Then, of course, it is not incorrect, but only correct in some situations. But this variance happens under an umbrella set of principles. If you read “Environmental Variability” in my original paper, it will explain why variation does not imply subjectivity.
I’m not saying there is. I’m saying that whether or not “the right to own” is more beneficial or harmful to humanity is an objective fact. So, the hippies are EITHER correct or incorrect, it’s not just opinion - that is my point.
DT,
“and of course their motives, which were the main problemâ€
The reason why I ignored this is that it is simply an opinion and not supported by anything nearing “objectivityâ€. If the Nazis had won the war, their motives would have been recast in a different light. There is nothing “objectively†wrong with their motives. You say that their motives were wrong, but in fact their motives were the same as those of your ethics, to preserve the betterment of human beings, from their subjective point of view.
“So, what are you saying? That the eugenics and oppressive action you described lead to wars and conflicts?â€
I am not saying this at all. I am saying that a eugenics program and an euthanasia program are the logical expression of making the “survival of the species†the prime directive of ethics. Why should there be wars? We should all objectively agree that thinning the herd, the elimination of “objective†weakness is what is best. This is the ludicrous consequence of your “objective†stance.
Dunamis
DT,
“Then, of course, it is not incorrect, but only correct in some situations.”
This is nonsense. If it is correct in only some situations, then stealing is correct in some situations as well, so to say that either is an “objectively” ethical act is incorrect as a generality, which is what you were making. It is the application of the principle that is entirely subjective. What you call stealing, another calls rightful redistribution. The “some situations” position entirely destroys the stability of your apparent “objectivity”.
“I’m saying that whether or not “the right to own” is more beneficial or harmful to humanity is an objective fact. So, the hippies are EITHER correct or incorrect, it’s not just opinion - that is my point.”
And the fact that this is ultimately unknowable, because time took its direction at that moment in history and no other, does not stop you? What is the objective fact of the correctness or incorrectness of the hippies? Were they objectivey wrong or right, (I’d like to hear this)?
Dunamis
DT,
I don’t know if this is the Importance of the Distinction you refered to, but I’ll respond to it:
"But I’d like to interject and point out that there is a distinction between that which is “relative” and that which is “subjective”. Something may be relative and objective at the same time, if the means by which it relativistically changes under circumstances is an objective set of qualities.
Like, “prosperity”, the word “fit” is also a bit fuzzy and relative, yet we understand the concept of “survival of the fittest” in evolution, and we also understand that while we humans may have “fuzziness” in dealing linguistically with the concept of fitness, that nonetheless the reality to which the concept refers to is objective, concrete, and has real, precise, and objective effects within the biological systems which evolution describes."
You pass from linguistic fuzziness into a kind of pseudo-biological consequence which somehow confers “objectivity” upon a belief. Following this reasoning any ethical stance, even the most heinous and evil is the result of an objective process and therefore has a right to assert itself. While this would confer a kind of objectivity of process, the judgement between opposed positions, is not reachable via objectivity itself. Objectivity has lead to both positions. Their resolution becomes a kind of perspectivism, where might makes right. Just as the “fittest” organisms survive, so the “fittest” ethical positions survive. The only thing wrong with the Nazis from an ethical point of view is simply that they lost the war. That is the result of your difference between objective ethics subjectively known and relativism.
Dunamis
And yet, implicit but not stated in your approach of critique, is the assumption that the Nazi’s are evil/bad/unfortunate. In fact, if the Nazi’s were not considered by you to be bad, then the force of your argument that N-O leads to Nazzism is non-existent. You are attempting to point out a flaw in N-O by suggesting that it leads to Naziism. But you cannot make the claim that this is somehow an obvious “flaw” without resorting to arguments that support the objective nature of ethics, which is why I presume the premise is unstated by you.
Compare this with…
Except that you have, once again, ignored solid answers to your point. As when I said…
The fact that people hate dehumanizing and oppressive systems, and their reaction to them, is a relevant part of the equation.
