A hint of objective morality!

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I’d like to mention that, when I picked up my computer, my girlfriend said “are you going to post? Because that would be morally wrong.”

So we know that morality is subjective - meaning that the axioms of empiricism and logic don’t yield any information on “should”. However, the axioms of logic do impose restrictions on any moral system, first and foremost that if the system is logically inconsistent, it is unacceptable.

Well, duh. Of course we don’t want to accept a logically inconsistent system - but that doesn’t get us very far.

Sure, it doesn’t get us very far - but, interestingly, it CAN be used to disprove a naive moral element that many people actually still believe!

Conjecture: telling the truth is always morally good, and lying is always morally bad.

Proof that the conjecture is false:

Consider the sentence X = “communicating this sentence is morally wrong”. Since we’re embedded in standard logic, either X is true, or it is false. Suppose X is true. Then communicating the sentence would be morally wrong. Thus, communicating a true sentence would be morally wrong, disproving our conjecture. Then suppose X is false. If X is false, it must not be true that communicating X is wrong. But that means that communicating a false sentence is not wrong, and thus that our conjecture is again disproven.

Summary: either X is true or false. Either way, our conjecture fails.


Isn't that cool?
2

Let me speak on a much more general note:

The proof is flawed in the fact that the object is not defined prior wherein its like not previously disclosing your native language and then your conjecture is: the one language i speak is my native language…and then you would at different times speak different languages and the conjecture fails.
Its impoverished of data.
In your example… X = Communicating “this” sentence is morally wrong, here “this” has to be defined - prior.

Its quite vague in itself marred by different percievables.

For Example:

 1.Statement 2 is true
 2.Statement 1 is false

 How are we to approach the above problem ??? The flaw lies in the fact that there is no implied explicit relationship between the two statements other than the fact that each statement loses its meaning when the other statement ceases to exist hence the statements are not independant, the contradictions emerge when we look at each statement individually and then proceed to the next. we need more data...

This is how I would resolve it…
I will incorporate 2 more independant statements…

 3.Statement 1 is false
 4.Statement 2 is true

Now if we go in order from statement 1 to 4…it makes perfect sense…and remember 3 and 4 are mere repetitions of 2 and 1 ( a mirror image)

to resolve we needed more data not necessarily new.

objective viewpoints generally involving morality is an isolated event and will similarly face such inconsistencies for lack of definition in debt.

3

No, I disagree with all your points.

  1. Parmenides’ famous self-inconsistent-sentence “this sentence is false” is the single-sentence equivalent of your sentences 1) and 2).

  2. Your resolution of adding sentences 3 and 4 doesn’t resolve the contradiction at all. You can still obtain, logically, a contradiction from saying that sentence 1 is false and sentence 2 is true.

The above aren’t really all that important. The most important part is that the “linguistic limitations” objection simply isn’t valid. The structure of my proof isn’t just a philosophical hack: it’s the exact same structure as used in the Godelian Incompleteness Theorem. The obvious difference is that Godel used clever mathematics techniques to express that sentence in the language of set theory. However, that isn’t something that my proof requires, as it is already phrased in the appropriate language.

As with the Godelian Incompleteness Theorem, the sentence in question - the “this” - doesn’t have to be defined prior, as long as it’s crystal clear what the “this” refers to.

Lastly, your language objection doesn’t really make much sense, I don’t think - but you can rephrase the proof to bypass the objection anyway.

X = “Communicating this sentence in any language or form is morally wrong.”

And of course, you can replace “this sentence” with X.

X = “Communicating sentence X in any language or form is morally wrong.”

4

Just to avoid ethical relativism here is exampel of so called Line drawing method which enable us graphical presentation of ethical problems. Thos is casuistic method, or CASUISTRY developed by Jonhsen and Tuomlin and it is also used to resolve problems in biomedicine. The author of example( which modified al little is Michael J. Quinn

The scenario is called: E-mail Solicitation.

