For all of you folk who are a big fan of objective ethincs, i would like to propose a challange for you. You must accept two premises which i hope will not be too difficult for you dudes, as i think (unless your a theist of some sort) that they are pretty obvious.
First premise: That by definition for there to be an objective set of morals in the universe, they must exist seperate from humanity, as this would be the definition of something “objective”. Something is not moral, because tom, john or bob thinks its moral, but because it is a moral action seperate from them, and will be moral before they existed, during their existance, and after they existed.
Second premise: is that life did not have to evolve in this universe, and that it is perfectly reasonable to state that it is a logical possibility that our universe could be “quiet”, “cold” and “dead” with nothing except, rocks, gases, stars, galaxies and the like.
Now if this is true, what place is there for ethics in the universe? Where can there exist an objective rule for right and wrong? How can one say that something is “immoral” if human interaction did not exist to decide it to be so, unless a moralist believes that such things as the nuclear reaction inside of a star, or the polarity difference between the clouds and the ground causing lighting has some sort of moral value, because when it comes down to it, that is all it is.
Again like i said, if you do believe that life was “ment to be” (not in the determanistic sence, but in the logically possible sence) i accept your argument, and go happily along your way in life. If not, please post a response.
Well either the existence of life is a miracle or it is purely natural. Either the creation of life took place by some otherworldly force or it is just as much the product of natural forces as rocks, gases, stars and galaxies.
Now if life is the product of natural forces then why divide it from the rest of the universe? Why set it part, other than because of vanity. In setting life apart, we also set ourselves apart right along with it.
If Natural Selection is to be believed then the various Forms of life are the product of a magnificent interaction of random mutation and the orderly laws of physics.
Morality only matters to organisms. If we imagine a hypothetical universe without any organism then morality lacks all context.
Now objects do not have morality. Only organisms have morality. Hence there is no objective morality.
The forms of similar to the system of morality in that neither system is fixed. Each changes to fit an environment. Systems of rules that operate well in an environment survive and systems that don’t change to better fit or go extinct.
Morality is a biological product. It operates in a manner similar to how organisms operate.
Stars and lighting have no morality because they are not biological. Morality is a specialized set of rules that is not applicable outside of its given territory.
Yes, ethics exists apart from our opinions or knowledge of it. But it does not exist without human beings. Here is an analogy that will explain the distinction…
Is there a proper way for a wing of an airplane to be shaped? (yes) Is the proper shape objective or subjective to the whims of our preference? (objective) Would this hypothetical proper shape exist if airplanes did not exist? (no)
The function of ethics is to provide a system of behaviors that will enable cooperation between individual humans for their mutual survival and prosperity.
Anything can be measured by the degree to which it fulfills its function.
Behavioral norms of a society have an objective effect on that society.
Different behavioral norms in a society objectively affect its survival and prosperity for better or worse.
There are individual behaviors which are objectively more beneficial for survival and prosperity of the species. These are, by definition, more ethical than alternate behaviors.
Ethics is objective and independent of our knowledge or opinion of them.
If humans did not exist, neither would human ethics.
“Although airplanes are a human invention, and nowhere may such a wing actually exist physically, there is an “answer to the equation†that is objectively true, regardless of our understanding of it.”
The problem with your analogy of an airplane wing is that it is designed thing with a teleos. What is the teleos of a human being, and a human society by which you would objectively measure the “failure” of a wing?
There might be something to the idea of a human society or a human civilization failing.
I have heard about a recent book by the fellow who wrote Guns, Germs & Steel.
He new book is Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed
by Jared Diamond
From Publishers Weekly
In his Pulitzer Prize–winning bestseller Guns, Germs, and Steel, geographer Diamond laid out a grand view of the organic roots of human civilizations in flora, fauna, climate and geology. That vision takes on apocalyptic overtones in this fascinating comparative study of societies that have, sometimes fatally, undermined their own ecological foundations. Diamond examines storied examples of human economic and social collapse, and even extinction, including Easter Island, classical Mayan civilization and the Greenland Norse. He explores patterns of population growth, overfarming, overgrazing and overhunting, often abetted by drought, cold, rigid social mores and warfare, that lead inexorably to vicious circles of deforestation, erosion and starvation prompted by the disappearance of plant and animal food sources…
You don’t measure the failure of an ethic by the purpose of a human being or a human society. You measure the failure of an ethic by the purpose of ethics as a phenomenon. An ethic is measured by its ability to fulfill the purpose/function/teleos of ethics as a whole.
To determine the function/purpose of ethics, you look at humanity as any outside objective observer would, and you classify the behavior as you would if studying a feature of any other life form. As I say in Natural-Objective Ethics…
With this definition in mind, measurement of the “ethicality” of an ethic would proceed by gathering sociological data to build a case for the effect (negative or positive) on the overall survival and prosperity of the species.