And most people will think that “thinning the herd, the elimination of “objective†weakness” is ludicrous and undesirable. This is a fact, and it is a fact that should be included in any calculation as to the most effective set of ethics. You are excluding that fact, which was the miscalculation of many tyrants throughout history, as history has shown.
[/quote]
I would ask you to imagine any secular moral argument for or against anything, that does not boil down to a matter of what’s best for us collectively.
========
Remember that we are only using hypothetical examples to illustrate the model. An actual system of ethics takes into account particular variances, but is still based on an overall set of principles. WHY is it unethical to steal your friend’s bike but not unethical to steal military secrets from an oppresive regime? There is an answer, and that answer underscores the general principle that is objective.
But “how the principle is applied” has an objective effect on the well being of the species. This means that what is the better or worse application in any given event is an objective fact.
That is a whole other discussion and not relevant. Only the fact that one or the other is correct is the argument being made. Which it is will depend on how these behaviors affect humanity. Even if I gave an assessment, it would only be my imperfect guess at the matter. But the point of my argument is that my guess would be either correct or incorrect.
At this point I think we are just repeating ourselves. I suggest think more about this until there is something new to say that wasn’t already addressed in the paper or here. But thanks very much for your time and for reading! 
Sorry, that’s not it. It’s the portion titled “Significance of the Distinction”. My bad.
DT
“And yet, implicit but not stated in your approach of critique, is the assumption that the Nazi’s are evil/bad/unfortunate."
They are bad from my perspective. Not objectively bad. There is a tremendous difference.
“Because you are forgetting that people hate that…"
Just because people hate something does not make it wrong. The recognition of the rights and humanity of black slaves in the American South brought on the Civil War and the deaths of millions. Did that make it wrong? Using your simple equation of “that which provokes wars is wrong†is rather a weak criticism of Nazism. A provoked war may very well be an ethically justifiable war.
“The fact that people hate dehumanizing and oppressive systems, and their reaction to them, is a relevant part of the equation.â€
People also love dehumanizing and oppressive systems, that has to be put into the equation as well. The problem is that there is no “objective†solution to the equation.
“And most people will think that “thinning the herd, the elimination of “objective†weakness” is ludicrous and undesirable.â€
What “most people think†is now the “objective†standard you are appealing to. This is incredibly historically biased. Most people in Germany thought that Jews were inferior and should be treated that way. “Most people†in America in 1790 thought that blacks were inferior and should be treated that way. You are locked within a very narrow band of history and assuming whatever opinions that are generally held today are somehow universal and objective. Talk about relativism. If the purpose of ethics is the preserve the species then what “most people think†might very well be wrong. The thinning of the herd in fact is practiced in many societies. Imperfect babies have been abandoned for perhaps 100,000 years. You seem to have very limited view of history.
“Remember that we are only using hypothetical examples to illustrate the model.â€
Your model is one that can never be applied, because each application brings the objective into the subjective. You might as well just call it the “Will of God†ethics. No one can ever know it, but its there.
“WHY is it unethical to steal your friend’s bike but not unethical to steal military secrets from an oppresive regime? There is an answer, and that answer underscores the general principle that is objective.â€
This is double talk. You are presuming that one is ethical one is not. But there is no general principle that is being objectively applied. One could argue that either is ethical or not. Both are ethical, both unethical. The general principle does not guide the result. There is no “answerâ€. Or rather there are multiple answers.
“But “how the principle is applied” has an objective effect on the well being of the species.â€
But the “objective effect†cannot be measured outside of a subjective frame, so its meaningless as an objective guide. The objective effect of the deaths of so many at Hiroshima has to be weighed against the deaths that would have resulted if that bomb was not dropped and the consequence of the ideologies involved. There is no way to know the meaning of the “objective effectâ€. This is the bottomless pit of your “objectivityâ€.
“That is a whole other discussion and not relevant. Only the fact that one or the other is correct is the argument being made.â€
The reason that it is relevant is that your “objective ethics†are impossible to apply to any ethical situation because subjective judgments must be made and argued with. The earmark of your objective ethics is the impossibility of making any ethical judgments. Those few you have ventured, those of Nazism and stealing show themselves to be guided by nothing more that subjective opinion. An ethics that cannot be applied to life really is not an ethics, but a sophism.
