OT: Objective moral truth

[Jack Simth]

The problem with objective morality (technically ethics - ethics are the rules and regs (or the way to come up with them to the nth degree) and morality is how well they are followed by a given individual - but that's nit-picking) is that we have yet to truly find a way around assumptions. You want to apply logic to the field of ethics? First you will need to assume that logic necessarily applies to questions of ethics (or assume a basis on which logic is necessarily applied, or assume a basis that makes a basis on which logic is necessary, or ...) sufficent to rule out any other basis that does not come to the EXACT same set of specific application decisions in every case (if they come up with the exact same set of specific application decisions in every case, they are the same; after all, there is more than one way to prove the pythagorean theorm under the particular set of circumstances where it works). On a fundamental level, this is also true of math (and of logic - in order to apply logic, you must first (1) assume that logic necessarily applies, and (2) assume that some set of starting conditions is true; sure, you can see that one bead plus one bead equals two beads, you need to assume that what you see reflects reality - can you prove that you are not caught up in The Matrix or something like it? If not, you must assume that what you are viewing reflects reality. Sure, it's an assumption few would question, as it's opposite is rather ridiculous - yet it is still an assumption) - sure, 1 + 1 = 2, 2 + 2 = 4; but that is because of the way the symbols are defined. You can define a consistent system under which that is not the case (such as relative velocity under relativity - (1/2) c + (1/2) c < c - check with your physics professor). In order to say that 1 + 1 = 2, you must first define the value 1, the value 2, the operation +, and the operation =. In order to say that a person killing a person without sufficient cause for such an action (one definition of murder) is wrong requires you to first define "person" "killing" and "sufficent cause for such an action". The catch is that such definitions (or the method for coming up with such definitions, or the method for coming up with the method for coming up with such definitions, and so on, and so forth) is fundamentally assumed. Can you prove that a week-old newborn is a person, without first having an already proven definition that you can use to argue on the basis of? What about a fetus 3 months after conception? A grown woman of 30? A coma patient? A mentally developmentally disabled human of 15 physical years? Even if you could concretely prove every event-statement in the Bible (God said this, God did this, this happened, et cetera), you would still need to assume that the created ought to follow the rules of the Creator before you could say The Ten Commandments ought to be followed (granted, given some way to prove all such event statements, most would agree that the rules laid out in the Bible would then become authoritative - but there is still an assumption there). You will not be able to meet those three requirements under any circumstances I could imagine without an assumption somewhere along the line. If such an assumption exists, it is no longer objective, as you can't prove it in it's entierety. You can come up with stuff that is "close enough" to proven with "makes sense" assumptions, but those don't quite qualify as objective.

[deccan]

Jack Simth said:
The problem with objective morality (technically ethics - ethics are the rules and regs (or the way to come up with them to the nth degree) and morality is how well they are followed by a given individual - but that's nit-picking) is that we have yet to truly find a way around assumptions.

An excellent post on the problems with the foundational theory of epistemic justification, Jack Simth!

But your argument seems to apply to everything and so appears to deny that there is any objective truth to anything whatsoever, leaving the door open to things like Holocaust deniers, the Moon landings never occured theorists, Masonite conspirators who are so skilled at manipulating world events that the lack of evidence of a conspiracy and itself evidence of such a conspiracy etc.

I think that in order to maintain that objective truth is still possible (albeit in a weakened, post-Kantian form of the term), while still denying that "objective morality" is possible, requires more elaboration on the whole Hume / G.E. Moore thesis that it is impossible to derive an "ought" from an "is".

[Jack Simth]

deccan said:
An excellent post on the problems with the foundational theory of epistemic justification, Jack Simth!

But your argument seems to apply to everything and so appears to deny that there is any objective truth to anything whatsoever, leaving the door open to things like Holocaust deniers, the Moon landings never occured theorists, Masonite conspirators who are so skilled at manipulating world events that the lack of evidence of a conspiracy and itself evidence of such a conspiracy etc.

I think that in order to maintain that objective truth is still possible (albeit in a weakened, post-Kantian form of the term), while still denying that "objective morality" is possible, requires more elaboration on the whole Hume / G.E. Moore thesis that it is impossible to derive an "ought" from an "is".

