Disclaimer: I am not espousing any particular normative moral theory; rather I only wish to advance a meta-ethical one: moral objectivism.
The answer to the first part of this inquiry is by no means definitive, so I will present what I accept as a correct depiction of “objective morality.”
Morality refers to the rightness, wrongness, goodness, or badness of an agent’s actions. (Of course, such evaluations are only appropriate for a subset of actions – those within the moral realm.)
Moral objectivism is the assertion that there are objective moral values such that there are better and worse ways for a human being to comport oneself (and of course, by extension, for society to behave). That is, there are objective facts about what constitutes moral behavior, and these facts lie in the nature of the agent’s action, regardless of cultural and individual opinion.
The three main competing positions are moral subjectivism, moral relativism, and moral nihilism. Moral subjectivism asserts that morality is determined by an individual while moral relativism asserts that morality is determined by a culture. These views do not allow for any kind of independent evaluation beyond the beliefs of an individual and culture, respectively. Moral nihilism says morality is merely an invention of the human brain with no basis in reality; consequently moral claims have no truth content.
In order to further explain what moral objectivism is, let’s look at what it is not: Moral objectivism is not the view that there are necessarily universal moral principles (espoused by classic theism) that hold true regardless of context, i.e., intentions, consequences and circumstances.
Nor is it the view that there is necessarily a “best” and a “worst” way to behave in any given scenario. This is because morality is a spectrum, a continuum along which certain actions are morally worse or better than others. The view also allows for more than one “right” action in a given scenario and conversely, more than one “wrong” action.
Moral objectivism is not the view that there are moral facts without human existence. This absence would eliminate human action, which is the basis of moral evaluation. It does not follow from this that humans determine morality (this is relativism and subjectivism); rather humans identify or “discover” morality. That is, like scientific theories for example, moral theories require people to formulate them but this hardly means that humans create or determine morality any more than they create or determine science.
Why should we buy moral objectivism?
I posit we ought to subscribe to moral objectivism because first, if we don’t, evaluative judgments regardless of feelings, opinions, or cultural norms, cannot be made. Let’s see how things look if moral objectivism is not true. If it is not the right theory we cannot make the following assertions:
1) Happiness is better than suffering.
2) Kindness is a virtue and cruelty is a vice.
3) It is wrong to punish someone for a crime he/she did not commit.
4) Hitler engaged in immoral actions.
5) Slavery is wrong.
6) Rape is wrong.
7) Genocide is wrong.
8 ) Fairness and equal opportunity are necessary conditions for a just society.
9) Saving a child from drowning in a shallow pool is morally right.
10) Actions that stem from racism and homophobia are wrong.
11) Female genital mutilation is wrong.
Denying any of the above claims seems absurd – and it is. This is because there is an objective moral truth to each claim. Does a rational human being really wish to say the truth of these claims depends on individual opinion or cultural norms? One is forced to say this if moral relativism or subjectivism is endorsed, and this is a very unsavory, and more than that, irrational result.
It is incredibly important to understand that an action can be immoral whether or not the agent ought to be blamed (and conversely; an action can be moral whether or not the agent deserves praise) – this is a separate issue. This is simply because different people at different times in different cultures can not all reasonably be said to have the intellectual tools or evidence to discover various ethical truths. Not understanding this point may misguide one to embrace moral relativism or moral subjectivism.
Another common error is to posit that because we can’t always know a morally right or morally wrong action in a given scenario, this is evidence for the falsity of moral objectivism. As I’ve just demonstrated with my list, we often can make very robust ethical judgments. And, it is because of this fact, moral objectivism is correct. Think of all moral actions as a pie – if we can carve out even a sliver of what we know to be right or wrong actions in a given scenario, the case has been made. Moreover, this error is a conflation of epistemological matters versus metaphysical ones. An easy illustration of this is to look at scientific claims. Just because we used to not know (sadly some still don’t accept this) that evolution is the process by which human beings came to be or that the earth revolves around the sun (again, shockingly some still don’t accept this), this has no relevance to the fact that these are true statements regarding how the world works. That is, just because people may not have the intellectual tools or evidence to figure out a claim’s truth, it does not follow that there is no fact of the matter.
To parallel science again, there are many scientific questions that we still cannot answer. Again, as in the realm of morality, this is not because there are no answers; rather it’s due to lack of intellectual tools and/or evidence: why should we expect anything different with moral questions? And even if we never get to a point where we can answer the great lingering scientific questions, we wouldn’t necessarily say there are no answers; we’d admit the limitations of the human brain – why not do the same for lingering moral questions?
Matthieu Guibert
Sarah Hippolitus
Jeff Randall
Luis Reinoso
Brian Gregory
@dglas: First of all, I already answered the first part of your inquiry yesterday. Here it is again:
“As I said, “objective” means independent of individual opinion and cultural norms. The “intellectual tools” essentially refer to reasoning ability. ”
I find it quite bizarre that you don’t allow room for the possibility that I have a life and didn’t yet have time to respond, which was in fact the case. I am less motivated to respond when your remarks are condescending, and laced with unwarranted anger. Yet, for the sake of truth, I wrote through my irritation. Here is my response I just posted on Facebook:
You wrote, “Would you care to cite an example of a normative moral prescription and detail how you used these “tools” to arrive at it such that it is “independent of individual and cultural norms?”
It’s wrong to drown a baby in a bathtub for entertainment. The reason for this is a human life is valuable, and all things being equal, a baby’s… See More life, more so. This prescriptive moral claim holds true regardless of individual and cultural opinion. If you challenge this assertion, you’ll need to give me an example.
RE: The “Is/ought” distinction. This is a fascinating and robust topic, and tremendously important to address. To properly address it takes a good deal of time. I would like to devote an essay to that topic in the near future…it takes a good deal of time and thought to treat this issue successfully.
RE: Slavery – If it comes back in ethical vogue, that doesn’t change the fact that it is still wrong. Anyone who argues to the contrary is wrong. Again, if you want to challenge this claim, please give me an example of a case where slavery is morally permissable. The tools I use to refute it will simply be reasoning and logic. This leads me to your final concern. I said morality parallels science but I was very careful to be very specific in exactly how. While there are parallels, morality and science have different objectives, and consequently, different methods to acheive them.
“Testing” and “Falsifiability” are part of the scientfic methodology, while an ethicist relys heavily on reasoning and argumentation as her evidence. So while our evidence looks different, both forms suffice as such in their respective fields. Again, this is another GREAT topic to which I should devote an essay.
Finally, to respond to the last comment here that you didn’t put on Facebook, if you wish to argue that it is not irrational to reject the 11 statements I made in my post, please give me an argument.