This activity is on par with the collection of historical evidence to piece together a general picture in paleontology, or the forming of prescriptive ecological measures in entomology, or the forming of general cosmological theories.
“With this definition in mind, measurement of the “ethicality” of an ethic would proceed by gathering sociological data to build a case for the effect (negative or positive) on the overall survival and prosperity of the species.”
Sounds quite in keeping with the “objectivity” of Nazi Germany.
So ethics exists apart from our opinoins of knowledge of it… but it does not exist without human beings.
Your saying that ethics exist apart from our opinions or knowledge of it. Then you say that it does not exist without human beings. Which would imply that it does not exist apart from our opinions or knowledge of it. Your contradicting yourself here.
I have just read over your essay, and i cant say i disagree with a single bit of it. You are pointing out an objective set of ethics that are most benificial or “optimal” for the survival of the human species. However, there is no “wrong” being violated in the failing of the human species. If the human species was to die off, what is being violated? Has something “wrong” happened? Is the universe loosing out somehow?
Again, for something to be objective it must exist seperate from the human species, which im yet to see anyone demonstrate. Your ethics are no more objective then the concept of a “chair” or a “table” is. They are illusionarily objective (i think).
I don’t see how. Something can exist objectively as a property of a particular thing, and then in the absence of that thing, the property too would then become absent.
There is if the very definition of “wrong” is “that which fails the human species”. What I am saying is that, by any impartial, rational, and material assessment of what ethics is, this would be the most reasonable definition. Therefore, that which harms humanity is, by definition, categorically unethical.
The universe has nothing to do with it. If a big meteor crashes into the planet, and wipes out humanity then nothing “wrong” or unethical has happened. But if one person blasts the planet with a death ray and destroys all of humanity (save himself of course), this would be unethical. BUT - remember that when I say “x is unethical” this is not a value judgement. It is not a “shame on you” judgmental sort of statement. It is merely a statement of categorical classification under the most rational definition of “ethical”.
the definition of “ethical” is “that which helps humanity”.
therefore, that which harms humanity is, by definition, UNethical.
the man firing the death ray has objectively performed an unethical act, even if he doesn’t think so, even if all of humanity were happy to be destroyed by the ray, and even if no other life form in the history of the universe ever thinks it was unethical. That’s why it is objective.
Sorry, that’s not correct. It is objectively true that homo sapien individual have one head. It is objectively true that torturing a human being will result in it experiencing pain. It is objectively true that human beings are a two-sexed species that reproduce through sexual reproduction.
If humans did not exist, then none of these things would be facts, but they are all objective facts, nontheless. Just the same, there is a behavior inherent in the human species (to form mutually agreed upon rules of behavior for the purpose of mutual prosperity). Some of those rules will fit their purpose better than others and this is objectively true.
It is objectively true that a population of homo sapiens uses the word “chair” to represent a chair.
EDIT: Just thought of this additional point…
Suppose you were studying ants. You documented all of their various behaviors and means of interaction with one another in which they build their colonies, care for their eggs, obtain food, fend off invaders, etc. As a leader in your field, you coin the phrase “antolic” to mean “those behaviors which ants perform as part of their collective function and survival”. And then you publish your book titled, “Encyclopedia of Antolics”.
Then, after studying the ants some more, you find some specific examples of individual ants that, for whatever reason, are conducting behaviors outside of Antolic behavior as you have defined it. These behaviors seem to have no relation to the overall function of the mound, they are not collective in nature, and seem completely outside of Antolic behavior. You would logically call this “unantolic” behavior. You aren’t passing any sort of judgment on the behavior - you are simply categorizing it according to your definition of antolic behaviors.
In addition, it is highly helpful in a number of instances to be able to differ between antolic and unantolic behaviors when writing about ants.
Now, I’ve made up the term “antolic” but this is a basic description of how I have approached ethics. When you look at Homo Sapiens at a species, literally ALL population groups form ethical rules of some sort. It seems fairly obvious that this behavior has a survival function. Therefore, the most rational definition of “ethical” is “those behaviors that aid in cooperation for mutual well being”. If this is a rational definition, then those behaviors in opposition to that function would be “unethical”.
“Therefore, that which harms humanity is, by definition, categorically unethical.”
