On The Possibility of Objective Morality
Pages
| Author | Topic: On The Possibility of Objective Morality |
|---|---|
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 14:29
Profile
Homepage
Since there seems to be more to be said about ethical ontology, and it's currently wreaking havoc on the abortion topic, I suppose I may as well start another topic for it. quote:Now, to me, a reasonable definition of what is objectively right might look something like the following: If it is objectively right to do something, then any given individual should do that thing under any given circumstances. I hope nobody finds this statement objectionable. There is, unfortunately, a problem with the above statement, and it has to do with the word "should". Ordinarily, when we say that someone should do something, we have in the back of our minds some reason why they should do that thing. If a police officer tells me "You should not kill people because if you do then you will be imprisoned, and you would not like that", this is all very well. If a religious person tells me "You should not kill people because you will go to hell, and you would not like that", this is all very well also; it may be a true statement, it may be a false statement, but it's a statement I can understand. But how am I even to interpret the bald statement "You should not kill people"? If I ask someone "Why should I not kill people?" and he says "You should not kill people because it is right not to do so", then since by the above definition something right is something everyone should do, he is saying "You should not kill people because you should not kill people", which seems like no answer at all. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 14:36
Profile
To speak specially about killing someone... Perhaps in killing someone it would cause however many people cared for that person would suffer. As well as causing a state of fear in those who live near where the killing to place. Right and wrong are more commonly defined by the general well being of the masses. -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 14:40
Profile
Homepage
quote:Personally, the utilitarian viewpoint holds considerable appeal for me, but even setting aside the problems of how to define well-being, such an ethical standard requires an assumption that not everybody is willing to make. Plenty of people, for example, believe in absolute rights which ought not to be violated regardless of how much doing so might contribute to general well-being. So if we cannot even get everyone to agree that the effect of an action on public well-being constitutes the standard for what is right or wrong, we cannot call that an objective standard of right and wrong, even if well-being could be measured objectively. (Another problem with such an approach is that it disconnects the concept of right from the concept that one should do what is right, thus bleeding morality of any force it might hold.) [ Sunday, March 27, 2005 14:43: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 14:46
Profile
quote:Unfortunatly, I don't think there is anything that is the right thing to do under any circumstance. If you rephrased it as "If it is objectively right to do something, then any given individual should do that thing.", then I would agree with it. quote:I agree there is a problem, but I think it's a problem for you, rather than me. The thing is, people often DO do things simply because 'it is the right thing to do'. A man may save another's life, not because he expects to be rewarded for it, or punished if he doesn't, but because he should. [ Sunday, March 27, 2005 14:47: Message edited by: The Creator ] -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 14:48
Profile
Homepage
quote:How is saying that someone does something because he believes he should any different from saying that he does it because he wants to do it? Clearly on some level he did want to do it (even if only out of a vague feeling of obligation), or he wouldn't have done it. And I don't know about you, but whenever I do something that I feel as if I ought to do, I always do it with at least some anticipation that someone is going to heap praise and adulation on me for doing it, even if realistically I know that's unlikely. (And if the vanishingly remote prospect of a reward weren't enough to motivate many people, poker machines wouldn't be so popular.) [ Sunday, March 27, 2005 14:55: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 15:16
Profile
quote:Let us consider a man who hears in the distance a cry for help. He may have the desire to save the man, and the praise he would get for it, but he also has the desire not to concern himself and not expend the effort required to help him. He also wants to remain safe. Let us say that at first his (overall) desire to help is less than his (overall) desire not to. He may then simply continue on, or he might spend a moment arousing his desire to help. He might imagine the other man's plight in order to arouse his sympathy, or he might imagine the praise he would get for for helping. But notice what has just happened. Something other than his desire to help (which for ease of argument I would like to call the moral law) has convinced him to make himself want to help. The moral law, which tells him which of his instincts to follow, cannot itself be an instinct. -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 15:20
Profile
Homepage