Dunamis
DT,
I assume that this is what you were refering to, where you set the difference between relativism and subjective understanding of objective truths out:
Significance of the Distinction
So, if moral norms evolve through consensus over time, (and is in conflict with other norms that have evolved through consensus over time) and our knowledge of ethics is subjective, one might ask what difference it makes that ethics are actually objective. The purpose of the distinction is extremely important in my view. When we make arguments for or against different behaviors and values in an ethical context, we must have some sort of basis on which to make those arguments. If not, then ethical deliberation simply becomes, at best, a matter of who can persuade whom through emotional manipulation and subterfuge. At worst, it breaks down to a matter of physical violence and domination. (This “must” here appears to be a plea not a grounds.)
However, if we acknowledge (are you saying that the sole objective basis of our ethics comes from acknowledging that there is one? Acknowledgement here is nothing more than “hypothesize” or “assume”) that there truly is a better and a worse way to conduct ourselves (regardless of our knowledge of that way), then we (would) have a framework (this “framework†is simply a positing. There is nothing that distinguishes it as an objectivity) within which we can present hard evidence supporting various ethical claims. We can take up moral positions in support of or in opposition to certain behaviors and policies, but be open to changing those positions based on new evidence.
Some may attempt to argue against this course of action, but I am not suggesting a new course, so much as I am merely describing what is already the usual manner in which ethical arguments are made by absolutists and relativists alike. (There is absolutely nothing “objective†in these two paragraphs, but rather the call to pretend that there is something objective. You are using the word “objective†as if it were a magic word, as if you can wave it around and suddenly ground ethics. The problem is that throughout history the “objectivity†of ethics has lead to tremendous violence. The “iron laws†of history brought forth the Stalinist purges. The “objective†truth of the church’s right to judge heterodoxy brought forth the Inquisition(s). If an “objective†ethical truth at one moment in history becomes a “subjective ethical truth†at a later moment in history, it is safe to assume that the “objective truths†of this moment in history will follow in suit.)
Dunamis
Oh, but it does according to the model I’ve presented. Follow the logic…
Ethics is that system of behavioral standards that develops between people for the purpose of aiding the mutual survival and prosperity of people.
Therefore, those behaviors which harm the mutual survival and prosperity of the people are, by definition, unethical.
If we erect oppresive systems, people will hate them.
Because they hate them, they will react negatively, and this tends be self defeating to those systems in the long run, due to lower participation, general resistance, or even outright rebellion. Not to mention that “prosperity” includes notions of how happy a population is. Because they are at odds with the basic nature of human beings which desire freedoms and humane treatment, these systems result in harmful backlashes.
This means these systems are ultimately more harmful than good to humanity.
See #2. Because erecting an oppressive system is a behavior that is ultimately more harmful than helpful to the survival and prosperity of humanity, this behavior is categorically unethical.
NOW…
Keep in mind that the above logic is NOT the argument I am making. The argument I am making is that any behavioral norm will have some objective effect on the well being of humanity, positive or negative, and that those behavioral norms that result in positive effect are ethical, negative are unethical, by definition.
So, #4 above is one example of an argument for why Naziism, in particular, fit the definition of “unethical”. I could be wrong. Maybe the rebellions and unhappiness wouldn’t ultimately outweigh the benefits, in which case Naziism would be ethical (although I personally doubt it). But regardless of what I think, or which answer is the correct answer, the fact still remains that Naziism has a definite and direct long term effect on the well being of humanity, positive or negative, so the conclusions of N-O ethics remain.
I agree, but the reason that some wars are argued to be ethically justifiable, is because it is percieved that we will ultimately be better off having fought them. That means that the conditions before the war would be more harmful to the long term health of humanity than the conditions that would result from the war.
