Philosophy Forums
Forums Articles Gallery Links


Register Login Members Calendar New Posts Search Chat Help
Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Are morals universal? » Are morals universal?

Are morals universal?
Are my morals your morals? Should I force my morals on you?

PrintPrint


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Are morals universal?
Nihilism
Student
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 11, 2009

Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 90
Posted 10/28/09 - 01:14 PM:
quote post
#81
It would perhaps be preferable if there existed a set of universal and objective moral standards that were independent of our emotions, prejudices, and passions — but even so, who knows if we humans would be able to find, identify, and understand them? It seems much more likely that ethical nihilism is the pragmatic position to adopt. If universal moral standards exist, we may have just as much luck hitting upon them under ethical nihilism as we do under moral realism.
To criticize is only to establish that a concept vanishes when it is thrust into a new milieu, losing some of its components, or acquiring others that transform it. But those who criticize without creating, those who are content to defend the vanished concept without being able to give it the forces it needs to return to life, are the plague of philosophy. All those debaters and communicators are inspired by resentment. They speak only for themselves when they set empty generalizations against one another. Philosophy has a horror of discussions. It always has something else to do.
Wolfman
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Location: Oakland, CA

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 1138
Posted 10/28/09 - 04:49 PM:
quote post
#82
Slap,

I do not subscribe to any ethical doctrine which maintains a supreme universal principle of morality, e.g., a principle of utility or categorical imperative, from which other moral duties derive. The utilitarian theories which purport to be universally binding must be able to produce a conception of the good which is not simply an attributive adjective OR a speaker-relative predicate. The failure to produce such a conception leaves the utilitarian theory of value bare and impoverished.

EDIT:
slap wrote:
He uses the term universal human will.


I am not arguing that there is a universal human will though. Actually, I am arguing to the contrary (see what I wrote below in bold). The phrase "universal human will" should not be equated to "universal emotional logic." This is what I said:

"You are probably correct that the idea of a universal human will is quite peculiar and counter-intuitive. However, it seems reasonable to grant that there is a certain universal emotional logic that is endemic to human nature. We cringe at injustice. We become indignant when we think we are wronged. The normative force of ethics is grounded in this basic minimal sense of concern. It is in this most basic sense that ethics is objective, not in the sense that there are free-standing moral truths, moral imperatives that apply to all without qualification, or epistemologically true moral doctrines."

Edited by Wolfman on 10/28/09 - 06:06 PM
"That which is done out of love is always beyond good and evil" - Nietzsche
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." - Aristotle
"It is better to do one's own duty, however defective it may be, than to follow the duty of another, however well one may perform it. He who does his duty as his own nature reveals it, never sins." - Lao Tzu
"Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play." - Kant
Odin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 214
Posted 10/28/09 - 07:09 PM:
quote post
#83
Wolfman, if there is an objective morality, it has to be grounded in a fact that applies to all human beings. To get morality, we take the most basic fundamental of human existence, or an absolute postulate, and reason from there what morals apply to humans. That's not difficult. In this thread, I'm using the 'universal desire' to live as a starting point because its simple, but if you think about it even that is reducible further. For instance, tell me why you think all humans (or if you disagree with all, most humans) have a will to live or instinct for survival? Reduce it further and you will find the only objective 'purpose of human life.' Keep asking why, and eventually you will find a truth that stands alone, which is the purpose of human life. Tell me what you come up with.

And a 'purpose to human life' doesn't have to be practiced by all humans to remain universal and to remain the absolute postulate from which we derive morality.
Wolfman
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Location: Oakland, CA

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 1138
Posted 10/28/09 - 08:43 PM:
quote post
#84
Odin,

Most of what you wrote can be summarily expressed in the sentence, "people generally want to live." But all of the major ethical theories that I have been acquainted with take this for granted. We are, of course, concerned with living, and moreover, living well. So this point of yours is rather trivial. I think my observation that there is a certain universal logic that is endemic to human nature, e.g., becoming indignant when we feel that we have been wronged, is more insightful and substantive (as it pertains to investigating the normative force behind morality) than your more innocuous platitude, which is rather general and not very precise.

Also, you say that we can "derive morality" from an absolute postulate of "the 'universal desire' to live." When broken down, you are basically saying that we can derive morality from the fact that we generally want to live. This is an exceedingly vague thing to say, and does not add much to the discussion.

