back to the beginning: morality

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1421

Moral absolutism, moral nihilism, moral relativism
University of Notre Dame

With this in mind, let’s move to consideration of our second version of opposition to moral absolutism: the view that there are facts about which actions are right and wrong, but that these facts are, in some way or another, relative to a person or group of people.

Of course, for centuries now philosophers and ethicists have been assigned the task of taking this into consideration. In other words, in order to concoct a deontological morality such that people might still choose to be immoral but – click – all rational men and women recognize that particular behaviors are in fact either moral or immoral. So, there’s no question of what is right and wrong. There is only those on the wrong side being caught or not caught.

A first question is about what a view like this could mean. In fact, there are many things that it could mean, but one thing it could mean is this:

Moral relativism: actions are not right or wrong “in themselves”, but only relative to a person or group.

On the other hand, no one, to the best of my current knowledge, has ever actually demonstrated that this is in fact true objectively. We still basically live in a world such that all one need do is to believe they are on the One True Path. That’s what makes it true precisely because in a No God world, morality revolves largely around dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome. In other words, individual frames of mind rooted historically and culturally out in a particular world understood in a particular way given the manner in which human interactions themselves are embedded in complex and convoluted combinations of contingency, chance and change.

Let’s call it the “I’m right from my side, you’re right from your side” frame of mind. And, theoretically, I’m sure there are any number of philosophers who can defend it. On the other hand, out in the real world this mentality is often viewed as repugnant to the moral objectivists. Of course there are moral absolutes. After all, they already embody them themselves socially, politically and economically. So, if you want to be thought of as enlightened, you’ll join them.

Or else?

1422

Moral Objectivism
by Michael Huemer

What is the issue

The present essay is a defense of a view called moral objectivism and attack on its opposite, subjectivism or moral relativism. Moral relativism is probably the subject concerning which more nonsense has been written and said in modern times than any other in moral philosophy.

Well, this ought to be interesting. Of course, there is always the possibility that moral relativism is in fact nonsensical. I would never deny that. Indeed, as I’ve noted over and again, given how disturbing it can be being “fractured and fragmented” in an essentially meaningless world that reconfigures into oblivion, what I wouldn’t give to be convinced that it is.

On the other hand, I suspect, what any number of the moral and political and spiritual objectivists wouldn’t give to go to the grave never once really doubting they were on the One True Path to enlightenment and immortality and salvation.

Me? Well, I’ll always own up to the fact that my own assessments here are rooted existentially in dasein. That I may well be wrong regarding any number of things pertaining to meaning and morality and metaphysics. And this revolves largely around The Gap, Rummy’s Rule and the Benjamin Button Syndrome.

Or, rather, given the manner in which “I” have come to understand them “here and now”.

Which is basically what the moral objectivists will often insist regarding those who don’t rationalize value judgments in precisely the same manner as they do. Along with any number of other psychological defense mechanisms.

Click, of course.

In other words, re the objectivists, others don’t grasp moral concepts as those who are “one of us” are wholly obligated to. Or, instead, everything goes back and forth in exchanges that never come down out of the conceptual clouds.

The assumption then being they themselves are not rationalizing anything and that others must have a poor grasp of moral concepts if they do no overlap entirely with the moral objectivists own.

Great, he is going to define the terms as he sees fit in order to rebut the definitions of all those who do not embrace the same definitions.

1423

Moral Objectivism
by Michael Huemer

Then this part:

I am not chiefly concerned herein to defend any particular moral claims, although I shall mention some uncontroversial moral truths for illustrative purposes. Rather, my concern is to show that questions of value have objective, rational answers but not to provide those answers. The latter is a task for another time.

Sort of reminds me of those here who explore morality up in the theoretical/technical clouds. Basically – if I do say so myself – they argue that only when we have pinned down the objective manner in which to define the words used in the arguments can we bring them down to Earth and explore the extent to which the definitions and deductions are applicable to actual moral and political conflagrations.

Alas, however, on page after page after page after page, the task of bringing them all down to our day to day social, political and economic interactions never seems appropriate.

Aside, of course, from the objectivists among us. Oh, sure, they’ll bring their moral convictions down to Earth, but…but only to insist others had better toe the line or else.

“Objectivism” and “relativism”

“Objectivism” denotes the thesis that morality is objective. Subjectivism holds that morality is subjective. Relativism holds that morality is relative.

