Alonzo Fyfe

I have been defending an account of morality that says that moral claims ultimately concern relationships between desires and (other) desires.

I have recently posted the newest chapter in my Ethics Without God series.

However, this time, I discuss what I see as the two most significant problems with that theory -- questions I have not been able to answer to my own satisfaction.

You will find my discussion of these problems at:

Ethics Without God

And I will also like to ask a question of other people here who have put effort into defending various theories and ideas.

What is the theory that YOU like best and, more importantly, what do you see as the two most sigificant questions you can't answer with that theory?

The AntiChris

A problem I have with the discussions of various "moral theories" here (particularly yours and bd-from-kg's) is understanding what the purpose of a "moral theory" really is?

Is a "moral theory" simply an attempt to describe how moral thinking actually operates in society or is it an attempt to formalise what we ought to base our moral thinking on?

Chris

Nowhere357

I'm trying to understand a fairly simple and reliable argument to discredit the idea that morality is mere opinion. As a layman, I've found this both interesting and difficult. My approach right now is to think of moral awareness as transcending from from individual perspective to group perspective. But I'm not very convincing with it, as you know.

I like Chris' question "Is a "moral theory" simply an attempt to describe how moral thinking actually operates in society or is it an attempt to formalise what we ought to base our moral thinking on?"

I tend to look at the former. I think Alonzo is looking at the latter.

Alonzo Fyfe

Actually, I look at both.

Assume that a bunch of people get together in order to try to determine the properties of water. One of them asserts that "water is the visible component of the natural process whereby wood is reduced to ash." It is perfectly legitimate for the others to say to him, "Um . . . sorry, Charlie . . . we are talking about water here. Not fire. Sure, no law of nature says that you can't call this visible component 'water', but it still isn't what the rest of us are talking about. We're talking about this wet stuff that turns to ice at 0 degrees C and boils at 100 degrees C."

It is also a legitimate move to make against those who hold that "morality is concerned with evaluating things according to the tastes and preferences of the evaluator." Again, it is a perfectly legitimate move to say, 'No law of nature prevents you from calling that 'morality' if you want to, but it has nothing to do with what people are talking about when they debate issues such as the permissibility of capital punishment and the wrongness of murder. They're clearly talking about something that is universal, objective, and substantially agent-independent."

Now, after you define your terms, you can start to ask questions about the actual properties of water and morality. But you can't move on to step 2 until after you have finished step 1.

Rusting Car Bumper

Can you give a brief hint as what those two questions are before I jump into your entire treatise?

DC

Alonzo Fyfe

Hints:

Problem #1: What is a desire?

I have described morality as concerned primarily with the value of desires on the basis of their ability to fulfill other desires. But . . . what is a desire? This question is partially answered by saying, "a desire is a propositional attitude . . ." But the answer is incomplete, and I do not know how to complete it.

Problem #2: Which desires?

Even if morality is concerned with evaluating desires relative to other desires, the question comes up WHICH other desires? I have tended to say, "all desires, regardless of who has them," and I think that there is some evidence for that view. However, if I look closely at that evidence, I do not find it compelling.

So, these are the two questions that I do not feel I have satisfactory answers for.

Rusting Car Bumper

It seems to me that if you are basing these ideas of ethics around desire and yet you have to ask "What is a desire" then there might be something fundamentally wrong. Further, if you have to ask "which desires" then I'm not sure how you got to the conclusion about desires int he first place.

In my reading of ethical theories I have never seen these as major questions. I will need to read your series to get a better idea of what you mean.

It seems only reasonable to me to start from a more empirical basis as some have already suggested. That is, ethics happens. People and cultures develop ethics. THis is an undeniable fact so then arguing over the ontological status of morality seems a moot point. A more emperical inquiry might ask: What are these ideas and what counts as ethics? What purposes do they serve? Is there a way to decide if some ethical ideas serve puposes better than others?

It also seems to me that Euthypro's Dilemma and related thinking pretty much obliterates the Divine as a basis of morality. It seems to me that ethics without god is the ground state of ethics.

In any case, I will read your text.

DC

Alonzo Fyfe

I hardly meant this to mean that "I haven't a clue of how to even begin to answer the question of what a desire is." Rather, it's meant to say, "I do not know in precise detail what a desire is."

We can still work with what we do know while we try to figure out the parts that we don't know.

I have "worked with what I do know", but I still wanted to admit that there were parts that still raise questions.


I don't know about "start from" -- religion also 'happens' but we can hardly 'start from' a premise that God exists and work from there.

However, I do agree that the issues you discussed will make up a substantial part of the body of such an investigation.

Rusting Car Bumper

Religion does not need to involve God. Thus your analogy is not apt. I did not say "ethics happens and therefore the ten commandments are true."

Anyway, I'm reading your text now...

DC

The AntiChris

I'm sure you do, but what's produced once you've looked?

Does your theory attempt to explain what people actually do or what they ought to do?

Chris