The Nazis (if we take their propaganda at face value) thought that humanity would be better off with its course of action. This is something that we never actually got to see come to fruition, because most of the rest of the world (including myself today), believed that humanity would be much worse off. They therefore decided that a world that had fought a war and defeated Naziism would be better for humanity than a world that had not fought a war and allowed it to rule.
These are all estimations and approximations made by both sides. Because we can only run history once, we will never know for absolute certain who was correct, but like all matters of science, an argument is built and a case is made.
But my point is that either the Allies or the Axis were objectively correct. Naziism either WOULD or WOULD NOT have been more beneficial to human beings in the long run.
And there is another comparison: Fighting WWII either WAS or WAS NOT more beneficial than allowing Naziism to rule. If it was more beneficial then it was a just war and if not, then it was an unethical war for the Allies to fight. And that would be true, regardless of anyone’s opinion of the matter.
Welcome to being human. But the fact that there is no “objective solution” to the equation is not a problem for N-O ethics. Reason being, that N-O ethics does not make the claim that there is an objective solution obtainable by human beings. It merely makes the claim that there is a solution that exists, apart from our ability to reach it. Again, “Significance of Distinction” points out why it is important to acknowledge that.
Another analogy: meteorology is a science and it studies objective phenomena. It either WILL or WILL NOT rain tomorrow. Can we ever know with certainty? Is there an objective solution to the equation? Not that we can ever reach, no. Does that mean that flipping a coin is as good? No. Because in meteorology you take what information you have as to how these systems function, and look at the available data, then you make estimations based on that. It isn’t perfect knowledge, but it’s the best way we can proceed as human beings. BUT, the point is: that the entire basis of meteorology is predicated on atmospheric happenings being an objective phenomenon.
You are thinking of ethics (or you are thinking of my propositions about ethics) like mathematics. It’s more like meteorology, archeaology, or cosmology. Like these sciences, ethics can be a science, and what it subjectively studies is similarly objective by its nature.
No it isn’t. Because what “most people think” has a great deal of effect (an objective effect) on how that thing will function for humanity. If most people subjectively hate something, then it will not serve to function well for humanity because large numbers of people will reject it, and that is an objective fact.
But this is only one of many factors. There are many other variables that play a role in how an ethical norm will affect overall well being for humanity.
Suppose that most people decide that x is perfectly fine. But x, as it turns out, is ultimately more harmful to the overall well being of humanity than it realizes. Here you would have a situation where, even though all of humanity thought it was doing something good for itself (i.e. ethical), it was actually doing something unethical, even though most people loved it.
Now, an opposite example:
Suppose that most people thought that y was completely discusting and would react violently to it. It may be the case that, if (IF) human beings would just accept y and do it, that y would actually be beneficial for humanity. However, the fact is that they DON’T accept y and their violent reaction to it, must be considered in the overall equation. If y would only be beneficial if people accepted it, and they don’t accept it, then it really isn’t beneficial is it? Especially if trying to force it results in all sorts of inner conflict.
“But “how the principle is applied” has an objective effect on the well being of the species.â€
But the “objective effect†cannot be measured outside of a subjective frame, so its meaningless as an objective guide.
[/quote]
So, if we cannot objectively and magically know the very best way to build a bridge, then the effort to research methods which are better than others in building a bridge is “meaningless”? This is nonsense.
So you are saying here that all of science is irrelevant and meaningless. That the only thing which is meaningful is if we can apply absolute knowledge of something.
No, it is certainly possible. We do it all the time. It’s just not perfect. Nevertheless, we couldn’t even engage in our imperfect pursuit of ethics unless we acknowledge an objective basis to what is being pursued. Just as with any other effort, our subjective knowledge of objective matters does not mean it’s all useless. It means that we make advancements by carefully looking at the data and making the best estimate possible, continually improving as we gather more data and have more experiences.
No, I am not saying that we should pretend ethics is objective because of the benefits. I’m saying that ethics IS objective, and that acknowledging that fact has additional benefits, which this paragraph is outlining.
You confuse the position of “ethics are inherently objective” with the position of “ethics are inherently objective, and I know objectively that they are as follows…” - these are incredibly different positions.