What we “hold” here [some argue] is entirely interchangeable in a wholly determined universe. And even to the extent we do possess some degree of autonomy, others argue, morality remains rooted existentially in dasein.

He’s interested in this. But only to the extent he does steer of actual moral claims? We’ll have to wait until he provides us with what he construes to be controversial moral truths.

1424

In all these years Ive not once read a post of yours where you address conflicting goods concretely. Youve accused me of being in the clouds but I have very often, while also trying to figure things out theoretically, discussed concrete conflicting goods. There is no one here as up in the clouds as you - perhaps because you separate philosophy from ‘distractions’ - life.

1425

[quote=“Jakob, post:1424, topic:30639, full:true, username:Jakob”]
In all these years Ive not once read a post of yours where you address conflicting goods concretely.

Start here: back to the beginning: morality

Now, in regard to abortion [or any other moral or political conflagration of note] please explain how this is not applicable to you.

The same with these two threads:

All I can do is to encompass my own moral philosophy in the threads above and ask others [the objectivists in particular] why my points aren’t applicable to them.

Given both an issue and a set of circumstances of particular importance to them.

Again, when you note an issue and a set of circumstances embedded in conflicting value judgments, we can explore this more substantively.

[quote=“Jakob, post:1424, topic:30639, full:true, username:Jakob”]There is no one here as up in the clouds as you - perhaps because you separate philosophy from ‘distractions’ - life.

Let’s pursue an exchange in which we attempt to explain our own moral philosophies given a particular context of your own choosing.

Oh, and just of curiosity, how does astrology fit in here? :wink:

1426

.
You pose the same/routine questions, that you’ve asked before… stagnated, much?

…according to you yes you have, stagnated, much… could that be the actual cause, of the hole that you cannot get out of.

I bet at your age, you get the flu jab right? My brother used to… it did bad things to his health, which stopped and improved, when he stopped taking it.

1427

Moral Objectivism
by Michael Huemer

In particular, I stress that I do not wish to presuppose any particular theory about how people should behave nor any particular reasons why they should so behave.

Let alone any particular moral policy that results in actual rewards and punishments? In other words, it’s still basically just dueling definitions and dueling deductions.

After all, desires are rooted in the more “primitive” parts of the human brain. Intertwined, as well, in the id, in libidos, in drives, in biological imperatives, in subconscious and unconscious states that are always going to be only more or less in our control. Click, of course.

Now, all we need is an actual context swirling about one or another moral conflagration. In other words, whereby the objectivists among us attempt to explain why their own moral facts anchored in their own moral philosophy ought to prevail.

Theoretically and otherwise?

Figures?

1428

Moral Objectivism
by Michael Huemer

We want to know whether there are objective values (which I take for the same question as whether morality is objective). It may be asked, what shall we say if it turns out that some values are objective and some are not?

Okay, make this distinction yourself here. Which particular value judgments do you see as objective given your own interactions with others in which conflicting goods were confronted.

I’m afraid I’ll still need a context. And what of the moral objectivists among us? Those who insist their own moral judgments – God or No God – come as close to embodying “all values are objective” as mere mortals can possibly get.

Finally, a “for instance”:

On the other hand…
BBC - Ethics - Slavery: Philosophers justifying slavery.
BBC - Ethics - Slavery: Attempts to justify slavery

Existentially, I have come to believe that human slavery is wrong. But that’s not the same as being able to demonstrate that it is.

So, would anyone here care to go about demonstrating that, in fact, slavery is inherently/necessarily/objectively/essentially etc., immoral.

1429

You seem to be pining for objectivity. If there is such a thing as karma, would you accept that as objectivity?

Maybe ‘what goes around, comes around’, if there is truth in that, is the objectivity you are looking for. Like very simplistically if you keep slaves in this life you will be a slave in the next.

I know this doesn’t resolve the abortion issue. But to me it seems the only kind of moral objectivity that is possible - the reality of consequence.

Then again maybe it is all random and there is only ‘good is good’.

1430

@iam, You can’t even demonstrate why slavery is morally wrong? What kind of (lack of) morality are you coming from?

What do you think morality is, right and wrong / good and bad? These are inherently self-defining concepts, truisms.

What is good is good, for whatever reasons in fact it is good and in what situations and contexts and for whom and why. Just as what is bad is bad, for whatever reasons in fact it is bad and in what situations and contexts and for whom and why.