You know, this kind of anger is very unhealthy, and moreover, highly unnecessary. I have no problem having a civilized dialogue with someone who disagrees with me. I am not inclined to have an exchange with someone who makes personal attacks.
Also, this was an essay, not a novel. Manage your expectations.
Here are a few questions I have asked elsewhere about this blog-post, that, for some reason, the writer here doesn’t seem inclined to answer. One would hope she’d at least try, since they are relevant to the subject matter and the claims made here. Since the author above will not (or cannot) answer on Facebook, let’s put them here and see what happens.
What are the “tools,” how do they work (how do we use them and how do they indicate results), and what are the results? What is your meaning of the word, “objective?”
Would you care to cite an example of a normative moral prescription and detail how you used these “tools” to arrive at it such that it is “independent of individual and cultural norms?”
How about telling us how, precisely, you bridge the is-ought barrier then, with an example?
How about entertaining a hypothetical then? If, in a hundred or few years from now, slavery (say) got back in “ethical” vogue – proponents of it may claim that we anti-slavery folks just didn’t have the tools to identify or discover the objective moral correctness of slavery. How do we refute this? You seem to be claiming your view parallels science. Where’s the falsifiability and to what external referent do we appeal to falsify a moral evaluation?
In the post above we see: “Does a rational human being really wish to say the truth of these claims depends on individual opinion or cultural norms? One is forced to say this if moral relativism or subjectivism is endorsed, and this is a very unsavory, and more than that, irrational result.”
Is that your argument for moral objectivism – to call those who do not accept it “irrational?” How do you justify this claim? What in the world (or outside of it) does the word “rational” mean to you?
Apparently, asking questions is not permitted in the author’s objective moral order. Since I now have been refused opportunity to respond to her on Facebook, here is the post she refused to let me post:
I am someone who has done some study in analytic ethics. As such I find the subject matter interesting and important. Very important. When I see something controversial, I ask questions. If your response is, “You are an ass!” for simply asking questions uncomfortable to you, then that tells me a lot about the integrity and honesty of your work. Or is it part of your “rationality” that no one may ever question or critique your work, or is that part of your definition of an “ass?” Are you really that profoundly shallow that you cannot consider questions or answer critiques without resorting to such behaviour? I gave you the benefit of the doubt by treating your blog-post with some seriousness – as if you were really trying to advance the subject matter. Was this an error on my part?
What I see in your blog-post and your responses here is the “intuitively obvious” argument so long ago put to rest by most persons familiar with logic and reason – and any philosophical education.
If you are appealing to logic alone (using reason as a synonym for adhering to logic), then you are appealing to an entirely internal systemic function that rests on assumed axioms and without any external referents. You have yet to define reason such that it has any external referents – other than pure subjective emotionalism. You refuse to show us how we can verify the objectivity of the morality you claim is there and instead resort to insults.
Is this just about getting coddled or is it about the subject matter? Seems to me you need to make a decision about that.
Asking questions is fantastic. Asking questions with a condescending, bullying tone is not. Do you really think it’s rational to conclude that I “can’t” or “won’t” answer your questions because I don’t IMMEDIATELY respond? How absurd! I would never be so arrogant.
For the record, so readers are not deceived about my integrity, I didn’t call him “ass” until the very end of our exchange. I posted a response on Facebook, carefully and respectfully answering ALL of his questions. It was only AFTER this, when I saw he sent me yet ANOTHER disparaging comment that I finally called him an “ass.” I stand by my evaluation.
Let’s clear up some things.
I ask for respect only, not “coddling”, not “special dipensation.” Telling me on Facebook that I’m offering up “religious-like dogma” is not disparaging?
What is ironic here is I have made a thoughtful attempt to answer every one of your questions, but you have answered none of mine. I asked for an example where drowning a baby for entertainment is morally permissable. If you can’t give me one, you just proved me right. That is the whole point. There is no REASON one can give to morally justify such an act.
As for your accusation that I don’t answer basic questions, asking me to solve the “is/ought” distinction is NOT a basic question. A basic question is “what do you mean by objective?,” which I addressed clearly in my essay and again when you asked.
I’m allowed to have a social life and a blog. I was at dinner and a movie last night. Then I went out for brunch with my mom. In fact, in the spare time I had since I posted yesterday afternoon and now, I’m embarrassed to admit most of it has been spent on you!
You did get one thing right – I have to realize many people aren’t going to be respectful on the internet, and I will need to develop tougher skin.
If you have so much knowledge on this topic, let’s see your refutation. I also asked for counter-arguments to ANY of my 11 claims. Where are they? If you cannot provide even ONE, well I must not be so stupid, ay?
None of the questions I asked were condescending, disparaging or hostile at all – they may be difficult for you, but that doesn’t make them inappropriate in any way. These are questions you can expect to be asked when you start making claims about moral objectivity. It is your inability to answer them coherently that is causing you to contrive an emotional stance against the person asking them. These questions are the sort all of us who have done studies in analytic ethics have had to deal with. I had to deal with them, too. The only real difference is, I didn’t demand special dispensation on the basis of special pleading in the form of insults. I also didn’t choose to blot them out of the textbook, call the author names, and then hope it all would go away.
This is the internet. If you are expecting to have special dispensation to pass off ideas without critique than you are in for a rude awakening. Are you going to depict the whole world as as “ass” for simply asking questions? Instead of taking offence to the questions any introductory textbook would present, you might have taken the opportunity to learn something (you never know, maybe someone else has thought about these things as well) – even if only in the refutation.
You are making a claim; it is your responsibility to defend it, like it or not. If your personal life is so tasking that you have no time to answer basic questions about your content, then perhaps it would be best not to present your hurried thoughts to the world. It isn’t me you are answering; this isn’t about me – or even about you for that matter – it is about anyone who thinks even casually about these matters and, most importantly, it is about the subject matter.
As it is, I see little of interest in your blog-post, except another attempt to indefensibly introduce “intuitive obviousness” into moral discourse. We’ve all heard this before, from religious fanatics and other moral realists as a justification for 1400+ years of “dark ages.”
@dglas: As philosophy is not my field, I am going to hold off on commenting on the heart of this post (and subsequent comments) for now.
What I *will* comment on is your presumptuousness re: Sarah’s time to respond to your questions. According to her FB thread, you asked her about tools and such last night…then *an hour later* you post a smartass “No? Well…blahblahblah…” Do you sit at your computer constantly? Because a lot of us don’t.
Then, today, Sarah takes a minute to make a quick response to me (a personal friend) on her page and you post a touchy response about how she is “ignoring” your comments. Then you come on here and do the same thing.