Hes right, i cant believe it, but hes right. There are objective ethics. My life is over =(
Haha, sorry DietCoke. Are you just being a smartass or have I really convinced you?
DT
“You confuse the position of “ethics are inherently objective” with the position of “ethics are inherently objective, and I know objectively that they are as follows…” - these are incredibly different positions.”
This is what your philosophy boils down to: There is an ethically objective answer to all ethical questions, but nobody knows what it is. This is indistinguishable from there being no answer at all, but I suppose that it is superfluous to point this out. It doesn’t seem to bother you. I don’t see the reason for writing so many words on something nobody can know.
To equate it with meterology is foolish because it is not enough to predict the weather in ethics, but to also decide which weather would be best. Some want rain, some sun, each have their reasons. The key to ethics is not prediction but the valuation of predictions. There is no objective answer to which weather is best. The teleos of the person, of society, of the species is in question and ultimately under subjective debate.
Dunamis
When you say, “nobody knows what it is” it’s not like its completely unknowable. Like the “best way to build a bridge” or “whether it will rain tomorrow” there are indicators that can be assessed to build a case for or against different propositions. But without the acknowledgment of objectivity, there can be no such case-building or assessment of the evidence for or against any ethical argument. That is the distinction, and it is crucial and monumental in its implications.
No, the comparable extension of the analogy would be to decide which is best between two different theories about whether or not it will rain tomorrow. We can’t know for certain, but evidence and argument can be made for one theory over the other. By doing this theorizing, we determine which we think is best. But none of that theorizing is possible without the acknowledgment of the objectivity of what meteorology studies. If it was just a total crap shoot then there would be no need for meteorologists.
DT, I wholly agree with you, I think there is a solution, but I think it is not survival or prosperity that are the driving forces behind ethics, but pleasure. Your reasoning behind the failure of the nazis seems to suggest this. You said people hate oppressive behavior, and dunamis asked: but if people understood that some oppressive behavior may lead to the best chance for survival of the species and most prosperity for the whole (I still dont understand prosperity) than people should be alright with oppressive behavior. But history has shown that they are not. People do not like to be oppressed, even ide bet if it can be shown that the oppression is beneficial for survival of the species, like eugenics, they would still reject it, because they dont like it… Doesnt this show the priority of pleasure in ethics? So I would agree with your objective ethics if it was not survival of the species, because honestly, I do not see people creating rules in any society specificly for the survival of the species. And maybe prosperity IS pleasure? But basicly, pleasure is the reason behind it all in my opinion… What is ethical should be that which is most conducive to a pleasurable society for all.
DT,
When you say, “nobody knows what it is” it’s not like its completely unknowable.
What is unknowable is the valuation. You confuse the valuation with the prediction of results. Ethics requires both.
Like the “best way to build a bridge” or “whether it will rain tomorrow” there are indicators that can be assessed to build a case for or against different propositions.
The best way to build a bridge assumes a teleos, whereas ethics involves debate over the teleos itself, so the analogy is inadequate. Whether it will rain tomorrow only involves the prediction of events, of which is only a small portion of ethics. Such an analogy misses the valuation of event-sets, which is the core of ethics.
But without the acknowledgment of objectivity, there can be no such case-building or assessment of the evidence for or against any ethical argument.
Case building does not rely on the ontological objectivity of ethical position, but only its assumption. This assumption can simply be imagined or hypothesized and in fact not exist at all. Just because you want to build cases doesn’t mean that they have grounding.
That is the distinction, and it is crucial and monumental in its implications.
The distinction is required for case building, but in fact it needs no positive existence. Its comparable to saying that theology requires the existence of God, so there must be a God otherwise there would be no theology. Ethical case building requires some sort objective grounding, but just because we are building ethical cases doesn’t mean that the grounding they require actually exists.
No, the comparable extension of the analogy would be to decide which is best between two different theories about whether or not it will rain tomorrow.