With that in mind, what is slavery? Using another person as an object of control and forced labor. Limiting their freedoms, choices, experiences and movements in an extreme way by use of force and pain against them. Giving them no choice and no chance but to do what you want them to do, or be punished with pain or disability or death.

So you tell me, for that human being for whom the slavery is a direct meaning and experience, is that an example of something that is overall and in the total aggregate and based on what that person is and how and why they are what they are, either good for that person or bad for that person?

Here’s a hint: if you can’t even answer that question, you might as well give up on philosophy entirely.

1431

Morality/meaning has to involve reason/choice (consent). Moral imbalance/privation involves an intentional loss (rejection, abandonment) of moral compass—or an undeveloped/immature moral compass.

A moral compass is the inner recognition that every person is an other that is a unique self, and acknowledging this (respecting their consent-respecting consents) in one’s thoughts, values, and behaviors.

Does slavery do that? Does abortion?

1432

What is your stance on abortion of a pregnancy caused by a rape?

A christian site answers

‘You wouldn’t kill a two year old who was conceived by rape either.’

The question remains whether or not a new embryo is a person, that it has self awareness. I somehow feel that it does, at least to an extent.

Still, the life of that mother will be largely ruined, filled with unhappiness and irreconcilable feelings, very deep sadness. There is also that person to consider.

1433

@HumAnIze slavery, murder, genocide is by definition wrong if we consider human individuals to have intrinsic value. But a real moral nihilist doesn’t, in nihilism there cannot be intrinsic value.

So, can moral nihilism have any value? I don’t think so, because it can’t bestow value.

1434

Even a moral nihilist must admit that these things are bad for the people against whom they are inflicted. Therefore, these things are bad (for those people), which means it is an objective fact that these things are bad for those people. Therefore it is also an objective fact, even for a moral nihilist, that if the moral nihilist inflicts these things upon others he is doing something bad (for those people being affected).

There is no way of getting around good is good, bad is bad, AND there is no way to try and push good and bad into a purely non-human universal stratosphere of somehow magical goodness or badness AS SUCH. No… good and bad are always relative to given beings for whom good and bad things are even possible.

One must consider the recipient of an action, that recipient’s own goods and bads, in order to weigh the moral value of that action. The action itself can be seen as good or bad in so far as it has either good or bad results on those who are recipients of the action in question.

If I punch someone in the face, or steal from them, or give them some food, or give them some money, or whatever else… those actions are effectively judged morally by the effects they have upon the recipient persons. It might be good or bad for me, as the action’s originator, but the action is impacting and occurring meaningfully primarily upon another person therefore that is where the centrality of the moral impetus also impacts and occurs meaningfully.

Maybe a moral nihilist doesn’t care about the goods and bads of other people, in which case we are not claiming the actions he does have no moral value in a more objective sense, only that he himself is not operating properly due to an ignorance of the moral truths involved resulting from his actions. Of course people can be immoral, deliberately so. That does not somehow disprove morality, in fact it indirectly demonstrates it.

1435

I think it is rather amoral than immoral. Amorality may be considered immoral by a moralist, but it has a different definition.

My point was just that if persons aren’t seen to have intrinsic value, then it doesn’t matter whether something is good or bad for them.

It’s like multiplying values by zero. That is what nihilism is.

1436

But humans do have intrinsic value, because humans are beings for whom values apply. Goods are good and bads are bad for humans and for certain objectively occurring reasons. This is just the same as it is for any living being for whom values apply.

1437

…by aborting their innocent child, or by saving it and blessing another family desperate for their own, but unable to conceive?

A society should honor the saver of life, and help save it.

1438

But values apply for all beings - I don’t see how a human is absolutely different from a cow in this regard. Sure you can say that the nutritious value of a cow exceeds its own values, but that cant be objectively proven. Not even for a plant.

1439

Right, we kill plant and animal life for its value to us. Just as that plant and animal life already has value to itself, and us killing it is bad for itself and from its own perspective. It is good for us to eat the plants and animals, because it is good for us in many ways (keeps us healthy, alive) but it is bad for a plant or animal to be killed because it is bad for that plant/animal specifically (violates its own being that values existing). I see no contradictions here. We simply prioritize the one over the other.

1440

it remains somewhat of a question if the new embryo is already a child. I think it may be but Im not sure entirely.

Grated, where that is possible it seems like a good outcome.

A lofty approach.