I believe that if you were truly interested in rational debate, you would have shown a little more patience. I don’t think a response time of 24 hours (in an internet forum…to a query from a complete stranger) is indicative of avoidance. *This* is why you came across as condescending and arrogant…not because you “asked questions.
“If you have so much knowledge on this topic, let’s see your refutation. I also asked for counter-arguments to ANY of my 11 claims. Where are they? If you cannot provide even ONE, well I must not be so stupid, ay?”
Well, if that is the conclusion you are drawing, then it remains an ongoing question.
You claimed to be presenting a methodology for determining objective morality – or, more generally, the “objectiveness” of morality. This is the essential claim of your blog-post, a claim for which you have still offered no evidence – nor even a description for the methodology by which we can determine what sort of evidence applies.
You see, the misdirection of trying to vilify me doesn’t absolve you from the responsibility of evidencing your claim. You sound like the believer claiming God must exist because no one can prove it doesn’t. Only those taken in by the mistaken assignment of responsibility for proof – which rests firmly with those making the claim – will be deceived by this.
The real issue is that you have turned this into a clash of personalities rather than an examination of the subject matter. This won’t wash with with any passably careful observer. Calling into question, rightly or wrongly, the motives, presentation or shoe-size of the questioner does not absolve you of the onus of proof for your claims. The questions themselves have no personality to attack.
When I ask the Scientologist to prove the veracity of their claims to there being “engrams” that prevent the “perfect calculating machine” from functioning, the proper response is not to demand I prove the non-existence of engrams. The proper response is for those making the claim to prove they do. Same with chiropractors. If they claim that spinal manipulations fix subluxations and therefore cure cancer, then, when challenged, their response is not to say that I must prove subluxations inhibiting some supernatural energy keep cancer from going into remission. The proper response is for them to prove:
(1) This mystical energy exists,
(2) It is inhibited by subluxations,
(3) These subluxations exist,
(4) This situation has some sort of effect on cancer,
(5) Their method proves their claim.
You have claimed a method. I have asked for you to detail this method. You have relied on a attacks against the person, and attempting to shift the burden of proof on another to prove a negative.
Nevertheless, all that said, I have offered a hypothetical situation in which slavery comes back into “ethical vogue.” The same sort of situation can be posited for any of the normative claims you have made. We know this is possible because there have been situations and times in which many of the normative claims you have made have been denied; indeed there have been times when the contradictory of your normative claims have been made *as normative claims themselves.* And many of the excuses used for accepting these claims are much like yours: “No reasonable person would ever dare deny this! It’s intuitively obvious! It just stands to reason!” However, the obviousness of your ploy really is rather pathetic: get me to make an unpopular claim and then attempt to attack the person as “proof” of your claim. I’m not falling for it – for the purposes of this conversation, I will not indicate my views on any of these. Deal with the arguments, not the arguers, not the presentation of the argument, not the motives of the argument.
I repeat: “Would you care to cite an example of a normative moral prescription and detail how you used these ‘tools’ to arrive at it such that it is ‘independent of individual and cultural norms?’” Even better if you can show how you bridge the is-ought barrier, and require universalizability and prescriptivity. You will, of course, recognize those terms…
I await your response to the question.
Actually, the burden of proof is on me if I claim something *exists*. That’s why it is true that I cannot say “a pink unicorn exists until you show me why it doesn’t.” That would be fallacious reasoning, indeed. I’m not committing this fallacy. All I’m trying to do is make a point by asking you to give me a counter-argument, which you refuse to do. I claimed moral objectivism is true (which by the way, is not a method, but a theory) and offered what I take to be legitimate reasons to take this theory seriously. I offered up one big reason why killing babies for entertainment is immoral: human life is valuable. Can I prove human life is valuable? Nope. Does that matter? NOPE.
Why can’t you give me a reason that killing babies for fun isn’t immoral? I’ll tell you why – because there isn’t one.
If I say evolution is true, provided I explain it, provide the evidence, and you can’t give me ONE reason why it isn’t, my theory holds. (My “evidence” for the claim killing babies for fun is wrong is that human life is valuable.) So why are you changing the rules with morality? Give me a better theory or go home. You brought up falsifiability – so go ahead, falsify my claims. Again, it is inappropriate here to ASK for proof – ethics is not science. You want me to prove why killing a baby for fun is wrong? Do you hear how non-sensical that sounds? I can’t do that no more than I can prove I’m sitting here typing.
So, we aren’t talking about pink unicorns here, we are talking about what is conducive to human flourishing, which is actually the test for moral behaviors. I haven’t had an opportunity to go into this because this is in the realm of normative ethics, and my post was confined to a metaethical theory.
Actually, it is more dangerous to say that we cannot definitively say what Hitler did was wrong because we don’t have the tools to do so, besides the fact that it is an incorrect statement. Cultural tolerance of immoral behaviors is a very dangerous thing indeed, and we see it often because of the false notion that actions which stem from religious beliefs ought to be respected.
Quoth Ms. Owens:
“@dglas: As philosophy is not my field, I am going to hold off on commenting on the heart of this post (and subsequent comments) for now.
What I *will* comment on is your presumptuousness re: Sarah’s time to respond to your questions. According to her FB thread, you asked her about tools and such last night…then *an hour later* you post a smartass “No? Well…blahblahblah…” Do you sit at your computer constantly? Because a lot of us don’t.
Then, today, Sarah takes a minute to make a quick response to me (a personal friend) on her page and you post a touchy response about how she is “ignoring” your comments. Then you come on here and do the same thing.
I believe that if you were truly interested in rational debate, you would have shown a little more patience. I don’t think a response time of 24 hours (in an internet forum…to a query from a complete stranger) is indicative of avoidance. *This* is why you came across as condescending and arrogant…not because you “asked questions.”
She has defriended me on Facebook. You can, too, if you choose (if you haven’t already). That’s your option.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that your assessment is correct- whether I do or do not sit at my computer constantly – this impacts on the discussion of the subject matter precisely how? One doesn’t have to have formal philosophical training for this question…
My “arrogance” or lack thereof is irrelevant. A distraction only. The questions remain, however you want them phrased.
Forgive me for trying to get back on topic, but if Ms. Hippolitus has discovered tools by which we can derive moral objectivity *independent of individual and cultural norms,* I should think many would be interested in this. It’s a staggeringly important claim – if it can be supported. It’s also an extremely dangerous kind of claim to be making and warrants extreme caution. History is rife with examples of what can happen when people think they know the Truth.
Make no mistake, however, it is she making that claim and the burden of proof lies with her. Evasions, obfuscations and distractions will be noted for what they are.