SCENARIO: Ann is an accountant in a medium sized firm with about 50 employees. All of the employees work in the same building and everyone knows everyone else on the first-name basis. In her free time Ann works as a volunteer for Humanitarian Organization for which she collects voluntary contributions.

To mark the 10-th anniversary of Humanitarian Organization special festive gala ball is organized where contributions will be donated. That is why Ann decided to send an e-mail to all other employees of her Firm and invite them to stop in her office and buy tickets for the gala evening ball.

Our SCENARIO represents a Test case which we will on the basis of analogy compare to two paradigmatic cases, a positive and a negative paradigm case.

The positive paradigm case represents an example of clearly ethical behavior and the negative paradigm case represents clearly unethical behavior. Paradigm cases are examples of actions where most reasonable people would agree that they are clearly right (acceptable) or clearly wrong (unacceptable)

ANALYSIS: The first step of the analysis represents a construction of hypothetical negative paradigmatic case. For that purpose students must determine what are the features or attributes of a bad e-mail messages.

We must now construct a very clear descriptive definition of a bad or junk e-mail, usually named spam. For that purpose we could use definitions from internet encyclopedia we could also use stasis questions or as a medieval casuist did, we can use simple version of Aristotle’s topic, which are still in use today in journalism: where? When? Why? How ? With what purpose ? For whom? From whom ? or simply: who? what? When? Where ? Why?

The online Free Dictionary defines bad e-mail or spam as unsolicited e-mail, often of a commercial nature, sent indiscriminately to multiple mailing lists, individuals, or newsgroups, junk e-mail.

Negative paradigm :

The spammed or junk e-mails have the following characteristic:

• They are unsolicited

• They are sent out to a large number of people. Some spammers send their messages to tenths of thousand e-mail addresses.

• The sender hopes that he will made a profit on the basis of his e-mails. (advertising)

• The sender falsifies his identity

• The sender hides real content of his message with the help of misleading subject line.

Positive paradigm:

Now we must construct a positive paradigm case by reversing each of the mentioned characteristic. The good or requested e-mail message, have the following characteristics:

• They are requested by a recipient besides that kind of messages give needed or wanted information to the recipient.

• The message is sent to a single person.

• The message brings benefit to recipient and is usually wanted.

• The sender’s identity is accurate

• The subject line of the message reveals the true content of message…

When paradigm cases are done we must construct a chart consisting of a series of line segments, one for each feature of the paradigm case. Each line represents a spectrum which spans from total negative to total positive property.

[size=75]
Negative paradigm case Positive paradigm case

Unsolicited–X------------------------------------------------Solicited

(Mass)Bulk ------------------------------------X-------------- personal

Commercial --------------------------X-----------------Altruistic/ ncommercal

False identity-----------------------------------------------X–True identity

Misleading subject-----------------------------------------X–Accurate subject[/size]

Figure 1: The analysis of the e-mail solicitation scenario

COMMENTARY:

Unsolicited/solicited: Because Ann’s e-mail wasn’t solicited her action is similar to a negative paradigm case and since there is no doubt about that, we laced the mark on a far negative side of the line/spectrum.

Bulk/personal: It is true tha Ann sends her e-mail to all employees and that’s in totall 50 emails, but that is not even close to ten thousands e-mail addresses. Nevertheless, e-mail still reached dozen of people who were not interested in receiving it. Her e-mail was not a mass e-mail neither was personally targeted so we put the mark on the middle of the line of a positive paradigm case.

Commercial/ Uncommercial (altruistic): The e-mail was sent for the benefit of Humanitarian Organization and Ann is selling the ticket not on hers, but on behalf of Humanitarian Organization. Since the beneficiary is a third party, we put our mark in the middle of Commercial/altruistic spectrum.

False identity/true identity: Ann truthfully revealed her identity so we put our mark on the end of a spectrum which means that this attribute of her action is totally similar to a positive paradigm case.

Misleading subject/accurate subject: The email’s line accurately reflects the true purpose of the message so we put our mark on the end of a spectrum which means that this attribute of her action is totally similar to a positive paradigm case.