Your reasoning in entirely circular. Anything that is unethical harms humanity, anything that harms humanity is unethical. Why not start proposing specific things that harm humanity and are therefore unethical, and then we will see the holes in your argument open up. Nazis thought (and still think) that the reproduction of Jews “harmed humanity”, and so reasoned that their extinction was ultimately, using your “objective” standard, the “ethical” act. The justification of some of the most horrendous acts in the history of humanity were done in humanity’s name. While your standard might appear objective, the application of it is entirely subjective. It is for that reason I suspect that proscriptives are missing from your theory.
problem of evil… why dont we blame people for hurricanes any more? immanence… nature as contractual partner… quasi-objects quasi-subjects… angels… etc…
What can i say? Of course there is an objective set of rules that will allow the human race to prosper most effectivly. I think my difficulty lies in the fact that i dont see the universe as containing human beings. I see it containing an uber complex dance of atoms n’ other subatomic structures. From that view, i think you can understand my dificulty in accepting your thesis. As from that view, the human race does not really exist. We are simply a complex set of chemical reactions going on, on our little planet, from that view the sucsess of the human race is irrelevent, and if john uses his death ray, nothing will have changed, and nothing has been violated.
I too see the universe as simply a “dance of atoms” as you put it. I completely agree with your impression that it’s all just atoms, and if humanity existed or not is largely irrelevent to anything - except us.
WE care whether or not we live or die. And, since ethics is a system developed by us, for us, that is all that matters - but is does matter. It being a tool that serves our desires is entirely sufficient to make ethics important and meaningful - to us.
In fact, the very concept of “meaning” implies some entity that something is meaningful to. So, it is not accurate to say that humanity or ethics is “meaningless” in general, because the concept of “meaning” doesn’t apply when divorced from an entity which holds meaning in things. In other words, the statement is simply nonsensical (niether true nor false). And, to say that something is “meaningless” to the universe is also inapplicable because it personifies a mindless object. Universes are not capable of holding meaning in things, so nothing is meaninful or meaningless to a universe.
Having said all this, it is still true, and still an objective fact that when homo sapiens performs behavior x it will have a greater or lesser ability to serve the function for which human beings use ethics than behavior y.
Human beings also need and desire to build bridges, and some methods are objectively more effective than others. This makes the basis on which we build bridges objective. Does it matter how we build our bridges beyond human beings? No. But since I am a human being, it matters a great deal to me.
You, by the way, are a human being, so both how bridges are built, and what is considered moral, should matter a great deal to you, assuming you are sane.
It is not circular when one realizes that the matter of ethics is a matter of definition and category made through observation of human behavior. Once you understand that ethics must be defined before anything rational can be stated about it, then it becomes clear that it is a definitional statement.
For example, the definition of “chair” is “something made to be sat upon”. What is something made to be sat upon? It is a chair. No other argument is needed because the definition of “chair” is something that we simply establish as a people.
Likewise, I am proposing that the definition of “ethics” be that system of behaviors that homo sapien populations tend to mutually establish which moderate their individual behavior for their own mutual benefit.
This definition itself is not an “argument” that can be circular or non-circular. Like the definition of the chair, it is simply a definition and will therefore always be circular.
What is an argument, are the reasons I give for why this definition of ethics is the most reasonable, unbiased, and useful to our needs. I think if you threw out some alternate definitions I could compare in order to show how this definition is more useful.
True, but the Nazi’s were simply wrong. Their data were faulty (and of course their motives, which were the main problem, since the “data” was just propaganda). Genocide is not a good means to improve the survival and prosperity of homo sapiens. Much of the genetic/eugenics models that they referred to have been proven to be lacking in scientific legitimacy, non-arians have been shown not to have superior inborn capability, and dehumanizing and aggresive social systems generally cause far more damage in the long run to human prosperity than the meager short term results their designers wished. Fortunately, the majority of the world realized these horrible things and defeated Nazi Germany.
But all of that is beside the point. When I say that ethical arguments are based on their implications for the well being of humanity, it is entirely possibly that people will try to figure out what is in the best interests of humanity and then be wrong. It is also possible that some people will simply want x, and will therefore try to make it appear that it is beneficial to humanity by distorting information. But this doesn’t change the basis for good ethical research.
This is no different than any other human endeavor. To revisit an analogy, people must research evidence to support various methods of safely building bridges. Does this mean that they can’t make a mistake in their research and a bridge collapse once in a while? Certainly not. It also doesn’t mean that some nefarious contractor might not misrepresent his research and fool others into thinking their methods are safer or more efficient when they aren’t. But that doesn’t change the fact that the best way to build a bridge is to gather evidence based on the effects of construction techniques at providing stability, strength, efficiency, etc.
I completely agree that the application of N-O ethics is subjective, because we are limited human beings that are not all-knowing. But as I pointed out in my paper on the matter, it is nontheless to recognize the ultimately objective nature of ethics, even if we can only know it subjectively. Like any other matter we endeavor to learn more about, progress and research is made on the premise of objectivity in what’s being studied. Without that premise, no progress can ever be made.
