Moral Truth Litmus

THIS POST IS OUT-DATED. Updated here: http://www.examiner.com/x-26772-San-Francisco-Apologetics-Examiner~y2009m11d1-Moral-realism-and-our-rights-and-liberties-part-3

Moral Truth Litmus

Part 1: Moral truth, like all other truth, must be discovered, not created.
Part 2: Moral truth, like all other truth, must count the self and the other interchangeably, being true for all or none.
Part 3: Moral truth must describe how and why we should be and/or behave with others and ourselves.

Each part of the litmus is a dialectical synthesis of thesis and antithesis (58), which we will flesh out below. Basically, dialectic resolves what appeared to be a contradiction. An antithesis appears to contradict a thesis, but then a synthesis resolves the apparent contradiction. It’s a lot of drama with a happy ending—and the synthesis is our hero, saving us from a life of paradox and contradiction. If you are not familiar with dialectic, you will “learn-as-you-go” by reading how it is used in this paper to draw out the moral truth from all the morality out there. Morality means standards and ends (the ‘how’ and ‘why’), of social character and/or conduct. Morality may be created by the individual or cultural will, or perceived to be discovered in evolving human nature, or in an eternal social essence. While it may be true that a given morality exists in reality, its standards may or may not be “truth”. Truth is that which corresponds to reality (that which is). Moral truth (or true morality) is those standards, ends, of social character and/or behavior which are true (corresponding to reality, which must necessarily include the fulfilled ought, or the ought is just a nice concept). We will find out if various moralities and ethical theories pass as moral truth by testing them with our Moral Truth Litmus. If they do not pass all three parts, they are made up, even if they claim to be discovered.

Moral Truth Litmus, Part 1 – Moral truth, like all other truth, must be discovered, not created.

Favorite relevant C.S. Lewis quote: As creatures with a moral sense, “…we remain conscious of a desire which no natural happiness will satisfy. But is there any reason to suppose that reality offers any satisfaction to it? ‘Nor does the being hungry prove that we have bread.’ But I think it may be urged that this misses the point. A man’s physical hunger does not prove that that man will get any bread; he may die of starvation on a raft in the Atlantic. But surely a man’s hunger does prove that he comes of a race which repairs its body by eating and inhabits a world where eatable substances exist,” (57).

By way of dialectic (58), we are going to answer two views on moral truth: moral truth is created, or voluntarism (thesis), and there is no (discoverable) moral truth, or nihilism (or skepticism) (anti-thesis), with their synthesis: moral truth is discovered, or essentialism (14, 37).

Thesis: We all hunger for true meaning; moral truth is created, or voluntarism. There are true voluntarists, and there are voluntarists by default. True voluntarists think that moral truth is created by the individual or cultural will (subjectivism or relativism; individual/divine or cultural voluntarism) (14, 37)—they think all nihilists cannot help contradicting themselves as their attitudes and behavior acknowledge meaning, and they think essentialists arrogantly claim to have discovered moral truth and should instead create their own meaning (atheist voluntarists) or submit to God’s created meaning (theist voluntarists). Those who attempt to discover moral truth where it cannot be found (for example, evolving human nature) may think of themselves as essentialists, but they are voluntarists by default, since their ‘discovery’ is actually a creation of will. Since voluntarism (both true and by default) does not acknowledge essential meaning, it is nihilism by default, though that offends the voluntarist’s moral sense (and so defaults to essentialism).

Anti-thesis: We do not hunger for true meaning, because truth cannot be created, only discovered; there is no (discoverable) moral truth, or nihilism (or skepticism). We can discover created things, but we cannot create truth–we can manufacture meaning, but we cannot create ‘true’ meaning. If the truth about morality is that it evolves with individuals, cultures, or nature (if there is no morality among all moralities which does “not” evolve)—then there is no (discoverable) “moral truth” (actuality with no potential; truth never changes). There are true nihilists/skeptics, and there are nihilists/skeptics by default. True nihilists/skeptics think that truth cannot be created, and feel that even essentialists ‘create’ rather than discover. However, nihilists/skeptics will not allow a construct to pass as truth, and so agree with essentialists that voluntarists are nihilists by default. On the other hand, atheist voluntarists think essentialists are nihilists by default, because they will not ‘create’ truth (or ‘meaning’)! The attitudes and behavior of nihilists/skeptics, in reaction to the violation of their moral boundaries, betray an intuitive sense of moral truth—no one ever acts as if their moral boundaries are just ‘made up’—and so they default to essentialism.