Let’s be clear:
If someone makes a claim that cannot be verified/refuted, there is more than one reason why it may not be refutable. It may be non-refutable because:
(1) The claim is true, or
(2) It is not be the sort of claim for which refutation applies.
When Ms. Hippolitus demands that I refute her normative claims, she is assuming that if I cannot refute them, they must be true. Well, Mr. Sagan tells us the invisible green dragon in his garage that does not admit of verification nor refutation.
If someone’s claims that since I am unable to refute the invisible green dragon, the invisible green dragon exists, then they are displaying a lack of understanding about:
(1) What constitutes evidence,
(2) The nature of the claim being made, and
(3) Where the burden of responsibility for the claim of the invisible green dragon’s existence lies.
Is it possible, Ms. Hippolitus does not understand this? I guess it might be, but I find it unlikely. More likely, it is the same rhetorical ploy used by theists who demand we disprove god’s existence or else we must conclude god does exist.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Morality is objective. What does this really mean and why should we buy it? | Thinking Critically -- Topsy.com
“Assuming, for the sake of argument, that your assessment is correct- whether I do or do not sit at my computer constantly – this impacts on the discussion of the subject matter precisely how? One doesn’t have to have formal philosophical training for this question…”
Oh, no…that wasn’t sarcastic at all, was it? Besides, I never said that sitting at a computer/not sitting a computer all day had any relation to the actual argument at hand…you are putting words into my mouth. This observation had to do with the fact that Sarah’s delay in responding to you provoked unnecessary hostility from you in your follow-up postings.
I have already mentioned your Facebook responses…let’s look at how you start your discussion on this blog post:
“Here are a few questions I have asked elsewhere about this blog-post, that, for some reason, the writer here doesn’t seem inclined to answer. One would hope she’d at least try, since they are relevant to the subject matter and the claims made here. Since the author above will not (or cannot) answer on Facebook, let’s put them here and see what happens.”
About 45 minutes later:
“Apparently, asking questions is not permitted in the author’s objective moral order.”
Starting with last night on FB and continuing today on the blog, you made a judgment on the writer’s character/integrity [and no matter what you claim, the above statements ARE both condescending and hostile] and this biased the tone of your commentary. Yet, you state over and over again that Sarah is “vilifying” or “attacking” your person and, thus, obfuscating and avoiding your questions.
So…it’s ok for YOU to show hostility towards her, but you get offended and accuse her of obfuscation when she (understandably) shows some hostility towards you? Hmmm…
And yet I see her responding to particular points about which you have queried her…and you keep accusing her of using “rhetorical ploys.” Seems non-conducive to a good argument with a fellow skeptic to me.
Feel free to respond to this, if necessary…but know that I have said my piece and I don’t want to further detract from any useful discussions on the title topic.
“Actually, the burden of proof is on me if I claim something *exists*. That’s why it is true that I cannot say “a pink unicorn exists until you show me why it doesn’t.” That would be fallacious reasoning, indeed. I’m not committing this fallacy. All I’m trying to do is make a point by asking you to give me a counter-argument, which you refuse to do. I claimed moral objectivism is true (which by the way, is not a method, but a theory) and offered what I take to be legitimate reasons to take this theory seriously. I offered up one big reason why killing babies for entertainment is immoral: human life is valuable. Can I prove human life is valuable? Nope. Does that matter? NOPE.
Why can’t you give me a reason that killing babies for fun isn’t immoral? I’ll tell you why – because there isn’t one. ”
Actually, it does matter, because you are making claims to “objectivity” that is “independent of individual and cultural norms.” Your words; not mine.
The Abrahamic religions espouse the primacy of God and have used that “value-principle” to claim that killing children is moral obligatory in the service of God.
You claimed that there are tools which lead to us moral objectivism independent of individual and cultural norms? I have repeatedly asked you to provide these tools and examples of them in use. You have, apparently, been unable or unwilling to do so. This is not surprising, given the claim you are making. Perhaps you will finally be willing to detail these tools and apply them in refutation of the Primacy of God “value-principle?”
If you want to posit one or more values axiomatically and work logically from this (these) then that is one claim. If, however, you want to claim that these represent “objective morality,” then you clearly do not understand that logic is a human language, deductive system construct …or… you are claiming an extra-system referent – which then begs to be examined. It seems to me you are claiming that the value-set you want to work from axiomatically is somehow objective such that a contradictory axiomatic value-set fails some analysis in comparison based on some objective standard. No matter what kind of smokescreens you try to obfuscate matters with, you will need to indicate why one value is “correct” and another contradictory one is not. You are responsible for your claim; the burden of proof (via verification or otherwise) lies entirely with you. Just claiming the “evidence” need not be empirical evidence does not absolve you from the burden of showing your work.
The reason I do not attempt to prove the counter-example to your particular normative claim is that I do not attempt to lay claim to moral objectivism. I am not certain if you are merely trying to lead me into a trap or if you really do not understand this. Whether you do or not, I do. I am not about to claim that killing babies for fun is morally acceptable (or obligatory) simply because I do not think such a position is defensible. Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out again that because I do not provide an argument (from moral objectivism) for the killing of babies, does not mean that there is an argument (from moral objectivism) for the contradictory. A poor argument is a poor argument regardless of the results reached – and especially if it can be used to reach contradictory results just by plugging in different initial values. How do you refute someone who claims that the Primacy of God morally obliges people to kill babies in the name of God? You are the one who made the claim to “objectivity.” You defend it.
You made two important claims so far:
(1) There is an objective means of evaluating normative claims, and
(2) Some particular normative claims are reached by your objective means.
You will need to prove both of these assertions. Further since you are claiming that these claims can be proven “independent of individual and cultural norms” you need to show us what external referent it is to which you refer. It is not my duty to prove that you are not pointing to anything objective. You are the one making the claim, not I. So, yes, you are conducting the “invisible green dragon fallacy.” You can’t get around it by crying NOMA and demanding proofs of a negative. Any fanatic can do that, and it is isn’t rational no matter who does it.
Are you really saying only that morality rests only on value-assumptions, because if you are, you are not making a claim “independent of individual and cultural norms.” And, unless you have been misleading us all along, you did make a claim about having “tools” (your word) that lead us to moral objectivism “independent of individual and cultural norms.” Are you retracting that claim?
Despite my repeatedly asking for these tools to be provided, with an example, you have not provided them. Instead you try to obfuscate by demanding I try to prove a negative. That’s not going to fly with anyone. Now, there is a reason for your diversionary rhetorical tactics, and the only question is what that reason is. Is it that you know revealing the tools will make the claim to “objectivity” meaningless once you are shown these tools are entirely in-system and rest on no extra-system referents at all (or on external referents that arise from individual and/or cultural norms), thus revealing your moral truths to not be “independent of individual and cultural norms” – not to be “objective” at all?
