Skepticism and Morality

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

This in relation to a discussion I had last night with someone.

The question is this: Can I make the statement, “I experience X, and therefore Y exist.” And follow this with the statement, “I experience A, but B does not exist.”

I’ll attempt to elucidate. That is, I am here, right now, typing on this keyboard. And therefore, I make the assumption that this experience is true, that I exist, that the keyboard exist, that the Internet exist, that this forum exist, etc. And this is all, of course, based on experience.

So, if I experience morality, that is moral dilemmas, moral wrongs, moral goods, situations where what we dub morality is present, does it seem logical to state that morality does NOT exist?

This appears very contradictory. It seems that I have no more reason to believe in one than the other. That is, if one experience is accepted as true, how can the other be false? I can examine them, and make statements about them and be objective (to some degree) about them. One person will experience and see them slightly differently than I do, and that seems fine.

But it seems (to me) a great leap to say that one experience is true and one is false. They’re obviously different, and have different qualities about them. One is a tangible experience, one is more psychological in nature. But can the existence of it (morality) be solely dependent upon that? That seems a lose justification.

Anyway, I’m not sure how clear this is. If you want something more specific (examples or such) please, let me know. This is just something I’d like to see discussed.

2

trying to make one statement encompass more than one condition or experience is a mistake, there will always be exceptions. The truth lies in the instance of experience or condition and only then. Change is constant.

3

Ok, I think I didn’t make this quite as clear as it should be.

Example:

I see a blue car coming toward me. Being skeptical of this, I can’t say, “There is a blue car coming toward me.” But I can say, “I am experiencing a blue car coming toward me.” As such, following this, it also seems fair to say, that when I experience something moral (a moral wrong for instance) I can say that I am experiencing a moral wrong.

The question is: Can I somehow deny the moral experience, but not the one of the car?

Is that better?

Additionally, in more direct reply: But if I later realize that an experience was not as I perceived it to be, can’t I question the experience? If the truth is only in the “instantce” of the experience, it seems I can’t. Yet, we can often examine things, and discover that we were somewhat mistaken. Indeed, our perceptions can be tricked. And since our experiences are tied to our perceptions, doesn’t it appear that we could have experiences which are not what we “think” they are? Extreme cold can make us feel like we’re burning, but we’re not, for instance.

And in retrospect, I may realize that my gf was not angry with me (though this is what my experience made me believe at the time) but that there were other conditions causing her anger. Make sense?

Granted, in my example I’m talking more about fundamental things (Can we even accept our experiences as a form of experience-knowledge?) than the previous, but they are related.

4

This borders on the objectivist realms…

Anyway, when you experience a stimulus through your physical senses, you are right to say “I experience X” This can be extrapolated into,
“According to my perception, X is occuring.” Since the former clause is universal among human beings, we tend not to need to say it.

The bottom line is, you are forced to trust the stimulus that your physical organs provide your brain. Direct experience (while not the only method of “knowing”, read up on epistomology), while possibly logically refuted, cannot help but be taken as truth.

5

There seems to be an inherent difference between claiming “there’s a blue car”, and “that’s wrong, therefore I made a moral decision”.

The difference is, that the blue car is independent of you, you have nothing to do with the blue car, it is there, you simply observe it. The blue car will come at you weather or not you observe it, and weather or not you accept it. If you don’t believe this, then simply move 2 feet to the right, and it will inevitably hit you…

On the other hand, morality is something that is not absolute. Morality is something society has taught us, and is up for inerpretation. To claim that morality cannot be denied, is to claim that there such a thing as a moral absolute. A statement that I don’t think you’ll make.

When you see an action, or committ a wrong, it is not inherently wrong, you make it wrong by feeling guilt. If you choose not to feel guilt then it is not wrong. This is the seperating facet in every action, that makes it either good or bad. You do not feel guilt about something, therefore it is not wrong to you. If someone tells you it is wrong, you will either accept it and feel guilt about it, or deny it, and not feel guilt about it.
The defining moral facet of every action is guilt.
If you don’t feel guilt, then morality dissappears. Which I think is a good think. Because then and only then can you begin to be reasonable.

6

Hmmm, that might require some arguing for dude :slight_smile: I personally have never come across a good argument for this claim!

7

You’re not following the premise I put forth. You’re approaching this from an empirical and observational based position. I was approaching from a more skeptical and experience based one. If you want to change the premise, please make another topic and I’ll be happy to join in.

The question is not, “Will the car hit me?” The question is, “Is there a car?” It seems plausible that there could be no car, but I still experience the car hitting me. But if I accept that there is the experience of the car, why do I not accept the experience of morality? And if I accept the experience of the car as genuine, why would I not accept the experience of morality as genuine? You’re not answering my question. Instead, you’re giving me a new question, with a new basis (though similar).

Don’t think I’ll make? Are you so sure about that?

I can think it was wrong, even without feeling guilty.

See previous. In addition, guilt is not often a conscious choice, but more often an unconscious reaction.

Prove this.

Why can one not be both reasonable and moral?

8

As an objectivist I will say this: Morality is not subjective. Morality is a science based on consistant theories of metaphysics and epistemology.
Morality needs to be achieved by a process of objective reasoning. The hierarchy of concepts that lead to the right theory of ethics must be connected to reality and is therefore objective in nature.
Emotions like guilt do not constitute truth. Emotions are the result of values that one has which are the product of concepts within the context of their own knowledge. What is held as truth by a man that does not feel guilty about committing a terrorist act are obviously not connected to reality.
:astonished:

9 
[quote="the objectivist"]
As an objectivist I will say this: Morality is not subjective.
[/quote]

Sorry if it seems as though I’m picking on you, “The Objectivist”…this was just too good to pass up.

10

Do not be sorry. I do not mind.
I don’t get the joke anyway.