On morals, a workable objective morality

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Okay, first things first, I am a Nitzschean douchebag and I really prefer ethical systems and basically despise the word moral. However, we all generally know that moral and ethical systems are both going for the same thing… the “right” behavior in a given situation.

So anyways, some dude in another forum [he may be a member here for all I know] posted a large argument, that I didn’t like. After I nitpicked, he sorta just said what he was going for, and then I got his point. In fact, I sympathized. So, I tried to re-order where his moral argument and my ethical viewpoint meshed, and I tried to restate the argument.

Since I’m not vested in it, you can criticize the holy living shit out of it. Yes Imp, this means you. :wink:

I will try to defend it, and I am sure its too vague. I must say, though, at this point in time I have at least persuaded myself, and that’s not an easy thing to do.

Assumptions: there is a universe or reality external to us, and it has an order. [If you think this sounds a bit like Locke’s Natural Law, you’d be correct.]

  1. The universe, in so far as we can know it, has a learnable and discoverable order.

  2. The order of the universe provides a system, or framework, which would determine a course of action for a conscious agent or agency - if properly understood by the actor. We’ll call this proper form of action the moral action, or moral agency.

  3. The proper action that is most in accordance with this order, which I will call the natural order, is therefore the “objective moral” action. This is the highest level of coherency between the agent, the act, and the universe.

  4. Despite the problems inherent in knowing, communicating, and verifying this agency, we should strive for both knowing and acting in accordance with objective moral agency.

2

sure. you can’t know it; you can’t communicate it; you can’t verify this natural objective moral agency; but you must follow it… sounds great… do we drink the kool-aid now? will the asteroid reveal the mother-ship as well?

-Imp

3

hee!

Alright you ol’ crank. Just fyi, this was an attempt to create an argument for a nihilistic perspective [the original argument] - so I really do appreciate your feedback… Though, I fucking hate your nested in my quote bolding shit, so I will reply more properly, separately.

Oh, and thanks for the vivisection. :wink:

4

Assumptions: there is a universe or reality external to us, and it has an order. [If you think this sounds a bit like Locke’s Natural Law, you’d be correct.]

  1. The universe, in so far as we can know it, has a learnable and discoverable order.

why should the universe be limited to the capacity of human knowledge or sensory perception? is it a clear and distinct idea you are finding?

I did not imply it is limited. In fact, the entirety of the universe is not knowable to the human mind, likely ever. I’d say that form of omnicient consciousness is entirely impossible. I am just saying we can observe, and learn. You know, basic empiricism.

  1. The order of the universe provides a system, or framework, which would determine a course of action for a conscious agent or agency - if properly understood by the actor. We’ll call this proper form of action the moral action, or moral agency.

the order of the universe?!? where did we discover this objective system that all can plainly observe, learn and discover? is it hiding behind the clear and distinct ideas?

There are constants in the universe. There is gravity, molecules, and matter. These things have not perceptively changed, and these laws are and have been discovered by the scientific method. aka Empirical sciences via method.

  1. The proper action that is most in accordance with this order, which I will call the natural order, is therefore the “objective moral” action. This is the highest level of coherency between the agent, the act, and the universe.

ah, the natural order… which nature is that? where is it observed? is it hiding in the interpretation of the lemmings? is it blatant in the interpretation of the maggots consuming the dead? is the path to this natural order discovered through man made artifices of language and meaning?

It’s even in your belly button! You can feel it in church, when you vote, when you pay your taxes! :laughing: OKAY. This is when I mash up a bit metaphysical, I guess. The point is, its about coherency with the order - much as in science theory only holds up as long as the observation does. Theories, are not truth. Please note I am NOT using TRUTH, but coherency. Look it up if you ain’t heard this before, its my epistemological theory of choice.

  1. Despite the problems inherent in knowing, communicating, and verifying this agency, we should strive for both knowing and acting in accordance with objective moral agency.

sure. you can’t know it; you can’t communicate it; you can’t verify this natural objective moral agency; but you must follow it…

That last bit o’ mine really doesn’t say much, nor is it a cop-out. AND NO YOU ARE WRONG DEAR SIR! I did not say it was deontological, it implied neither duty nor obligation my friend. It only suggests that as part of the universe, we should live in agreement with the order we perceive it to have. Again, the notion of coherency.

Knowledge is only what we agree is true, and believe it true. That’s the essence of the coherency theory of knowledge, as far as I know.

5

I’ve seen so many skewed truths in ILP, I wonder if anyone would agree anything is true. If I was to say water is wet, I wouldn’t be surprised to see someone respond “water burned me last week”. I guess then I would reply "you shouldn’t have turned on just the hot water. Apparently known truths are purely subjective matters. You take it out on the objective highway, and you’ll get varying views of what the scenery is.

6

Well I did oversimplify it a bit. Plus I was sick of typing.

Coherency is the agreement between the observable, and the believable.

ie, If you see a magic trick, but don’t believe it, its not true. If you see the magic trick, and you do believe that lady was sawed in half, then it is true.

However, it only remains true as long as this is also true of all other observers. The magician knows its not true.

Either way, it was knowledge to you, but the validity of the knowledge comes from the validity of the observation and the agreement of other observers. Its like, bounded relativism - when extended to morality. In no way does that theory, afaik, claim that there is objective knowledge of objective truth.