I repeat: “Would you care to cite an example of a normative moral prescription and detail how you used these ‘tools’ to arrive at it such that it is ‘independent of individual and cultural norms?’”
While philosophy is not my “thing”, I am always interested in looking at things from that point of view. Many things that I take as obvious (such as objective morality) have a lot more thought behind them than one might have guessed. As such, I found this post to be an interesting look into the topic.
The only thing I believe was missing was a bit more detail about why the theistic version of moral objectivism (or moral absolutism) is not correct (although I guess in a materialistic or naturalistic worldview that may just be a starting assumption, I’m not sure).
That said, I think the post itself was very good.
And here is where I get into the primary reason I am commenting:
dglas
Having seen (not live, but looking back after the fact) the facebook exchange between yourself and Sarah, I’d like to point out how in your FIRST comment here you already give a false impression of events.
You make it sound like she was unwilling to answer your questions, and yet FB shows that your first question to her was at 5:22 and her reply was at 5:26.
Your next comment was at 5:41, and 40 minutes later (on a holiday weekend no less) you’re already accusing her of not responding to you. Perhaps you have nothing better to do on a long weekend when the weather is nice, but I think assuming that others also have no life is not exactly a reasonable position to take.
She then did respond to your comments on FB, answering your specific questions in pretty decent detail.
You have then seemingly asked the SAME questions again (here this time), without giving any indication of why her answers from FB are not adequate replies. Granted, her responses could be even more detailed, but there are books written on the is/ought issue, so to expect her to respond fully on such a vague and complex topic is frankly more than a little ludicrous.
I see no where that she refused you the right to ask questions. Perhaps you can go into greater detail on this.
Perhaps, just perhaps, she defriended you on FB because of comments such as: “Or maybe you’ll just display the natural result of your thinking by deleting what you don’t like”. Given the fact that she was answering your questions (although perhaps not on the time-line you desired, unfortunately some people go outside of their homes and don’t want for chances to communicate with strangers on the internet), this comment seems absurd, since you’ve provided no evidence of her deleting ANYTHING (in fact you’ve never even mentioned her deleting anything other than that one off hand remark).
Perhaps I am wring, and Sarah can correct me if I am, but it seems to me that her “ass” comment was related to you accusing her of deleting what she doesn’t like… Personally I would be offended if somebody was making unfounded claims against my integrity, and “ass” might be the nicest thing I would say to them.
The rest of your second comment seem to be a series of ad hominem attacks poorly disguised as questions. And since I’ve already dealt with that aspect of your comments I won’t repeat myself again (at least not yet, we’ll see as I keep reading more comments).
REALLY?
“Are you really that profoundly shallow that you cannot consider questions or answer critiques without resorting to such behaviour?”
“Is this just about getting coddled or is it about the subject matter?”
You don’t find those (and other comments you made) to be “condescending, disparaging or hostile”? Perhaps you need to re-evaluate your understanding of these terms…
I have yet to see you explain why her answers (and yes, as far as I can tell, she did provide answers) are not good enough. True some of your questions might require a book to answer (the is/ought issue for example), but given the fact that this is a personal blog and not a peer reviewed scientific journal or a PhD thesis, I don’t think it’s fair to expect somebody to write you a 2 volume set because you don’t understand an aspect of their writing…
I don’t see where she did any of this. Would you care to enlighten me? Or would you prefer to just come across as a whiny little troll? Either way, I’m fine, I’d just like to know in advance if you’re going full on troll here, or if you think you have an actual point when you make up “claims” out of thin air.
DING, DING, DING!!!!
We have a winner.
Something I finally agree with you on.
And your next sentence you ruin it. Damn, and I thought we were starting to bond…
Well, as I mentioned before, on a holiday weekend it’s unreasonable to expect the rest of the world to have no life, just because you’re a shut-in…
Actually it IS about you. As with all trolls, it’s about feeding your own ego. Perhaps you don’t see yourself as a troll, and I can even give you the benefit of the doubt and say that perhaps you’re not typically a troll. But from my perspective, you are most certainly a troll in this instance…
For something of little interest, you seem to have devoted an interestingly large amount of words to your views on it…
What EXACTLY are you getting at here? Have you really misread the post THAT much that you believe she is arguing for morality from above? I’m at a bit of a loss here…
—–
BTW, I just got to Sarah’s next comment, and she brings up a great point. You keep trying to ask her all these questions multiple times (despite having them answered already and giving no indication that you read the answers much less why the answers are not adequate), and yet you’ve failed to respond to her questions.
I’m curious, you’ve not really given what YOUR views are on the subject. You clearly seem to disagree with moral objectivism, so what are YOUR thoughts on morality. Does it change over time? Are certain things (or even any one thing) ALWAYS wrong (such as slavery)?
Perhaps I missed it, but it seems ALL of your comments have been attacking the post and yet you’ve given no alternative view. It’s as if I said the sky is blue, and you’ve just said “no it’s not” without offering your own view on what color the sky is, despite being asked “ok, what color is it then?”…
—–
Again, you’ve asked her questions, and failed to explain why her answers are not sufficient. Perhaps the issue here is that you don’t find her answers to be good enough, and yet you’ve failed repeatedly to let her know this or explain why you feel this way.
One simple solution would be to essentially “start over”, and give reasons WHY her answers to your questions are not sufficient.
That or you could keep going the way you have asking the same questions repeatedly despite them having been answered, and you can continue to give the appearance of a troll looking for self validation by means of negative attention.
I assume you’re more than 5 years old, so I’d go with the first option, but perhaps you prefer the second…
—–
At this point it seems as if the rest of this comment is more of the same, and frankly I’m getting bored of seeing you reword the same questions over and over (and I’ll mention again in case you missed it the last half dozen times I said it), DESPITE THEM ALREADY BEING ANSWERED.
Frankly I doubt at this point I’m going to continue commenting on your individual lines any more, because it’s 1am, I’m tired, I have a long day tomorrow, and frankly this whole exchange between you and Sarah is kind of dull.
If there is something you’ve said that I did not reply to directly, or something I’ve said that you disagree with, I’ll be happy to respond tomorrow when I have time (i.e. don’t expect a response in less time than it takes for Papa John’s to get to your house or you’ll be sadly disappointed).