Synthesis: We may ‘say’ we do not hunger for true meaning, but we live against it. We may ‘say’ true meaning can be created or evolve, but we live against it. We live instead as if we hunger for true, uncreated, unevolved, discovered meaning (essentialism). We no more create the true meaning we all hunger for, than we create the nutrients we all hunger for—they preexisted us, or we could not have evolved a hunger for them. A fulfilled ought has no potential, is actuality, and so it is truth that cannot evolve into being, but must always be (not merely ‘pre-exist’). There are true essentialists, and there are essentialists by default. True essentialists think that moral truth is discovered in God’s unchanging essence (14) (universalism; divine essentialism). Rather than settle for the artificial, essentialists choose the real. Given essentialism corresponds to reality, whereas voluntarism and nihilism do not—voluntarists (both true and by default) and nihilists (both true and by default) are both essentialists by default, further evidenced when the voluntarist takes offense at defaulting to nihilism, and the nihilist takes offense at a violation of their moral boundaries. However, for the sake of argument, if there is no essential moral truth to be discovered, essentialism is a creation of will and is voluntarism by default, which is nihilism by default, though we live against it.

Moral Truth Litmus, Part 2: Moral truth, like all other truth, must count the self and the other interchangeably, being true for all or none.

Thesis: conflicting cultural and individual norms are all valid moral truth (relativistic and subjectivist theories).
Antithesis: conflicting cultural and individual norms are evidence against the possibility of moral truth (nihilistic theories).
Synthesis: truth, including moral truth, transcends cultures and individuals and is true for all or none.

In other words, a fact is true regardless if individuals or cultures believe it to be true. If a standard is ‘created’ or is a ‘construct’ it is fiction (there can be true facts about the fiction, but the fiction itself cannot be a true fact). This rules out those standards which are subjective to the individual will, or relative to the cultural will. It can be true that subjective and relative standards exist—but not that they are true, for the same reason it can be true that individual or cultural beliefs can exist without corresponding to objective reality (which explains the wide range of moralities). That there are a wide range of beliefs about reality (including morality) does not rule out the possibility of beliefs which actually correspond (are universally true). Moral truth does not contradict individual and cultural diversity—it only challenges the aspects of the individual or culture which break away from moral truth. Moral truth feeds the hunger every moral being shares with every moral being, regardless of individual or cultural differences. Notice how the first and second parts of the litmus are very similar—if there is moral truth, it is discovered, and it is true for all.

Moral Truth Litmus, Part 3: Moral truth must describe how and why we should be and/or behave with others and ourselves.

This last part of the litmus may seem redundant, a definition of an ethical theory, but not all theories fulfill this part, like theories that exalt reason as the highest good, which can be done without thinking of others, and theories which regard others only when our behavior with them directly benefits self, making the existence of others entirely unnecessary for a moral existence. Would we even ask how/why we should be and/or behave if there were no others? There are three dialectics combined that we can look at in this last part:

1. Thesis: ‘why’ is more important than ‘how’ (teleological theories). Antithesis: ‘how’ is more important than ‘why’ (duty theories). Synthesis: a ‘how’ without a ‘why’ is pointless; a ‘why’ without a ‘how’ is impossible to apply. 2) Thesis: ‘be’ is more important than ‘behave’ (virtue theories). Antithesis: ‘behave’ is more important than ‘be’ (duty theories). Synthesis: the nature of the “doing” affects the nature of the “being” and vice versa. 3) Thesis: ‘others’ or out-group should always benefit, whereas ‘self’ or in-group should never benefit (altruistic theories). Antithesis: ‘self’ or in-group should always benefit, whereas ‘others’ or out-group should never benefit (egoistic theories). Synthesis: in every in-group and out-group, a self is an other, an other is a self, so however we should treat others/self is the same as how we should treat self/others. Indeed, if there is moral truth, it is discoverable by all moral beings, and true for all moral beings, as shown in the first two parts of the litmus.

References:
A working bibliography can be found here: http://ichthus.yuku.com/topic/60/t/SSP-13-References-and-Notes.html

THIS POST IS OUT-DATED. Updated here: http://www.examiner.com/x-26772-San-Francisco-Apologetics-Examiner~y2009m11d1-Moral-realism-and-our-rights-and-liberties-part-3

Hey Ichthus!