Although the casuistic procedure is rhetorical it represents the main characteristic of a casuistic approach of argumentation the fact that casuist doesn’t tray to elaborate sophisticated proofs but only to pile various “common arguments” which are well known and used among people.

CONCLUSION

In certain respect Ann’s action is similar to a negative paradigm case: she sends out an unsolicited email.

In all other respects her action to some existent (2times) or completely (2 times) are not similar and differs from a negative paradigm case.

So we must determine which of the features are more significant. For that reason we must on the basis of attributes of the case determine which maxims or principles are relevant to our case or determine ethical duty of Ann’s action.

Ann sends unsolicited email only to all employees, even though her email reached dozen of people, who are not interested in receiving it. So we can characterize Ann’s email as a spam.

A spam is a serious nuisance because it fills our mailboxes’ with unsolicited messages trying to sell us things we are not interested in. For that reason spammed email is send with false identity and misleading subject.

We probably all agree that if we would for instance live in a block of flats that we cant just enter a neighbor apartment without ringing or knocking and start telling that he should come to our apartment and buy ticket for a gala ball of an organization they never heard of.

That is why sending an Unsolicited email represents a violation of right to privacy.

The next question is whether Ann’s email represent a deception made for personal gain or fraud. Since the beneficiary is third party and Ann’s email poses true identity and subject it doesn’t represent “theft” by fraud".

Maxims relevant to our case are: right of an individual to privacy and do not steal (theft by fraud). The tension or moral dilemma exists between Ann’s good intentions or cause because she voluntarily works and rises funds for Humanitarian Organization and an inappropriate way to achieve this goal.

Because Ann’s email violates the right of an individual to privacy her action is inappropriate or unacceptable.

In our first case we used for the purpose of our analysis hypothetical case but for that purpose we can also use a real cases or which is already resolved. In our next case we will rely on the opinion of authorities or experts.

Greg

5

Subjective things can be thought to have an objective existence. It is a different approach than trying to figure out via logical statements. It is more axiomatic via definition. I would call it the “objective-subjective”.

Our subjective experience can be thought to have an objective existence in that we believe there is “something” that objectively makes up our minds and the generalized societal mind that constitutes morality.

Humorously, once you’ve conceptualized the objective-subjective, it becomes the subjective-objective-subjective! :smiley:

6

well, is not everything and anytthing one says out of one’s own mouth considered subjective? there is at least one person who disagrees with a view, and since neither side can actually be proven except with language and other social constructs (which are in turn subjective, creating a circular logic), one’s veiws are considered subjective.

and if everything we say is essentially how we communicate, and we express ideas and “facts” through communication, i believe that everything is subjective. since there are some people who believe in objectivity, even the statement “everything is subjective” is subjective.

there is no such thing as an objective morality. morality is based on one’s culture and customs, and we all know that certain cultures and customs do not get along well with each other.

i guess the only objective statement would be, “in a vacuum, the speed of light is a constant 3x10^8 meters per second,” thanks to einstein. :laughing:

7

You could define subjectivity that way, but I think it’s a boring way to look at it.

In academic philosophy probably, but not in the real world. Most people in a society separate subjective from objective statements on a fairly regular basis. “John got into grad school” ← objective; “John sucks at life” ← subjective.

I don’t follow your argument here. I mean I do, I just don’t think the conclusion follows. It excludes the possibility that some people are factually incorrect.

I think there are objective and subjective statements concerning morality. “Stabbing John in the abdomen caused him physical pain and mental anguish” ← Objective moral statement. “Stabbing John in the abdomen is wrong or bad.” ← subjective moral statement.

Again, I think that’s a boring way to look at it, but I suppose if you want to define subjectivity that way, ok.

8

Good stuff!!!
IMHO, my genetic potential offers an “I can do” that evolves from structure into possiblity, into considerations of ethics and esthetics. Subjectivity is not confinement for knowing. Experience goes beyond it. Knowing should be open ended as is our existence in flux.