And hopefully you and Sarah can either find some common ground to work out whatever your problem is with her answers that she has already provided
Or perhaps you’ll find another bridge to scurry under (yes, that was yet another troll reference; I like to leave on a negative note; what can I say, I’m fun like that)…
The claim has been made that Ms. Hippolitus has answered my question. Would anyone care to repeat it then, for my trollish-ass-egotistical benefit? I really rather not drudge through all the personal abuse again to find it, if it is there. I didn’t see it the first time through.
“Would you care to cite an example of a normative moral prescription and detail how you used these ‘tools’ to arrive at it such that it is ‘independent of individual and cultural norms?’”
If this has already been answered, then surely it is a simple matter to repeat the answer. I assume it is within the abilities of the author and her supporters to cut & paste – preferably without the personal abuse.
—
Most of Mr. Randall’s post is highly emotive, off-topic nonsense, but he does ask one interesting question, which I will address:
Quoth Mr. Randall:
“I’m curious, you’ve not really given what YOUR views are on the subject. You clearly seem to disagree with moral objectivism, so what are YOUR thoughts on morality. Does it change over time? Are certain things (or even any one thing) ALWAYS wrong (such as slavery)?
Perhaps I missed it, but it seems ALL of your comments have been attacking the post and yet you’ve given no alternative view. It’s as if I said the sky is blue, and you’ve just said “no it’s not” without offering your own view on what color the sky is, despite being asked “ok, what color is it then?”…
I do not give my particular view because my particular view is off-topic for the conversation at hand. The conversation at hand is about Ms. Hippolitus’s claim that morality is objective in some way, independent of individual and cultural norms and that here are tools we can use to arrive at particular normative values. I have asked for an example of these tools at work such that they arrive at a normative value independent of individual and cultural norms. Why does anyone see that as an inapplicable question, much less an abusive one?
If someone claims that blue cars are “objectively” better than any other colour of car, then they must indicate how blue cars are “objectively” “better.” What colour car I prefer is irrelevant, especially when I didn’t make the claim that any colour car is “objectively” “better” than any other colour of car. Get it? Of course you don’t, but for the benefit of any others…
Calling for me to provide my view is only a rhetorical tactic to try to find something to attack, rather than trying to prove Ms. Hippolitus’s view defensible – which is the point at issue. You are just going to have to settle for attacking my person, in lieu of a defense of the claim, for now. A reflexive personal and emotive defensiveness is not to the point – not when you use it, and not when anyone else uses it. It wouldn’t be to the point if I used such a desperate rhetorical ploy either.
I repeat, this isn’t about me – or even about you for that matter – it is about anyone who thinks even casually about these matters and, most importantly, it is about the subject matter.
It is about the subject matter. Read it again, as many times as you have to until it sinks in. It is about the subject matter.
Yes, yes, I know. Talking about the subject matter rather than engaging in a petty conflict of personalities makes me a troll according to you, an ass according to Sarah. Where you see the “proper” labeling of a troll, I see a diversionary tactic intended only to attack the arguer instead of addressing the question. Others, actually interested in the subject matter, will see the same.
When you asked: “What are the “tools,” how do they work (how do we use them and how do they indicate results), and what are the results? What is your meaning of the word, “objective?”"
She replied: “As I said, “objective” means independent of individual opinion and cultural norms. The “intellectual tools” essentially refer to reasoning ability. “
You have since asked these same two questions REPEATEDLY, without once saying why her answers are not acceptable to you or even acknowledging that the questions had been answered previously.
When you asked: “Would you care to cite an example of a normative moral prescription and detail how you used these “tools” to arrive at it such that it is “independent of individual and cultural norms?”"
She replied “It’s wrong to drown a baby in a bathtub for entertainment. The reason for this is a human life is valuable, and all things being equal, a baby’s…(tharr be more) Peer into the depths life, more so. This prescriptive moral claim holds true regardless of individual and cultural opinion. If you challenge this assertion, you’ll need to give me an example. “
When you asked: “No? How about telling us how, precisely, you bridge the is-ought barrier then, with an example?”
She replied ”
RE: The “Is/ought” distinction. This is a fascinating and robust topic, and tremendously important to address. To properly address it takes a good deal of time. I would like to devote an essay to that topic in the near future…it takes a good deal of time and thought to treat this issue successfully.”
When you asked: “How about entertaining a hypothetical then? If, in a hundred or few years from now, slavery (say) got back in “ethical” vogue – proponents of it may claim that we anti-slavery folks just didn’t have the tools to identify or discover the objective moral correctness of slavery. How do we refute this?”
She replied “RE: Slavery – If it comes back in ethical vogue, that doesn’t change the fact that it is still wrong. Anyone who argues to the contrary is wrong. Again, if you want to challenge this claim, please give me an example of a case where slavery is morally permissable. The tools I use to refute it will simply be reasoning and logic. This leads me to your final concern. I said morality parallels science but I was very careful to be very specific in exactly how. While there are parallels, morality and science have different objectives, and consequently, different methods to acheive them.”
When you asked: “You seem to be claiming your view parallels science. Where’s the falsifiability and to what external referent do we appeal to falsify a moral evaluation?”
She replied “”Testing” and “Falsifiability” are part of the scientfic methodology, while an ethicist relys heavily on reasoning and argumentation as her evidence. So while our evidence looks different, both forms suffice as such in their respective fields. Again, this is another GREAT topic to which I should devote an essay.”
You would like more examples? Or is this enough?
—–
As for my comments being off topic, let’s see the points I raised:
1) You gave a false impression of events (claiming that she ignored you when she asnswered your first questions within 4 minutes and your second set you gave her less than 1 hour before you complained you were being ignored)
2) You ask the same questions repeatedly without acknowleding the answers given and/or why those answers are not satisfactory
3) You claimed she was not allowing you to ask questions, this was flat out a lie
4) You accused her of deleting comments she does like, again, this is 100% a lie
5) You don’t beleieve you were “condescending, disparaging or hostile at all”; I showed examples where you are clearly all 3
6) You accuse her of not answering questions that have already been answered by her
7) You accuse her of speacial pleading, but are unable (or unwilling) to back up this claim, despite being asked for evidence of such speacial pleading
8) You seem to have the impression that people must respond to you within under 1 hour (on a holiday weekend) or else they should not have a blog
9) You claim the blog is of no interest, and yet you’ve spent a few thousand words (describing your disintrest)
Those all seem “on topic” to me. And frankly, I think all are quite deserving of a response.
The problem with this statement is that she HAS answered your questions, and you continue to ask them repeatedly.
If you disagree with her answers, or if her answers are not “good enough”, then it’s up to you to explain WHY those answers are not acceptable, OR to give an alternative view of the topic.
But to keep asking the same questions repeatedly with no clear explination for why the answers given are unacceptable is obviously doing no good for anybody…
The problem with this anology is that you’ve missed a step.