Great to read you again!! Looks like I’ll have to actually take some time and cogitate this one through, though, so give me a bit…

You are sort of mixing your forms… Morality is a form, and truth is a moral form… I am not saying we can’t make some sense of them, but it helps to be able to think and write correctly… We have moral and physical forms… We can apply math to physical forms, and sense them… Moral forms we know because we cannot live without them… If we have not enough truth, we die…If we have not enough liberty, we die… If people are deliberately immoral, or if the traditional morality is immoral, then, we die…You run into a problem trying to be strictly logical, which is to say mathematical in regard to moral forms… We are not moral because it is logical, but because of an emotional connectedness…

Perhaps in line with Juggernaut, Ich, I tend to think of dialectic as a continuing process, rather than a one-off affair. Is there a way of conceiving your structure such that it continues to “move”. At present, from my perspective on dialectic, the synthesis that is essentialism must become the new thesis, and simply await its antithesis unto a further synthesis, anon… but I’ll think more on it.

Hmm…

Juggernaut–whether or not we hunger for something, and whether or not we can live without it, does not make it true or false, and so we can use the litmus to rule out those theories which do not pass as moral truth. There is probably a math behind every morality, including the moral truth, just as there is math behind nutrition, though we don’t need to know it in order to know we are hungry and eat…but it does help to know it, if we want to rule out those food sources which are not at all nutritious.

Oughtist–Hello You are welcome to present an antithesis to any of my syntheses. I’ll be patient.

I full-heartedly support your first premise that truth must be discovered.

How then can the other 2 notions be supported which, essentially, refer to ‘truth’ being universally applicable/appropriate is they must be discovered, ie. relative and conditional to personal growth, understanding, intelligence and so on?

Or am I thinking too simply?

What have we to judge any truth, or any moral form with but our lives… What do you think true and false are to dead people… What is anything for the dead??? We want truth to be eternal, but until we are immortal we need no eternal truth… There is no math that we can apply to moral reality…Math is only useful for physical reality… We can only understand moral reality through our own emotions, and by observation…

Hey Ichthus,

Okay, here’s the basics of my antithesis to the methodology of one-off dialectics:

Take your triangle of voluntarism/nihilism/essentialism (with essentialism on top, of course) and roll it over so that (in my case) voluntarism is on top. Change the descriptors of the argument accordingly, e.g. no moral substance (nihilism) ↔ absolute moral substance (essentialism) ==>> created moral substance (voluntarism)

I’ll fill it in more later, but the basic point is that if the structure can’t be put into movement, it becomes just like a mathematical formula, wereby you’re free to change the character of the variables without affecting the logic of the process.

Ok, so, here’s to counter Part 1 (and leaving aside the assumption of Correspondence theory of truth):

Thesis: As if echoing the innocense of Eden, we desire that our hunger for true meaning need not involve the inconvenience of processing it first, and that the raw nutrients our psychic corpuscles yearn for would satiate us unprepared; that what pre-exists us would suffice to sustain us; that our “oughts” be somehow deductively guaranteed the possibility of their fulfillment by simple virtue of their undeniable presence, rather than need us to create afresh the substance of their demands.

Antithesis: Our hunger for true discovered meaning is a self-unfulfilling deception, as in reality our mind’s body has no such need, nevermind there not actually being raw nutruients that would meet such need if it were in fact credible. There is nothing further to discover, because the nutrients we do consume are manifestly lacking of moral substance.

Synthesis: Moral substance (“moral truth”) is like a soup – its ingredents are discovered, but it itself must be prepared (nevermind flavored to taste). That which is merely discovered is unfulfilling precisely because it is raw; and though our culturally developed reality may make delicacy of sushi, even it is carefully prepared. Indeed, even the lowly garden vegetable is intentfully nurtured in its domestically designed, snake-free space. Moral substance is an extra-natural product, and it changes according to location, time, and personal preference (even if many of the cuisinary principles are shared in common).

Ta.

Artist–truth is true for all, or it is true for none, does not mean it is “subjectively” true for all–it means it is objectively true. If you are referring to Kierkegaard’s “Subjectivity is Truth”–he was not referring to ‘cognitive’ subjectivism…he was referring to personally living out truth (because if it ‘remains’ merely objective, you don’t really know it yet).

Juggernaut–perhaps that we want eternal truth is evidence that we ‘are’ immortal? There is math (logic) to our emotions, too. Anger does not happen for no reason–and every behavior serves a function. There is a math/logic to “treat others as self” which recognizes the sameness, at the same time as the differentness, between other/self. Don’t ask me to put that symbolically.