You would like to restrain the analogy, but in ethics the difference between two arguments not only requires the likely consequences of an action, but also the valuation of such consequences. Just because you insist that the valuation is not part of your meteorology metaphor doesn’t mean that it is an adequate metaphor. It is missing the essential dimension of valuation.
We can’t know for certain, but evidence and argument can be made for
one theory over the other. By doing this theorizing, we determine which we think is best. But none of that theorizing is possible without the acknowledgment of the objectivity of what meteorology studies.
As said you are missing the dimension of valuation, the core of ethics. Whether it is sunny or rainy is secondary to whether its best for it to be sunny or rainy. You just are missing the point with this metaphor.
Dunamis
RT,
“Your reasoning behind the failure of the nazis seems to suggest this.”
Both of you are mistaken if you think that the Nazis failed because the world rose up in indignation over the massacre of Jews. Besides other Jews, very few people or nations were paying attention to this, and in fact there is evidence that some of corporate America supported it. If Hitler hadn’t been busy in a land grab across Europe, the “final solution” would have been finalized in near silence. Ever hear of Rwanda?
“I do not see people creating rules in any society specificly for the survival of the species.”
This is a good point with which I agree.
Dunamis
Nope, im not being a smartass (at the moment), you have convinced me. It is the fact that you do not push a specific objective ethic, but that your simply saying that there exist a framework which does define ethics (whatever it may be). Mad props.
Our difference here stems from me not having explained what I mean by “prosperity” to you very well it seems.
I do not say, strictly, that it’s all about survival of the species. “Survival and prosperity” is how I usually word it, but “prosperity” alone will actually due. Reason being that, by “prosperity”, I mean the bulk of the population not only surviving, but living under materially prosperous conditions, living in security, and yes, living pleasurably. So both are included in the term.
People usually do not consciously create rules for the purpose of survival of the species, but this is the general result. It is similar to the fact that we speak of genes acting to preserve themselves. Of course, genes are mindless and do not “intend” anything, but their interactions result in self preservation. Or, the activities of ants - they are not conscious of goals of maintaining the mound, but simply following their proclivities, which results in the mound being preserved. But the ants’ individual proclivities have evolved in the way they are precisely because they tend to preserve the species.
Likewise, all of the things human beings generally find pleasure in, will usually result in the survivability of the whole, or else they would not have evolved as they have - OVERALL (i.e., don’t come back with the example of the guy who finds pleasure in murder).
So, most people simply say, “hey I don’t like this lazy bum” or “hey, that guys killing people! He killed people I like, and I’m afraid he’s going to kill me!” so they agree with one another on rules that they believe will result in a pleasurable outcome.
But, although they are not conscious of it, this behavior (finding pleasure in forming ethical rules) has evolved in homo sapiens because it aids the species. Therefore, any building of ethical rules that do not aid the species, can be looked at as a defect inherent in the very crudity of general instincts. This is the same as when there is a feature of any other organism, say an instinctive response, that evolved for a purpose, but given some particular odd situation, results in actually harming a particular organism. This can be witnessed quite often where instincts are concerned because they are crude action-response type things, as are our pleasures.
However, since we are rational beings, we can assess human behavior and note that these tendencies have come to exist for a specific reason. When doing this, it becomes clear that the general tendency of human beings, following their pleasures, is to create ethical constructs and this tendency developed as a means of self preservation.
We do not say, that ethics SHOULD be that which aides our prosperity as a species, as this would simply be a value judgment. What I say is that we recognize, whether we like it or not, that it is a biological fact that ethics as a homo sapien behavior, exists for the purpose of self preservation.
I think we are agreeing on the whole, but it’s hard to have a pleasurable society that is extinct. Therefore, I use the term “prosperity” to mean a “pleasurable survival”.
DT.,
““Survival and prosperity” is how I usually word it, but “prosperity” alone will actually due.”
But this teleos naively assumes the entire ethical issue of valuation. The ethical question is what is prosperity? For whom, by whom, under what conditions of judgment? It is the deviations of the very definitions of prosperity that produce the diversity of ethical stances. Its simply not the case of the more “x” the better.
Dunamis