EDIT: Now, I would be interested if you want to explain exactly how we can derive moral precepts from general human facts, e.g., that people generally want to live (as you seem to suggest).

Edited by Wolfman on 10/28/09 - 08:54 PM
"That which is done out of love is always beyond good and evil" - Nietzsche
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." - Aristotle
"It is better to do one's own duty, however defective it may be, than to follow the duty of another, however well one may perform it. He who does his duty as his own nature reveals it, never sins." - Lao Tzu
"Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play." - Kant
James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227
Posted 10/28/09 - 11:44 PM:
quote post
#85
Wolfman,

How do you define a moral versus just a general good idea or general rule? What exactly makes a rule a moral rather than any other kind of rule?
Odin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 214
Posted 10/29/09 - 08:14 AM:
quote post
#86
Wolfman wrote:
Odin,

Most of what you wrote can be summarily expressed in the sentence, "people generally want to live." But all of the major ethical theories that I have been acquainted with take this for granted. We are, of course, concerned with living, and moreover, living well. So this point of yours is rather trivial. I think my observation that there is a certain universal logic that is endemic to human nature, e.g., becoming indignant when we feel that we have been wronged, is more insightful and substantive (as it pertains to investigating the normative force behind morality) than your more innocuous platitude, which is rather general and not very precise.


We're making a point right now of showing whether there are or are not universal human desires. All I'm asking you about the will to live is whether you think it is a universal human desire. Your observation is putting the cart before the horse, you can't derive morality from circumstances where you feel you have been wronged. Because the question then is 'am I justified in feeling this way?' You have to know whether you have been wronged in order for your feeling to have any weight. Again, stop making a point of trying to jump to conclusions. I just want to know, in you opinion, is the 'will to live' a universal trait of thinking human beings?

Also, you say that we can "derive morality" from an absolute postulate of "the 'universal desire' to live." When broken down, you are basically saying that we can derive morality from the fact that we generally want to live. This is an exceedingly vague thing to say, and does not add much to the discussion.


The absolute postulate is not the desire to live. Again, try to focus on the present issue: why does every human being desire to live? Why might nature have 'programmed' us this way. Does it serve something more fundamental about humanity than just a desire to live? Think of the purpose that each of us is built to serve as part of humanity. In other words, were do all roads lead of human nature while you ask "why" every desire and intuition is the case?

EDIT: Now, I would be interested if you want to explain exactly how we can derive moral precepts from general human facts, e.g., that people generally want to live (as you seem to suggest).


There are many ways to, I'll show how after I know you understand the first premise.
Wolfman
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Location: Oakland, CA

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 1138
Posted 10/29/09 - 09:50 AM:
quote post
#87
Odin,

You are hinting towards some brand of naturalism, which I am actually favorable to, albeit not in the traditional form. However, you need to say more about your theory.

You contend that "morals are universal", but what you are arguing is that certain human desires are universal. This is quite a different thing. Now, in response you might say that we first have to establish a basis from which we can establish an ideal code of human behavior. However, it goes without saying that it is human nature to have certain desires, so I don't think it prudent to dwell on this trivial point. I am interested in how you derive morality, as you put it, from such a basis. I looked at your previous posts in this thread, but I saw mostly metaphors and vague philosophical musing. I am interested in your philosophical method. So let's tear through the gossamer and start doing some philosophy. You have a few things to explain right now as I see it:

1.You say that there is a "purpose that each of us is built to serve as part of humanity". This has yet to be established, and it would be poor philosophy to take the statement at face value. You need to support your claim that there is a purpose that each of us is built to serve.

2. You say that morality can be derived from universal human desires. Walk me through a process in which you can establish some kind of moral precept or principle based on the aforesaid grounds.

Edited by Wolfman on 10/29/09 - 10:32 AM
"That which is done out of love is always beyond good and evil" - Nietzsche
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." - Aristotle
"It is better to do one's own duty, however defective it may be, than to follow the duty of another, however well one may perform it. He who does his duty as his own nature reveals it, never sins." - Lao Tzu
"Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play." - Kant
Wolfman
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Location: Oakland, CA

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 1138
Posted 10/29/09 - 10:10 AM:
quote post
#88
James S Saint wrote:
Wolfman,

How do you define a moral versus just a general good idea or general rule? What exactly makes a rule a moral rather than any other kind of rule?