Oughtist-- I don’t know the meaning of “one-off dialectics”. Voluntarists, even if at the top, still need to answer why we behave (instinctively) as if “moral substance” is “true” and not “created”. Especially in today’s climate, in which many cultures inter-mingle, we “get” that culture (including many moralities and ethical theories) is created, so that we can respect diversity and not expect everyone to conform to our way of doing things. But, we still have limits that we won’t give up, limits we do not chalk up to culture, limits common to all cultures (see appendix in C.S. Lewis’ “The Abolition of Man”)–voluntarists can not answer this. Those who consider themselves essentialists (but are voluntarists by default) can attempt to answer that (though they fail)–the naturalists…but they would not agree w/ your triangle, which puts them (in their minds) on the bottom, next to nihilists (though I do lump them in with voluntarists, and also put them at the bottom, next to nihilists).

I highly enjoyed reading your last post (even if you ‘are’ wrong). I wish (I WISH!) I had your talent with words. You are truly blessed, and I am blessed to read you. Too bad you’re wrong.

Toodle pip!

We are not immortal, but hopefully, humanity is…Rather, we are spiritual… We conceive of ourselves as spiritual, having no explaination for our beginning, our being, or our end…In fact we conceive of everything so, spiritually… Our concepts, though they are abstractions, are the sense of the thing, the spirit of the thing rather than the thing in itself…

It’s the thought that it is a discrete, all or nothing, one-time affair, rather than being descriptive of a continuous process, i.e. such that there is no ultimate conclusion (Hegel’s mistake) but rather an ongoing synthesis of contesting theses. Take a look at the history of philosophy, it is an ongoing dialogue.

The point of my alterate one-off dialectic was simply to show that you can easily manipulate the outcome. I could also produce one where essentialism and voluntarism synthesize into nihilism, if you’d like.

I know you want to assume that created=false, but that’s just not evident. As per my analogy, there’s nothing false about soup. Soup is true.

Depends who you are, I guess. Lots of people simply outright reject contesting perspectives. That’s the natural reaction, for the most part: i.e. to assume that morality, as one has “discovered” it, is only true inosofar as it aligns with one’s own previous judgement of “the facts”.

Voluntarists don’t see it as a question. What limits do you see as common to all cultures? Are they matters of “moral substance”, or simply descriptions of group dynamics (and what’s the difference?)…

You seem to imply that it’s “bad” to occupy the thesis or antithesis position. Rather, so far as dialectics go, it’s simply a matter of acknowledging that thought is alive, and one’s “conclusions” are open to developmental influences (insofar at least as one has an open mind, and we all struggle with that, trying to load the dialectic as if it were a pair of dice).

As always, Ichthus, I look forward to your response. You do so well helping me to clarify my own thoughts! And I hardly assume to be able to change yours!!

This is going to have to be my last reply here for a while. I’m in the middle of a semester and am beginning to put what I’ve learned into articles on the Examiner. It was good discussing things with you, and I hope you are doing well. You know where to find me.

Here goes my last post for a while.

I don’t think you could pin me as either one-off or Hegellian, because I do think there is only one true synthesis, but I also leave room for the possibility that our current synthesis is not It. I already showed in the original post how, if essentialism is false, then nihilism is true. The only thing that will ‘not’ fly is voluntarism (at least the version that considers its meaning to be ‘true’ meaning).

It is “bad” to occupy the thesis or antithesis position, because it means (if the synthesis is “It”) you don’t quite “get It” yet. As you can see, I’ve loaded the dice to default to either nihilism or essentialism, because voluntarism is completely disqualified–but nihilism still has to answer why we’ve got the hungah.

Soup really exists as soup, but not as the eternal pattern for all soups; made up meaning exists as meaning, but not as the eternal pattern for all meaning. When we’re talking “moral truth”–we’re talking about an eternal pattern (logos)…not just any old meaning. No duh there’s meaning–is there TRUE meaning (which is not merely made up)–THAT is the question. You are simply stating you don’t need the best soup–any soup’ll do. But that’s just not true. Most canned soup is disgusting, AND not a single soup lasts forever, even if you freeze it. I hunger for the eternally fresh soup, and the eternal recipe for that is the Golden Rule (it’s the “not-so-secret ingredient”–love–sighhh). Man, it’s a good thing I had breakfast.

True, but we are becoming more aware that diversity ain’t so bad, and that underneathe that diversity are common values which merely manifest differently (for the most part…we do have free will to go the wrong way, and to neglect nurturing the moral sense of our children).

I want you to read C.S. Lewis’ “The Abolition of Man” including the appendix (pretty please, with whipped cream and a cherry on top?). Moral truth directly relates to group dynamics–insofar as it is how things are “supposed” to go between individuals. Love is the most dynamic.

I’ve enjoyed this. Our thought process seems to be very similar, and I appreciate how you make things plain to me, even though you have the capability of flying things way over my head. You would amaze the world with your writing if you coupled it with being right. Teehee. Jk. I’m sure you already amaze them. Enjoy the rest of your day.

