500 years) and Holmes shows us that Aristotle’s ideas are still influencing the world, specifically in the theology of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas felt that “Aristotle’s philosophy had to be refocused if it was to be pressed into service by Christian philosophers…Faith’s starting point is God—the supreme being, the highest good, and the highest object of thought. This was the new focus Aristotelianism needed…”. (p. 63) Aquinas takes Aristotle’s concepts, adds a more Biblical understanding of who God is, and the result is a “Christian” view of fact/value (as opposed to Aristotle’s “Greek” view).

Very briefly put, Holmes goes on to show us how Aquinas influences Duns Scotus and William of Ockham. Scotus and Ockham alter some of Aquinas’ theology/philosophy and before long Ockham’s view is built on and used to contribute to the “new science”. The new science leads to Kant, which leads to Hegel, and eventually we end up with no God and the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche.

At 180 pages, the book has a lot of ground to cover in a short time. I think this affects Holmes’ argument. He barely has time to put the pieces of his argument together, let alone offer the dates of his key characters, explain their culture, or interact with other arguments. Without Holmes’ “Preface” and “Retrospect” it might be hard to decipher what he’s attempting to prove because he doesn’t spend much time in the chapters specifically carrying you along. This is nice in that he assumes an intelligent reader and removes the fluff. However, I think it would have been helpful to have had a little more insight from Holmes along the way in showing us how each piece helped his argument.

These complaints only concern Holmes’ presentation, which is different from content. I found myself doubting if Holmes’ argument would be convincing to someone who was opposed to the fact/value argument being made. In a sense, he does offer opposing sides in that a view like Nietzsche’s is represented. However, there are other scholars who would adopt the fact and value part of Holmes’ equation and leave God to the side. For example, someone like Hilary Putnam from Harvard University doesn’t seem too interested in bringing God into his ethic, yet he still has a philosophy that says: “what we need to do is to recognize that both ethical values and epistemic values are indispensable in our lives.”* I think Holmes’ historical argument would have been stronger if he had spent more time addressing the person who adopts the fact/value relationship without including God.

Similarly, Holmes’ doesn’t address arguments from those who oppose the fact/value relationship. Holmes seems to feel his historical argument is so strong that he doesn’t need to address these sorts of criticisms. But, does Holmes’ argument really prove that God needs to be present for the fact-value relationship to exist? It could imply other things as well. For example, what does his argument imply about having a proper view of God? One could almost argue that Holmes is saying “any view of God is better than none”. Perhaps his brief history only reveals how fact and value separate when a Biblical understanding of God is modified?

On the positive side, I found Holmes’ abbreviated history of ethics quite profitable. From other reading I’ve done (minimal in the large scope) Holmes doesn’t seem to manipulate his cast of characters to prove his point. He seems to do a good job of choosing his key historical players in ethical theory. This fact adds to his credibility when the book ends and the argument is explained. And, (if I allow myself a slight double standard) the fact that he waits until the end of the book to explain his argument makes the history smoother and more readable. If he would have explained how each person points toward a fact/value/God ethic in each chapter the history side of things may have gotten bogged down.

I also think I agree with most of what Holmes is getting at in his book. It seems difficult to divorce some sort of “God” figure away from the “fact is related to value” side of your ethic and be consistent. Overall, I felt as though Fact, Value, and God was a book worth reading. It offered an excellent brief treatment of key figures in ethical history. It also offered interesting insights of the place humans have given God in the course of ethical history. My main complaint is that Holmes let the history do too much talking. Hearing more of his insights into the discussion would have been useful.

*The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays - Hilary Putnam (p. 132)

Recommended: Yes