This is why, not just the Nazi’s, but everyone who has ever made a moral argument, has done so on the basis I am describing. To argue for the wisdom of ethical thinking in this manner is missing the boat. This isn’t how ethics “should” be done - it is how it “is” done. Think about any moral argument you have ever heard and it can be boiled down to a arguments as to why what is being proposed is “what’s best for human beings”.
Consider your own argument here. “We can’t do it that way because that’s how the Nazi’s did it”. There is an inherent presumption in your argument that what the Nazi’s did was “wrong”. Why? To complete your argument, you must first show 1) that the Nazis are bad, 2) that N-O ethics is the same method Nazis used, and conclude with 3) N-O ethics is therefore bad.
You have stated #2 and 3, but not mentioned the necessary premise of #1. I submit that you cannot support #1 without resorting to arguments that will eventually boil down to “what’s beneficial for all us humans”.
“WE care whether or not we live or die. And, since ethics is a system developed by us, for us, that is all that matters - but is does matter. It being a tool that serves our desires is entirely sufficient to make ethics important and meaningful - to us.”
If what “we” care about is the thing that grounds ethics, then what we care about grounds ethical actions. Not only do we care about living and dying, but we also care about that car we just stole, and that woman we just committed adultery with. The circularity absolutely makes the entirety your ethics subjective. Most people don’t care about the survival of the human species which you claim is the point of ethical behavior, but only care about themselves and those around them.
This is simply a subjective opinion (see below). They themselves believed they were right.
“non-arians have been shown not to have superior inborn capability”
This “scientific fact” would be argued by others. Was the problem with the Nazis that they just had bad data? If their data was improved would their program suddenly become ethical? If Jews were shown to carry specific genetic diseases would it become justified? Isn’t scientific data ever in the hands of ideology? There is no such thing as pure data, data is always interpreted subjectively. If in fact the survival of the human species were the primary goal, then in fact a good, firm eugenics program which involved the elimination of “inferior” genetic material, helping “natural selection” out, would be very much in keeping with your principles. Why not execute any baby that shows any physical weakness (as many societies have done for thousands of years)? Why not prosecute geniuses for not having enough children? The primary directive of your ethics is rather flawed, and the application of it lies at the source of every major war and ideological conflict. Everyone thinks they are right.
“But as I pointed out in my paper on the matter, it is nontheless to recognize the ultimately objective nature of ethics, even if we can only know it subjectively.”
This ultimately makes your objective ethics a subjective ethics. You are placing yourself in the skeptics position. Objective ethics that can only be known subjectively are subjective ethics. Perhaps if you named your ethics Subjectively Known Objective Ethics then we would be closer to the truth.
Ethics are those rules which are mutually agreed on as a norm in society, by overall consensus. Ethics is social in nature so it has no relevance to selfish action.
For example, it is a commonly moral ethic that stealing is wrong. If humanity is correct in thinking that having a taboo against stealing is more beneficial for the species as a whole (which they do think), then stealing would be unethical.
Incidentally, it could be that we human beings are completely wrong, and that allowing rampant theft would not harm the survivability or prosperity of the species at all. If this is the case, then stealing is not unethical even if everyone on the planet thought it was.
But my point is that the belief that stealing ultimately harms humanity is, in objective fact, either correct or incorrect.
“But my point is that the belief that stealing ultimately harms humanity is, in objective fact, either correct or incorrect.”
Finally you prove a concrete example. This of course in incorrect. Stealing military secrets of a regime bent on unethical acts would widely be considered ethical.
Further there are people who have argued that private property, the very concept of private property, upon which “stealing” is based, in unethical in its own right. There is nothing “objective” about the right to own.
Why did you ignore when I wrote this?
“and of course their motives, which were the main problem, since the “data” was just propaganda”
If you’ll stop ignoring entire portions of what I just wrote to you, you would see that I specifically said the opposite, adding the many things that were MAINLY the problem besides that.
I completely agree, thus my many examples of how bridges can collapse or construction methods distorted intentionally be nefarious people.
But my claim is not that we can have perfect objective knowledge of ethics. My claim is that it is, by its nature, objective and that our ability to know those objective facts are subjective. This is compatible with your statement above.
Because you are forgetting that people hate that. The very fact that they hate this sort of thing will mean that it will result in a backlash and ultimately be self defeating. At least, that is my personal position, and I think a good argument can be made for it.
So, what are you saying? That the eugenics and oppressive action you described lead to wars and conflicts? I agree. And, since wars and internal conflict is bad for the species, then you have just proved my point by making an ethical argument based on what’s best for humanity.
Sorry, I don’t believe that’s correct. There is a big difference between ethics that are subjective, and ethics that are objective, but known subjectively. The distinction has broad and crucial implications. If you read (or re-read) “The Importance of the Distinction” in my original N-O paper, I point out all the reasons why.