Over and out. Pssht.

Original post is completely revised: http://www.examiner.com/x-26772-San-Francisco-Apologetics-Examiner~y2009m11d1-Moral-realism-and-our-rights-and-liberties-part-3 as well as being an entry in ILP’s essay contest:

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=42

Have you entered yet?

Truth can be both discovered and created. False dichotomy there. Truths are merely fulfilment of pre-defined perceivable qualities. An apple is truly red, only because we all agreed that the specific light spectrum it emits shall be deemed red. How true would this dictum be if you were to ask a colour blind person, deprived of the sensory tools available to the rest of the populace?

Everything starts from the self. Name me one instance where it’s moral to sacrifice oneself for others. Saving a stranger in distress? Well, for some, seeing others suffer is too painful to bear that they would conveniently ignore the possibility of death by saving those in need. Altruism is selfish in its origin.

OR others. It’s optional. The importance of others can only be taken in the context of their importance to ourselves. Failing which, we can eschew their interests altogether.

Hello, OriginalResonance–You’re going off an old version of the original post–see my last post for an updated version.

If you genuinely think truth can be created, it will be impossible to discuss the rest of it. We may have agreed to call a color “red” but it is “that” color whether we “see” (agree) or not. To the color-blind, red is still true–but undiscovered. “Seeing” is not “creating” it is “discovering”. “Naming” is a whole 'nother ball game.

Everything starts from the self–and we are all selves. If we are selfish in regard to all selves…this is good.

If we can eschew the interests of others in favor of our own interests, then we would never ask how we should behave. If the question is not in you, you will have no ear for the answer.

So you’re saying that colour is inherent in nature? That everything in nature is organized according to our anthropogenic perspective? Why aren’t we discussing about the electric fields around us and how true they are? After all, sharks can detect electric signals. Or are sharks not part of this world? A figment of our imagination perhaps?

Why must I be selfish for other selves when I’m not their selves? I do not share their brain. Ergo, I do not share their consciousness. I’m not them. I would only be selfish for other selves if it would benefit myself and I’ve yet to know of any truly selfless person in this world.

The question is in me. It’s in my interest to ask this question. How altruistic can this world be when justification for harm is universal? We will always have people and ideas that we hate and duly seek to punish. If you want to care for ALL SELVES, think again. You wouldn’t want to sympathize with Jack the Ripper’s cause when he comes knocking on your door.

Color is the name we have placed on the process of separation of the one unitary movement of transferring stimulus from the retinal cones to the brain via the optic nerve. Translation of the sensory input by means of the experiencing structure activates memory cells retrieving knowledge. What is there to thought other than this? We maintain a functional communicative state by using a sphere of knowledge passed along through generations. If we start creating new denotations for things we will have to learn all over again the meaning of things. For now, the word is the thing. If is not the thing, then what is it?

We actually know nothing. The brain does not create. It is a container and converter. The knowledge we use is arbitrarily invented simply so that we can experience things in an imposed reality.

We benefit from nothing unless we all survive together. Your survival and my survival depend upon the survival of our neighbor.

That’s fine if you don’t want a single thing from others. Yet, to experience pleasure you have to use something: an idea, a person, etc. That’s grotesque. When we use thought to get something we usually distort what is given according to our predilections. Thought cannot know anything as it is.

O.R.–

It is not being “selfless” to let people get away with murder. Would you feel cared for if no one cared what you did?

It is in your best interest to love…that is what will truly satisfy you. It doesn’t matter if no one else (besides God) loves you the way they ought to–loving satisfies.

finished–

The one who can survive alone shows how “survival” is not the point, because we wouldn’t ask the question if life was about merely surviving and had nothing to do with ‘others’ apart from survival.

– finishedman

I’m sorry…I’m finding it very difficult to understand what you are saying, or how your thoughts are related. Compare the first sentence of your quote to the last sentence of your quote and you’ll see what I mean.

To both–

Whatever it is that some animals (including humans) can sense that other animals (including humans) cannot–is real, whether or not other animals can sense it. But let’s skip to this, which I posted in another forum:

There are two groups of people: those who think moral truth is a matter of opinion, and those who think it is a matter of fact (realists). Within the “opinion” group, there are two sub-groups: those who think this opinion means that there actually is no moral truth (nihilists), and those who still think an opinion can pass as truth (anti-realists).

There are two groups of skeptics: anti-realists who think that moral truth is a matter of opinion (but can’t be known), and realists who think that moral truth is a matter of fact (but can’t be known).

I must resign from this thread, at least for the time being.