In Defense of Objective Morality: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » In Defense of Objective Morality » In Defense of Objective Morality

In Defense of Objective Morality

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

In Defense of Objective Morality

Wolfman
Tenured Poster

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

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 1138

Posted 11/03/09 - 01:10 AM: Subject: In Defense of Objective Morality	#1
The answer to the question of whether morality is objective depends on whether we can step back from our own subjective standpoint and adopt a broader perspective. If we can do this, then we have a starting place. Our aim would be to reorder our motives in such a way that is acceptable from an external standpoint. There are a series of steps which we can take to improve the way we lead our lives. Nagel would say that the problem is to discover the form which reasons for actions take, and whether it can be described from no particular point of view. The method is to begin with the reasons that appear to obtain from our own point of view and those of other individuals, and ask what the best perspectiveless account of those reasons is. In this respect, morality is concerned with practical reasoning, i.e., having reasons to act and acting in light of those reasons. EDIT: I should also note that independently existing moral facts or natural moral properties are not preconditions for normativity (in fact, I would argue alongside the moral skeptic against the existence of such properties and facts). Edited by Wolfman on 11/03/09 - 01:15 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

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 11/03/09 - 01:46 AM:	#2
Sounds like you reinvented the categorical imperative, or maybe taking a stab at utilitarianism? As soon as you say "improve", you are reflecting on a particular set of values from a particular standpoint. Very few actions are universally beneficial compared to the ones which are subjectively beneficial. The problem is you are arguing for a value from an external value, (altruism?), which is itself a subjective value.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Wolfman
Tenured Poster

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

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 1138

Posted 11/03/09 - 02:12 AM:	#3
swstephe wrote: Sounds like you reinvented the categorical imperative, or maybe taking a stab at utilitarianism? I am not postulating a supreme principle of morality. I am merely explicating a normative basis for morality. (Also, just for the record I do not subscribe to any extreme sort of deontology (Kant), and am a harsh critic of utilitarianism). swstephe wrote: As soon as you say "improve", you are reflecting on a particular set of values from a particular standpoint. Very few actions are universally beneficial compared to the ones which are subjectively beneficial. The problem is you are arguing for a value from an external value, (altruism?), which is itself a subjective value. I am not arguing for a value from an external value. The ascent to an objective view, far from revealing new values that modify the subjective appearances, reveals that appearances are all there is: it enables us to observe and describe our subjective motives but does not produce any new ones. If there is some basic minimal sense of concern, some universal emotional logic that is endemic to human nature, then it seems that there is an objective basis for normativity. This universal emotional logic can hardly be denied. We cringe at injustice. We prefer happiness to misery. Dignity is better than humiliation.. Moral psychology gives an account of our basic drives, motivations, emotional tendencies and the like; and a theory of practical reason gives us reason to comply with moral rationales, given our nature. Edited by Wolfman on 11/03/09 - 02:36 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

Yahadreas
YHDRS

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Location: Awesometown

Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1904

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/03/09 - 04:13 AM:	#4
Wolfman wrote: If there is some basic minimal sense of concern, some universal emotional logic that is endemic to human nature, then it seems that there is an objective basis for normativity. This universal emotional logic can hardly be denied. We cringe at injustice. We prefer happiness to misery. Dignity is better than humiliation.. Exactly. Just define morality as the behavioural directives which aim to promote that which is wanted by the (large) majority, here and now, and to deny that which is unwanted by the (large) majority, here and now. The only "problem" is when people insist on trying to find a moral proposition that is as true as "1 + 1 = 2" or "E = mc^2". I wouldn't even understand what was even meant by such a proposition. Would seem like trying to find a mathematical formula which shows that hats are to be worn on one's head. Complete and utter nonsense.
I am awesome.

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 529

Posted 11/03/09 - 06:11 AM:	#5
I would suggest that simply accepting the fact that our morals perspectives are just that, "OURS", would be the first and most important step to achieve this goal. As for the desires and preferences of the (large) majority, this just does not cut it. Too many will still be left out. Forget the technical crap about "objective morals must be universally accepted by all" as this will never be the case, that is unless the population goes down to one. I do not mean this in a bad way, but been there done that. If I continue down a path that many have gone before and have not reached the goal, perhaps the path is the wrong way. Go through the woods instead. More that getting lost and not arriving at the goal can not happen. Perhaps simply the acknowledging of our personal limitations and limited perspectives as being just that "limited" would be enough. Then the acknowledging that others are not better or worse in their potentials. Do not encourage "toleration" as toleration is the artificial accepting of something. Toleration is a lie. Rather the expansion of our personal moral universe to include options of "understanding" of other individual moral universe possibilities would be better? Honest understanding. Rules will always be limited and conditional to time/space and cultural. If understanding and acceptance of differences would be encouraged, the majority of conflicts would be eliminated. Through understanding and acceptance injustices would be a thing of the past. Until we finally see our place a PART of reality and not the ruler of reality, nothing will be accomplished. Wolfi, I really get what is bugging you. It seems all too simple, but still... you just want to ask "why"? Well, you did ask... a start. ONly if more people would take time to ask this question, the answer is within. Meow! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIYJERcdHb0 Jerry Sings!