I disagree that this is what happens in practice. My view is that a delayed choice to help is not in response to the action of some external moral force, but is instead in response to increasing anxiety occasioned by a fear, whether innate or indoctrinated, of behaviour seen as unacceptable. The exact same pattern of increasing anxiety about not performing the act until the act is performed is seen in obsessive-compulsive behaviour. Unless you want to argue that it's morally wrong for an obsessive-compulsive to fail to wash his hands 17 times before leaving the house, the argument that a delayed response indicates the action of some moral imperative inherent in the universe seems to rest on shaky ground. If you want to know why this pattern of increasing anxiety does occur, well, that's an empirical question rather than a philosophical one, but in my experience it's probably because observation of a situation over a period of time will tend to make it increasingly obvious that the problem to be addressed won't go away on its own. [ Sunday, March 27, 2005 15:26: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 15:46
Profile
But the moral law often goes against what is seen as acceptable (e.g. Oscar Schindler). Or do you think he did it for the sake of what the allies would think? I doubt that he thought Germany would lose the war when he started. Here's another way of looking at it: If the Moral Law was simply an instinct, we ought to be able to point to some impulse that is always 'good'. But there is no impulse that the Moral Law will not tell you to squash under some circumstances, and tell you to indulge at others. -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 15:50
Profile
Homepage
That's just because there are a large number of influences on people's actions, and they happen to add up in different ways for different people at different times. Schindler's actions may not have had the approval of the government, but presumably his family still did a decent job of teaching him from an early age that saving lives was a good thing. If your alleged moral motivator were a single, unified force, presumably it'd guide everyone to act in similar ways, or at least toward a common goal, but everything we see in the world suggests this isn't the case. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 16:13
Profile
Part of the action of helping others is instinctually driven. That is fight or flight mechanism. If someone saw someone else being harmed they would either go and help them, or have fear and run. This is not necessarily wrong doing. My apologies for that being a slight variation from what was said above. If someone saw a person being harmed and for no other reason than not wanting to get involved that may be seen as wrong doing. That may also not be the case. Suppose the person had family at home, or other greatly depended on this person's assistance. The only way I see wrong doing in this situation is if the person felt pleasure because the other person was being harmed. -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 16:19
Profile
People would act in similar ways and toward a unified goal if they followed it. It's because people often go againt the Moral Law that they don't. There is not a single person who doesn't break it, most often daily. An interesting thing to notice is that when people are confronted with having done the 'wrong thing', they make excuses as to why they haven't really. They rarely claim that the 'right' thing was simply a desire they didn't follow. It seems even when we break the Moral Law we would rather pretend we have not. Edit: Dolphin, I am not at the moment concered as to what things are right or wrong. At the moment, I'm just trying to establish that there IS right and wrong. Also, from A site about Oscar Schindler: "No one will ever know exactly what made this complex man do what no German had the courage to do. A large part of the fascination of Schindler is that not even those who admire him most can figure out his motives." I'll see what I can find about his upbringing. [ Sunday, March 27, 2005 16:38: Message edited by: The Creator ] -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 16:24
Profile
Homepage
That's... an interesting point. I really have nothing to contribute, but am enjoying this debate quite a bit. -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 16:37
Profile
Homepage
Creator, are you really arguing that everyone has identical moral intuitions? If it were true, your argument would seem to prove too much; that all but one of the world's ethical systems were really developed for self-aggrandisement and that everyone who followed them knew that. [ Sunday, March 27, 2005 16:39: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 16:40
Profile
People don't want to feel bad, and when people do things they know are they are wrong they generally feel bad. There is always that desire to do what makes one feel good even if it means being briefly looked down on by others. Denial of ones actions would simply be an act of shame. Or maybe they really feel like they did nothing wrong. [ Sunday, March 27, 2005 16:41: Message edited by: Dolphin ] -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 16:43
Profile
Basically, yes. People's intuitions will always have some differences, due to the fact that no two people will be in the exact same situation, but it is the same Moral Law regardless. Edit: On the contrary, if you compare ethical systems from across nations and ages, you will find they are remakably similar. It would appear that they are all based on the same standard. They might differ as to who you should be unselfish to, but they agree you ought to be unselfish. You will not find a civilisation that admires people who betray their closest friends. [ Sunday, March 27, 2005 16:54: Message edited by: The Creator ] -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 16:48