1) Somebody claims blue cars are objectivly better
2) You ask them to explain why
3) They answer *** THIS IS WHERE YOU STARTED TO LEAVE STEPS OUT OF YOUR ANALOGY ***
4) You ask again
5) You are told it’s already been answered
6) You ignore that and ask again
7) You are asked why the answer doesn’t live up to your standards
8) You again ignore that and ask again
9) You are asked what color YOU think is best
Do you see the steps you missed? Would it help if I highlighted them for you?
I asked for you views, because you did not provide any evidence of why her explinations and answers to your questions are wrong. If you had said “Sarah said X, i asked Y, she responded Z, and it is wrong because of Q” then I’d agree with you (perhaps, depending on Q of course). But what happened is “Sarah said X, you asked Y, she responded Z, you asked Y, again, and again, and again…”
As for “attacking your person”, I disagree. I did not attack your person. I attacked your lies, your inability and/or unwillingness to explain why Sarah’s answers are not acceptable, your unfounded claims, your tone, etc… I have, in short, attacked your comments, not you… For all I know you could be a great person. You could be a great debater. Hell, you could be Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett for all I know. BUT in this discussion, you have come across as a troll.
And to be clear, the reason you are a troll is NOT because you disagree with Sarah
And it is NOT because you’re asking her to defend her position
It is because you’re ignoring her answers and treating it as if those answers never happened. THAT is the behavior of a troll…
Quoth Jeff Randall,
When you asked: “What are the “tools,” how do they work (how do we use them and how do they indicate results), and what are the results? What is your meaning of the word, “objective?””
She replied: “As I said, “objective” means independent of individual opinion and cultural norms. The “intellectual tools” essentially refer to reasoning ability. “
Just because the sentence is worded as a reply, does not mean it answers the question. That these do not answer the question is precisely why I reworded it to:
“Would you care to cite an example of a normative moral prescription and detail how you used these ‘tools’ to arrive at it such that it is ‘independent of individual and cultural norms?’”
This provides an opportunity for her to display her tools and for the rest of us to see them in action with respect to an example.
Quoth Jeff Randall:
When you asked: “Would you care to cite an example of a normative moral prescription and detail how you used these “tools” to arrive at it such that it is “independent of individual and cultural norms?””
She replied “It’s wrong to drown a baby in a bathtub for entertainment. The reason for this is a human life is valuable, and all things being equal, a baby’s…(tharr be more) Peer into the depths life, more so. This prescriptive moral claim holds true regardless of individual and cultural opinion. If you challenge this assertion, you’ll need to give me an example. “
Which, of course, does not provide any evidence (in any kind of form, empirically, rationally or otherwise) of, “…human life [being] valuable…” It is merely an assertion, and is therefore dependent on the values of the one doing the asserting. One can claim that it is “objective” by presenting it as a universalizable prescription, but that alone is not sufficient, since we have had situations in the past where contradictories to some (if not all) of Ms. Hippolytis’s particular prescriptions have been presented as universal prescriptions themselves. Hence my question earlier (to paraphrase), How will we be able to debunk a contradictory normative prescription? How do these “tools” allow us to do this? I do not think an aswer was provided to that directly. However, judging from the rest of the material, I suspect the answer is, “You’ll just know. It’s intuitively obvious.”
To divorce a normative evaluation from the individual doing the asserting, let alone the culture as well, requires much more than just saying the equivalent of “Is too, so nyah!” As for giving an example, I did provide one of people who have challenged that assertion in, “The Abrahamic religions espouse the primacy of God and have used that “value-principle” to claim that killing children is moral obligatory in the service of God.” This, I note, was skipped over in you reflexively defensive hyperbole.
Quoth Jeff Randall:
When you asked: “How about entertaining a hypothetical then? If, in a hundred or few years from now, slavery (say) got back in “ethical” vogue – proponents of it may claim that we anti-slavery folks just didn’t have the tools to identify or discover the objective moral correctness of slavery. How do we refute this?”
She replied “RE: Slavery – If it comes back in ethical vogue, that doesn’t change the fact that it is still wrong. Anyone who argues to the contrary is wrong.
To say that something is wrong because it is wrong is not exactly illuminating the subject matter. No one should have to tell you or anyone that. I asked for specific tools (of any type) the rest of us could use to determine “independent of individual and cultural norms” that a given value assertion is false. She goes on to say, as you point out,
When you asked: “You seem to be claiming your view parallels science. Where’s the falsifiability and to what external referent do we appeal to falsify a moral evaluation?”
She replied “”Testing” and “Falsifiability” are part of the scientfic methodology, while an ethicist relys heavily on reasoning and argumentation as her evidence. So while our evidence looks different, both forms suffice as such in their respective fields.
And where precisely did I indicate that the external referents have to be empirical? For the record, the comparison to “science” was hers. I used it, effectively, at her behest. She claims it is comparable somehow to science, I ask how. Perfectly legitimate question to ask. Ms. Hippolytis herself claims “objectivity” “independent of individual and cultural norms.” I am asking what the “external referents” are such that moral prescriptions can be thought of as “objective.” They cannot be individual or cultural norms and, if they are empirical, she will need to bridge the “is-ought” barrier, but in any event she claims this objectivity represents being “independent of individual and cultural norms.” This is her claim, not mine. Is Ms. Hippolytis claiming some sort of a priori knowledge that is somehow objective and accessible to the rest of us? If so, that claim has been made by religious dogmatists for thousands of years to a predictable results – tyranny based on dogma – and we will still need to know how we can distinguish between true and false a priori understandings. I want to know what this objective whatever-it-is she is appealing to as the “source” of her value judgments is and how we can verify “independent of individual and cultural norms” that moral prescription X is true while moral prescription Y is false.
Is it some form of deontic logic? If so, then she must know that the evaluation of truth (which is different from a in-system “truth-value”) for a deontic logic is just as extra-system a property as is the evaluation of truth for any other “kind” of logic. She also must know that axioms are themselves, assumed, tentatively or otherwise, and do not, themselves, constitute proof. Truth-values may follow, but only after the assumption of truth of the axiom(s).
Mr. Randall, do you begin to understand yet? She hasn’t answered any of the questions yet, questions which are understood to be the business of analytic ethics. All she has done is claim she has tools that will lead to objectivity. I asked for them to be identified and used with just one example. I even offered an example as an opportunity for her to display the prowess of the tools in action. What followed was [paraphrase] “you are irrational if you don’t agree.” Again, we’ve heard that before.