Yahadreas
YHDRS

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Location: Awesometown

Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1904

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/03/09 - 06:21 AM:	#6
That just makes things complicated. I like my example. The truth of "murder is immoral" is of the same kind as that of "hats are to be worn on one's head". We can say that anyone who considers something opposite to these views to be wrong, even though there are no "natural properties" from which to derive an unconditional, absolute, universal, strictly-objective fact-of-the-matter.
I am awesome.

baden511
McHamlet

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 13, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 182

Posted 11/03/09 - 07:37 AM:	#7
Wolfman wrote: I am not postulating a supreme principle of morality. I am merely explicating a normative basis for morality. (Also, just for the record I do not subscribe to any extreme sort of deontology (Kant), and am a harsh critic of utilitarianism). I'm with you here. Wolfman wrote: If there is some basic minimal sense of concern, some universal emotional logic that is endemic to human nature, then it seems that there is an objective basis for normativity. This universal emotional logic can hardly be denied. We cringe at injustice. We prefer happiness to misery. Dignity is better than humiliation.. Moral psychology gives an account of our basic drives, motivations, emotional tendencies and the like; and a theory of practical reason gives us reason to comply with moral rationales, given our nature. I would supplement this by emphasizing that I don't think that a theory of practical reason necessarily gives us a reason to comply with a particular moral rationale if we are individually minded and fully aware of our freedom to choose (religions try to do this and very often fail); although, it might (like religion) make us feel better/worse about the choices we already make in the sense that we may anticipate them resulting in social approbation/condemnation as a consequence of others recognizing the rationale in question as valid/invalid. Furthermore, like Rawls' "Veil of Ignorance" theory, any such rationale could form the basis of laws (which religions, being neither rationally based nor (normally) socioculturally current cannot usefully do), and this in my view is really the only valid basis for formulating an 'objective', or what I would call 'social' morality. Personal morality, or what we think is right in accordance with our own principles (or drives), subsumes social reality in the sense that it is modified by an awareness of social sanctions but is (in almost all cases) not completely bound to them. And being dependent on personal psychology it is not really morality at all but just another word for selfishness. As I mentioned in another post, there always exists a potential pay-off for our actions from a subjective point of view. If we were to identify an agent who took an action for which we could not find a pay-off, we could defensibly label him irrational (in this respect the 9/11 bombers were not irrational; their payoff was heavenly bliss - a payoff in which they fervently believed and which (though their actions are abhorrent to almost of all those not of their religious/political persuasion) cannot be proved wrong or immoral from a purely objective point of view. Similarly, the bombing of Iraq was defensible to those of a certain political persuasion and reprehensible to others (I, for example, found it reprehensible)). As you may have noticed, this amounts to me contending that rationality a social construct like morality. I am. Moralities and rationalities are, in my view, like organisms, dependent on their environment and selected by evolutionary processes, and when we argue for them we argue for what is best in the context of how we live now. So, I think when you say: Wolfman wrote: The answer to the question of whether morality is objective depends on whether we can step back from our own subjective standpoint and adopt a broader perspective. If we can do this, then we have a starting place. You are highlighting the point that we can choose an 'objective' morality recognizing that it does not necessarily have objective value in the wider sense (in which only the viewpoint of an omniscient being could be the confirmatory factor), however, it does have social value and if taught and recognized as a coherent set of "good strategies" in the social world it could help to close the gap between personal morality and social morality. In other words, if one gives people a reason, and a good one, to follow moral precepts then they may do so. The caveat is that if one wants to appeal to an intelligent audience, one would be wise to avoid the mistakes of religions and recognize that those precepts are socially grounded and not purely objective. EDIT: I wrote the above before I saw mayor of simpleton's post. It should be clear that I agree that: mayor of simpleton wrote: Rules will always be limited and conditional to time/space and cultural. Edited by baden511 on 11/03/09 - 08:29 AM
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Moses (Numbers 31:17-18) "Do not harm little children" - Satanic Bible. Rule no.9 "And the prize is: Eternal heavenly bliss. Or a peanut. Your choice." - The Divine Game Show Host

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2138

Posted 11/03/09 - 07:38 AM:	#8
That's very interesting. 'Hats are to be worn on one's head.' Are you saying that, whilst there's no fact of the matter about how to wear a hat, yet, if we were to contradict the maxim, we would no longer be dealing with the concept of hats but of something else or nothing at all? So the appropriate wearing of a hat is a matter of logical necessity or of a priori judgement of some kind?

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1023

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 11/03/09 - 08:12 AM:	#9
The distinction which has been made throughout the history of philosophy between subjective and objective in ethics and other areas is questionable in certain respects at least, I think. I think it is typical of the kind of disdain for or disregard of "ordinary day to day life" indulged in by some philosophers. I quite agree that the search for a summum bonum is futile and misguided. Dewey wrote somewhere that ethics is not a sort of set of establshed principles to be applied to each situation, but that ethical judgments--all judgments really--are made necessarily on a case by case basis.
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

Yahadreas
YHDRS

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Location: Awesometown

Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1904

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/03/09 - 09:29 AM:	#10
Cuthbert wrote: That's very interesting. 'Hats are to be worn on one's head.' Are you saying that, whilst there's no fact of the matter about how to wear a hat, yet, if we were to contradict the maxim, we would no longer be dealing with the concept of hats but of something else or nothing at all? So the appropriate wearing of a hat is a matter of logical necessity or of a priori judgement of some kind? In a way, yes. Because, by definition, a hat is "a covering for the head". If you don't wear it on your head, then it's no longer a hat. The definition stems from its use. To change its use would be to contradict the definition, and give it one new. But there is no mathematical proof or physical law that makes it necessary for that object to be a hat. Similarly, there's no mathematical proof or physical law that makes it necessary for that action to be immoral. It's simply a logical derivation from a commonly-agreed meaning (for example: that which harms is called immoral, and that harms). This, I think, is where people sometimes fail. They think there's an objective meaning of immoral. Which is, of course, nonsense. Edited by Yahadreas on 11/09/09 - 04:11 PM
I am awesome.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

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