Profile
Homepage
That doesn't fit with my experience at all. I find it hard to believe that a loyal soldier and a conscientious objector, both believing that they're doing the right thing, are motivated by the exact same set of principles. And that's only within *our* society; traditions such as human sacrifice are so far removed from our experience that they're incomprehensible, but we have no reason to believe that the people who performed them thought there was anything wrong with them. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 17:05
Profile
quote:As I said before, it changes according to the situation. The loyal soldier and a conscientious objector are found in vastly different situations. And even when they argue you will find they have similar moral princials (The value of human life, for example). I don't think anyone thought of human sacrifice as right. Necessary maybe, to save a village from the gods, but not right in of itself. -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 17:16
Profile
Homepage
The trouble is that the things that pretty much all people care about are rather narrow -- limited, essentially, to the happiness of themselves and the people they know. Even when you help someone you've never met before, at the time you help him he's no longer a stranger to you -- just by seeing him and his situation, you already know something about him and he's no longer an abstract case. People focus on specific cases, not general principles, when they want to be convincing. Nobody talks about euthanasia, they talk about Terry Schiavo. Nobody talks about poverty in Africa, they talk about the child they sponsor through a charity and get a picture of every month. Few people place any serious value on the life of someone who's completely anonymous to them. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 17:17
Profile
Of course they thought it was right. It was the right way to please their Gods, and that would please them. -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 17:25
Profile
But they didn't necessarily belive their gods were good. They thought they embodied certain aspects of the world. That God is Good is a belife peculiar to jews, christians, and muslims. And they have never endorsed human sacrifice. But we're talking about something too far removed from any of our experiences to be sure about. Nobody talks about poverty in Africa. Sure they do. Few people place any serious value on the life of someone who's completely anonymous to them. Quite a few people seem to place serious value on completely anonymous babies when it comes to the abortion issue. Besides, what has that got to do with anything? [ Sunday, March 27, 2005 17:35: Message edited by: The Creator ] -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 5437
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 17:29
Profile
Good is a modern notion. Pleasing the Gods may bring rain, food, or prosperity. They would bring fertility and happiness. To the ancients these things are what we call good. -------------------- Nena Posts: 2032 | Registered: Wednesday, January 26 2005 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 17:32
Profile
Homepage
The ancient Greeks generally believed that the gods were perfect as well. (One would think this would require a fair bit of cognitive dissonance, but apparently they were capable of it.) Mind you, the Greeks didn't practice human sacrifice, but they did do plenty of things you wouldn't approve of. [ Sunday, March 27, 2005 17:33: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 17:42
Profile
quote:Good is hardly a modern notion. Judaoism (sp?) is based on 'good and evil' and it's hardly modern. quote:Considering the way the Greek gods fought amongst each other, what they meant by perfect must mean something different to what we're talking about. Perfect ability perhaps? -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 17:48
Profile
Homepage
quote:Hence my comment about cognitive dissonance. :P But yeah, the ancient Greek conception of virtue was considerably different from our own. I'm not sure that fact exactly helps your argument, though. EDIT: A thought. Even if it really were true that absolutely everyone felt as if it were right to do a certain thing, would that, in your view, mean that it really was right to do that thing? If the answer's no, I'm not sure how your postulated moral force helps matters. [ Sunday, March 27, 2005 17:51: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Sunday, March 27 2005 17:59
Profile
Perhaps we should stick to ethical systems we actually understand. My point (based on what I know and the word of someone who has studied the issue) remains that the difference in morality between cultures has never amounted to anything like a total difference. But maybe we should investigate this ourselves. Edit: If we assume the Moral Law exists, the next step is to apply what we know of it to the universe. If we take the moral law as something inside us that pressures us to act a certain way, it seems rather odd that we do not in fact act that way. Stones always obey the laws of physics, but people often break the Moral Law. It implies that there is a reality beyond the facts of human behavior. Something we ought to do that we do not in fact do. If it is not something we made up, it appears that something else wants us to behave a certain way. [ Sunday, March 27, 2005 18:20: Message edited by: The Creator ] -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