In this sense, it parallels the old Platonic Form/Ideal thing, imho. The Form, in this case the Form of objective moral action, is never really achieved - but the coherency of the ideal to the form is the purest we can get.

7

So, do you think objective moralities formed at a young adult time, say through a philosophy professor at a uni may get tempered over time with age. Is one going to hold to those ‘truths’ from a older, more learned professor or will those thoughts change with life experiences?

8

Hmmm, I am not sure we are on the same page. No one “holds” an objective truth, or knowledge, imho. They may stumble upon it, but I am not sure they’d know it nor could they really prove it. I have no doubt that one’s moral values will change throughout life, in many possible ways, either more liberal or more conservative, if you will.

Youth is more likely to be unable to perceive the universe as well as someone with the experience we otherwise call wisdom, imho. I’m just saying that a lack of agreement, or a transition of values speaks mostly of the change of the observer, and not of the objective. The objective is defined by the environment the moral choice is taking place in, and that alone would determine any variation of what the objective morality is.

For example, I feel the value of human life changes dramatically in a world that has only 50,000 humans in it, versus one with 6.2 billion people in it. Human life is pretty valuelesss these days, its diluted. Life itself, however, retains an intrinsic value. I just find it hard to give a shit about Darfur given the total of the global population - there are already too many people on this globe as it is, imho. Same would be true of abortion.

I don’t think I am contradicting my above argument here, but it would be interesting to hear if someone thought I was.

It would be a rather twisted irony if wisdom was wasted on the old, and not that youth was wasted on the young…

9

agreement is not truth. Lehrer is simply incorrect…

plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/

-Imp

10

Imp, if truths are relegated to physical quantifiable reconciliations of what man can scientifically verify, is anything else beyond that an illusion humanity has contrived as an escape clause for the imagination? Would the arts fall into this category? I am not an educated person, but this how I am perceiving the gist of the link you had listed.

11

truths are not relegated as such… facts of the matter may be, but historical evidence is unstable…

scientific “verification” is based on an error when it predicts the future and it verifies noting.

that which is beyond physics is metaphysics and the metaphysical is never sensed… (and yes, by definition, the future is metaphysical)

art as metaphysics depends on the art…

-Imp

12

You are probably right about us not being on the same page. I explained to Imp on the above post I made to him I am not an educated person. These type of discussions intrigue me and I am trying to expand my learning base. I also realize you are not vested whole heartedly in this discussion since you are trying to convey what someone else from another forum had posted. It’s almost like taking the ‘devils advocate’ position and placing yourself in a more vulnerable light…admirable.

I agree with a world in the billions, people take on the ‘I don’t care about much beyond my own backyard’ due to the problems we have in our own communities. Is it possible due to the mores and the scale of the world, it’s hard to invest morality from soundbites we hear from the media concerning the atrocities going on in the world. The U.S. has attempted this and is being viewed as an imperialistic adjunct as the world’s guardian putting their collective noses where it isn’t wanted. I do however feel abortion is needless and should only be considered if health risks for mother and child can be avoided. Adoption is clearly a preferred avenue for me. It’s hard to conjecture if you are contradicitng from your original post since you are arguing from a proxy point of view.

13

I’ll reply in full after the “Overblown Saucer” game is played later today…

However…

Agreement is truth. You are simply incorrect… :wink:

In so far as you disagree with this, you only call into to question the validity of this theory as for it being the “objective truth” of the meaning of truth, or of the objective knowledge one could claim to have of this epistemological theory. However, your disagreement and claim does not alone suffice that this knowledge is w/out utility whatsoever. Also, skepticism grounded in opinion is not a very logical rebuttal, so you are standing on one leg, as it were.

I’ll happily pick this side topic up again later, or you can rebut in a new thread and keep it going, as its very interesting and a very worthwhile topic. I’d like to keep this thread mostly on the moral system at this point in time.

14

I agree with this analogy. It places itself in a hypothetical theoristic nature basing conclusions on unverifiable outcomes. Yet science must sometimes make some assumptions from other empirical data closely related to the discovery of something looming on the horizon as a theoretical conclusion. This is to my knowledge how some serendipitous discoveries occur during labs.

15

Totally false, and again, lets get this in a more appropriate thread please. Science only indicates that there is a probability of something happening in the future. It is not a prediction, nor does it imply certainty. The scientific method requires ongoing verification, the veracity of any scientific truth claim is fully predicated on this.

Imp’s claim is a straw man.

16

I apologize if I got off topic. I was springboarding on Imps thoughts.

17

I present this very worthy thread.

18

And how are they any different exactly? Just curious.

  1. That order is sporadic and chaotic always ever changing. Hardly anything is Monolithic.

  2. You assume the cosmos is understandable.

  3. You assume that there is a “benign” objective purpose for man.

  4. The cosmos is uncaring of our achievements and leaves us in a indifferent silence.

  5. Without a belief in a god over ourselves there is no reason to be moral.

Un-supported assumption.

.

Un-supported assumption.

Objective purpose? :sunglasses: Un-supported assumption.

Why should people do anything? Un-supported assumption.

19

OK, get back to us when this gets figured out and we can go on to the rest.

20

If you cannot accept that assumption, I really have no interest in any discussion with you whatsoever.