There's a catch when using the above on logic, applied science (but not purely theoretical science or history), and math: you can test and demonstrate those to a reasonable degree, to see if they are "right". You can't do that with ethics. Take, for example, the case of the innocent fat man (for those of you unfamiliar with what I am talking about, it's a scenerio for philosophers of ethics: a fat man goes into some sea caves to rescue some lost tourists. He finds them, and leads them out. Unfortunately, he gets exceptionally stuck, with his head above the high tide mark, at the exit, with the tourists stuck inside the cave. The tourists find they have a stick of dynamite and a match. If they do nothing, they will drown, but the innocent fat man will survive. They can also blow up the innocent fat man, killing him, to unstopper the exit, so they can survive. The innocent fat man wants to survive, even knowing it would cost the tourists their lives (they wouldn't have a chance at survival anyway, were it not for him, after all). However, he can't act, and his actions are not the focus of the exercise. The actions of the tourists are. Do they blow him up, or not?). Even assuming someone was evil enough to arrange the situation as a test, all that would reveal is what those tourists would do, not what they should do.
Math is concerned with the rules of the game; what "ought to be" is immaterial compared to what the rules of the game say.
Logic is concerned with "given set A of starting conditions, and set B of operators, is it possible to prove set C of conclusions?" ... but you have to have a set A of starting conditions and set B of operators, and have them be beyond question for the discussion; lacking such, logic gets you exactly nowhere; but that's okay - Having the A and the B to get the C is what logic is all about; it's where logic lives. If A and/or B is false, the conclusions C are untrustworthy. That's implied from the start of the game. Logic is about what's true given some specified set of circumstances. If those circumstances are false, that particular logical proof simply doesn't apply.
In the applied sciences, it's all about concrete, measureable results: how much horsepower does this particular engine design produce? Build it and find out! Sure, theory is used to model and predict, but where the rubber meets the road, it's all about actually trying it, and seeing if you get the expected result. If you are caught in The Matrix, well, then you are predicting things based on that universe; it's still usefull in that context.

You can't do that with ethics. At best, emperically, you could observe that a society following a particular set of ethics is happier / sadder / wealthier / poorer / more populous / less populous (or whatever other criteria you could choose) than a society following a different set. But before you can pick one set over the other, you must first assume some criteria to pick by; beyond personal preference, you can't really defend such a criteria for long. Is a society where a lot of people die young, but the remainder are quite happy and care free "better than" or "worse than" one where most people live to a ripe old age, but are constantly sad and worried? Which is more important: the rights of the few or the wants of the many? Why? On what basis can you claim that? On what basis can you claim that basis? Why should that particular point matter?

Wait, where was I going with this? Oh well, I got lost. No biggie.

[deccan]

Jack Simth said:
Wait, where was I going with this? Oh well, I got lost. No biggie.

Here's a simple way to organize all that.

In order to have an "objective morality", you must have an objective standard. With science, the standard is reality itself. If moral laws had the same sort of existence as laws of physics, then there would be no need to oblige people to obey moral laws. After all, one has no choice about obeying the laws of physics.

This is why any form of proposed "objective morality" seems to have really strange properties. They are not an ingrained part of the universe, like physical laws, yet they somehow "matter", are capable of bestowing moral obligation, must be accessible to moral beings and provide feedback to them on what is good and evil and have transcendental properties of timelessness and externality.

[Glyn]

Just my opinion.

Morals are a set of uncodified rules that a group adopts in order to interact with some expectation of predictable behavior. Different Groups can and do have different moral codes. If you are a member of a group with a common moral code then you should be able to predict what actions causes what reactions in others of the same moral group. You would be less capable of predicting reactions of members of a group that have adopted a moral code you are not familiar with, and therefore less successful in engaging in productive interactions.

There are probably sets of morals that have a reinforcing synergy so they usually found together. There are probably some morals which have a very high value to all Groups, so they are usually universally adopted.

I would find it likely that some morals could become an instinctual behavior over time, and would feel like a universal truth or law of nature.


Good morals are ones that promote the prosperity of the group over time, and therefore benefiting most of the individuals.

Bad morals are ones that negatively impact the group over time, usually benefiting the individual over the group.