David Gould

My morality is not defined by the 'consensus of the community'. It is still subjective, though. My morality is based on how I feel about certain actions and their effects. This in turn is based on what value I attach to things.

Even if morality was defined by consensus of the community, the consensus of today's community is that slavery was wrong then and is wrong now.

If we could go back in time and look at the people who kep slaves, then the consensus then was that slavery was right.

Thus, the consensus we have now believes that the consensus we had then was incorrect.

The AntiChris

I suppose one way to make sense of it would be to think of it in terms of fundamental values. Could it be that the fundamental, low level, values (basic motivations) haven't changed at all and what was wrong with slavery was that it was merely a flawed interpretation/implementation of those underlying values?

It seems to me that at the lowest level, fundamental values and motivations are probably very similar for all rational people. Call this universal, intersubjective or objective, it doesn't matter. As soon as moral thinking moves away from this fundamental base, subjectivity kicks in and you you start getting diversity. The further from this base, the greater the diversity and disagreement.

If one could distil some universal moral truths from this fundamental level, might this not be the basis of an "objective" morality?

I'm still hoping that a moral objectivist will give us an insight into this.

Chris

HelenM

Good point...(and the one about slavery, Mochaloca, which I'm still pondering )

Some questions I have are: where do your 'feelings' that something is wrong come from? Are they learned from other people who think such things are wrong? Are they 'innate' so, if you had grown up in a society which approved slavery, you'd still have them? Although, if you had them innately and the rest of your society didn't, would that mean you were genetically different? Did a mutation lead to your greater sensitivity about the evils of slavery?

Mochaloca...so, slavery was still wrong then but it was approved...is it 'objective' though, that you/I now believe it's wrong and always was? Or is that 'subjective'? If it's 'objective' then did those people back then really know it was wrong but approve it anyway? Or did they not know it was wrong? If it's objectively wrong but they didn't know it, how come they didn't know it and yet we do? What has changed? Why would we have more 'enlightenment' on objective morality than those people?

love
Helen

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>

Alonzo Fyfe

What qualities/characteristics must a moral theory have in order for it to be considered "moral objectivism"?

This doesn't really help, because the phrase "moral objectivism" is ambiguous. It has two separate meanings.

(1) Moral properties exist independent of the human mind.

(2) Moral propositions are capable of being true or false independent of belief in those facts, and some of them are true.

A lot of pointless debate springs from a failure to distinguish between these two meanings, and to take evidence against a type 1 objectivism to also be objections to type 2 objectivism and, thus, as proof that morality is subjective.

I am a moral objectivist (type 2), not a moral objectivist (type 1).

By the way, Christian ethics are not objective. The proper category to place them in is "third-party subjectivism". In order for something to be right or wrong it needs to be believed to be right or wrong by a third party (God). This is no more objective than the claim that for something to be right or wrong it needs to be believed to be right or wrong by the community at large (cultural subjectivism) or by the person who performed the action (agent subjectivism).

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

HelenM

Very interesting & good points, Alonzo!

love
Helen

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>

Alonzo Fyfe

The case is actually worse than this. (Note: These objections apply to cultural subjectivism only; the thesis that right and wrong is determined by looking at the dominant view in a community.)

Because, if slavery was considered moral at the time, and this is all that is required for something to actually be moral, then anybody arguing against slavery at that time was wrong. They kept saying that slavery was immoral when it was accepted as moral.

And, yet, in spite of their error, they were able to convince more and more people to adopt this error, until, eventually, so many people accepted the error that it was not an error anymore.

The same can be said today about everybody who holds a minority poision on any issue today. Anybody who holds a minority position on any ethical issue is in error under cultural subjectivism. The majority opinion is always right.

By the way, a Christian, who defends an objective morality, must also defend the case that slavery is not among those objective wrongs. Within the bible, God provides a number of instructions on the proper care and feeding of slaves (including the 4th Commandment, that prohibits people from working their slaves on the day of sabbath). And nowhere does it say "Thou shalt not have slaves." So, they have trouble with the "absolute" wrongness of slavery as well.

So, ask them how they defend the wrongness of slavery. And then simply apply that answer to whatever moral issues that they claim cannot be defended without a Christian foundation.

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

dk

Double post, sorry

[ May 17, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

dk

dk: If we rely on Alonzo Fyfe’s definition of objective, “An objective truth is one in which the truth or falsity of a claim is independent of whether a person believes it to be true or false." In other words objective knowledge exists independent of personal accent. For example the force of gravity exists whether a person joins the 20th Century or joins the flat earth society. The force of gravity can easily be demonstrated with Newton’s Laws of Motions. A reasonable person simply isn’t free to descent.
dk: - If the basis of morality is society or culture then the proposition of objective morality fails. Analogously if the Law of Gravity is based solely on the gravity of earth then the proposition fails. It is only when the force of gravity articulates a ratio of mass(1) times mass(2) over some distance squared that the proposition succeeds. Likewise the proposition of objective morality requires a suitable definition.
dk: - What is objective morality? Objective morality constructs actions in terms of right and wrong from human nature to regulate conduct with reason. The validity (truth or falsity) of the definition depends upon the objectivity of reason, and then whether human nature is suited to reason; not any specific religion, civilization, culture, nation, race, tribe, household, family or individual. Reason is objective and determined by self evident principles. Therefore the question of objective morality reduces to, ”Does reason suit human nature”. For example a degenerate, savage or insane person isn’t responsible for their actions, because they lack the capacity of reason. Evolutionary Anthropologists postulate that morality is a function of civilization, culture, nations and technology, and do so by objectively determining human beings are the product of chaotic forces, as opposed to design. Ironically evolutionary anthropologists claim their proposition is objective truth, hence prove that all propositions are unreasonable. So the question of whether morality is subjective or objective rests on whether reason or chaos suits human nature, independent of the many structures of religion, civilization, society, nation, tribe, household, and family. I submit that objective morality exists, and that the proof is independent. What proof? I submit Children that haven’t reached the “age of reason” benefit from morality irrespective of their religion, civilization, nationality, race, etc… In this light I don’t see how anyone can reasonable reject the objective nature of morality.
dk: - This statement is a “rationalization”. Theologically speaking a Jew, Christian or Arab would respond God authored the divine law, natural law and moral law.
dk: From a pragmatic historical perspective… civilization, cultures and nations grow and prosper by solving problems they encounter; until one or more insolvable problems crosses their path. Then, be it spry or by the inch, the enterprise begins to dedicate more and more resources until it becomes deplete of vitality, hope, and resolve, then the whole enterprise quietly unravels and goes extinct. One might object by asserting the proposition is unreasonable!!! Then a light bulb might go on, saying, “Immorality construct right from wrong unsuitable to human nature to regulate conduct with nonsense (instead of reason). Given the number of extinct civilizations, cultures, societies and nations objective morality seems almost undeniable. Back on point, children of every stripe determine objective morality, and civilizations, cultures, etc.. that forsakes reason to rationalize unacceptable conduct degenerate, unravel and become extinct.

The AntiChris

Alonzo Fyfe

Thanks for your response.

So, taking your type 2, a defining feature of an objective morality would be:

Why do you use the words "capable of being" and not "are"?

Also, I'm intrigued by your use of "and some of them are true". Could you explain what you mean here?

How do you test the soundness of your theory?

I am aware that you've discussed your theories at length elsewhere, so just point me in the right direction if you'd rather not go into great detail here. However, I would be interested in your answers to the above.

Chris

The AntiChris

dk
Can you explain what you mean here. I really can't see anything in what you've said that constitutes a proof of the objective nature of morality.

Chris