There are moral judgments in which we say that a certain action or certain type of action is morally right, wrong, ought to be done, ought not to be done, etc. In other judgments we speak about the moral character of people, motives, intentions, and so on. The former type are judgments of obligation, i.e., deontic, while the latter are of moral value, i.e., aretaic.

From these sort of judgments we can distinguish judgments of nonmoral value, in which we do not so much evaluate motives, intentions, oughts or ought nots, rather we evaluate paintings, cars, experiences, and even certain desires, e.g., to sleep.

Now, there are also nonmoral judgments of obligation. You ought to buy some new jeans. The right thing to do is steal second base. You really have to visit your mother-in-law.. You have to, really.. cool
"That which is done out of love is always beyond good and evil" - Nietzsche
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." - Aristotle
"It is better to do one's own duty, however defective it may be, than to follow the duty of another, however well one may perform it. He who does his duty as his own nature reveals it, never sins." - Lao Tzu
"Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play." - Kant
James S Saint
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 227
Posted 10/29/09 - 02:29 PM:
quote post
#89
Wolfman wrote:


There are moral judgments in which we say that a certain action or certain type of action is morally right, wrong, ought to be done, ought not to be done, etc. In other judgments we speak about the moral character of people, motives, intentions, and so on. The former type are judgments of obligation, i.e., deontic, while the latter are of moral value, i.e., aretaic.

From these sort of judgments we can distinguish judgments of nonmoral value, in which we do not so much evaluate motives, intentions, oughts or ought nots, rather we evaluate paintings, cars, experiences, and even certain desires, e.g., to sleep.

Now, there are also nonmoral judgments of obligation. You ought to buy some new jeans. The right thing to do is steal second base. You really have to visit your mother-in-law.. You have to, really.. cool


In other words, you don't have any definition for the primary word and concept that has been argued over for the last 88 posts. I imagine "universal" would also have nothing but a vague mildly associated description or connotation standing in place of its definiton as well.

This makes the 3rd thread I have run across in which people are so very willing to argue even though they know that they don't even know what it is that they argue about. On the AI consciousness thread, they even refuse to define "consciousness". "What would there be to argue about if we defined our words, silly?"
Wolfman
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Location: Oakland, CA

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 1138
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted 10/29/09 - 03:44 PM:
quote post
#90
James S Saint,

I’m not quite sure if you are disagreeing with me or just expressing disappointment in the situation in general.

If you are disagreeing with me, I’m not sure how you can come to the conclusion that I don’t know what "universal" means after asking me your initial question. This is because, in your initial question, you never asked me what universal means. You asked me, "How do you define a moral versus just a general good idea or general rule? What exactly makes a rule a moral rather than any other kind of rule? This question is quite different from asking me what the term "universal" means. So it seems that if your aim was to extract a definition of universal from me, your question was not well formulated.

If you are just expressing disappointment in the situation in general, fair enough. However, I don’t feel that the problem here is defining what it means to be universal though. The difficulty comes in disambiguating the OP’s question: "Are morals universal?" Well, this depends. We can interpret this question in a number of ways, and evidently, a number of posters already have.

For instance:

1. Are morals universal in the sense that moral law is inherent in the nature of human beings, simply by virtue of being a rational agent? E.g., Kantian deontology.

2. Is morality internally bound, i.e., in foro interno, with self-interest, and thus universal in a sense? E.g., Hobbes.

3. Is morality universal in the sense that it is grounded in sympathetic tendencies, which are endemic to human nature? E.g., Hume.

4. Is morality universal in the sense that we all strive for the good, and human beings have a function? E.g., Aristotle.

5. Are morals universal in that there exists a supreme principle of morality that is universally binding on all rational agents? E.g., a principle of utility or categorical imperative.

In all of these cases, morality is, in some sense, universal. So it would be helpful to reformulate the question more precisely.
"That which is done out of love is always beyond good and evil" - Nietzsche
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." - Aristotle
"It is better to do one's own duty, however defective it may be, than to follow the duty of another, however well one may perform it. He who does his duty as his own nature reveals it, never sins." - Lao Tzu
"Experience without theory is blind, but theory without experience is mere intellectual play." - Kant
Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19



Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.

Powered by WSN Forum

The time is now 11/22/09 - 09:51 PM.