Let’s take a supposed answer you cited: “She replied “It’s wrong to drown a baby in a bathtub for entertainment. The reason for this is a human life is valuable…”
From whence arises this value. It can’t be an “individual or cultural norm” because independence from these is her very meaning of “objectivity” (or so it is claimed). If not an individual or cultural norm, then from whence does it come? A priori intuitive obviousness? From some empirical information?
The problem is that even if I were inclined to offer a counter-example as “my position,” she still hasn’t provided the “tools” she claims to have in order to evaluate, yea or nay, *ANY* moral prescription. An appeal to rationality is a great sound-bite, but since the tools are not detailed, even with respect to one instance, how are we to assess that her tools are, in fact, the tools of rationality. Even if she could “prove” “my particular normative prescription” incorrect (while interesting), it still does not prove her particular normative prescription correct. This I have already suggested and my question, still unanswered despite claims to the contrary, serves to highlight this problem with her work, as presented.
It is unfortunate that you do not understand the issues at hand, Mr. Randall, and have chosen to rely on knee-jerk reflexive defensiveness and personal attack as a substitute for solid argumentation and clarity, but just as Mr. Pigliucci recommends to Mr. Harris that he might benefit from actually reading about analytic ethics, I recommend a similar course for you, so that you may, in the future, comment knowledgeably, intelligently and coherently on the subject matter. You are not doing so now.
dglas,
FINALLY, you are giving some reasons WHY her earlier answers were not sufficient.
You did NOT do this before. You simply ignored (at least as far as those without the ability to read your mind over the internet could tell) the answers that were given and asked them again.
If you had done this earlier, perhaps this discussion would not have gone sour, as it seems to have done.
Do you see what I am getting at here? Does it makes sense to you that you were giving no indication that you had read her responses; and that at least in part your failure to acknowledge those responses, and your insistence that she had not answered you was causing friction.
THIS type of reply (where you explain why you disagree with her answers) would have been IMMENSELY helpful a while ago, and almost certainly would have avoided all of the conflict that has come to pass the last few days.
—–
Honestly, philosophy is not my “thing”. I find parts of it interesting, but I am just not as interested or knowledgeable about the subject as others are, and therefor am not the one to answer your questions of Sarah’s position.
I don’t find this to be “unfortunate” actually. Some people are not “in to” science or literature or history, etc… I am not “in to” philosophy…
I have tried to point out WHY you have been ineffective in your comments.
It seems to have worked too. You’ve FINALLY given an explanation as to WHY Sarah’s responses are not adequate in your view.
My goal in commenting to you was not to discuss philosophy with you.
My goal in commenting to you was to explain to you WHY Sarah has seemingly had issues with you, and why your approach was not working…
I can’t believe I’m getting involved in this but I have to say a few things. Jeff is exactly right.
@dglass (misspelling intentional) You are only NOW addressing my argument and it’s too late. I’ve been tight in the chest every time I read your snarky, asshole remarks. I’m not responding b/c I can’t respond so you can get that wildly arrogant idea out of your head. It’s because I have a rule – disrespect me, be an arrogant prick, and I’m not going to engage in a discussion. I don’t think it’s an unreasonable rule to have. If you really did want to know what more knowledge I had on the topic (which I certainly have, as I’ve studied ethics for 10 years – and I’m very knowledgable – but you can’t seem to understand why I don’t want to spend my time telling you about it) you would have been wise to just asked me in a human, non-asshole way, as Jeff pointed out.
Also, do you have a job? I am stunned how much time you have spent on this. It’s wildly pathetic. I have tried so hard to stay out of it, but when my integrity and knowledge is disparaged I won’t stand for it.
Again, try to wrap your arrogant brain around this: I stopped responding because you are an ASS, lied about me, and tried to trash me on my blog, not because I don’t know how to answer your objections. Next time if you really care about having a productive discussion with someone, don’t be an ass. That’s all.
Be assured, if you write back, I won’t. I have infinitely better things to do with my time.
Ms. Hippolitus (no intentional misspelling),
Well, I guess basking in offence and evasion is what those without a coherent argument do. No surprise, when all is said and done, I guess. I’ve just spent several posts trying to get people (including you) on topic, to no avail.
You want to boast of your 10 whole years thinking about ethics. Multiply that by 2 1/2 and you approach me. But quibbling with numbers is as irrelevant as all the other nonsense you’ve dredged up to try to avoid the subject matter. What matters is the subject matter – which you refuse to address. Probably your position is indefensible, but it is impossible to tell since you will not or cannot present it with any rigour or detail.
Petulantly revel in your private, internal realm then, with your intellectually and emotionally inbred close circle of fans, too busy hurling abuse and irrelevant nonsense, for want of actual content. If you want anyone outside that little circle to take you seriously, you will have to face critiques and you will have to defend your claims. The marketplace of ideas is not just a buffet for *your* precious, exclusive little shopping pleasure. If you are planning to take part, be ready to face quality control. You get an “F” for not even being able to get on-topic, much less being able to answer the critique.
Well that was certainly an interesting, albeit somewhat painful, comments section. While I can appreciate that the exchange may have put you off discussion on this post, I’d beg your indulgence in perhaps answeering some questions.
I’d preface my queries by saying that I’m skeptical of any system of determining morality that claims to be objective, and that even if it could be shown to be correct I would have serious doubts as to the usefulness of such a system.
You say, “Nor is it the view that there is necessarily a “best” and a “worst” way to behave in any given scenario. This is because morality is a spectrum, a continuum along which certain actions are morally worse or better than others. The view also allows for more than one “right” action in a given scenario and conversely, more than one “wrong” action.”
1. What is the goal post for determining the “rightness” or “wrongness” of a given position along the continuum?
2. If slavery, for example, is “wrong” would it be fair to say that having only one slave is less wrong than having one hundred? If that is not a fair comment, why not?
Based on the nature of the list in the main post, and some of the following comments, I’d assume that much of the basis for your examples relies on the value of human life. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
3. What then can be said for actions that do not impact on another human – such as hunting for sport?
4. Further to that question, does morality, as far as humans are concerned, extend to our actions towards non-humans? Animals? Plants? Could we extend our system of moral objectivity to another sentient species, should one be discovered, and expect it to hold up?
Lastly I’d like to address my second concern about your views on objective morality – how useful is it? How will we know that we have the intellectual maturity to ultimately say “this action is bad, this action is good”?
Thanks for taking the time to read this and, I hope, respond.
Matt,
I’m sure Sarah (the author of this post) will respond, but I have a couple quick questions for you, if you don’t mind. You said:
Do you believe that morality is given from a deity? Or that morality is relative? Or…?
And if morality could be shown to your satisfaction to be objective, wouldn’t at least one useful feature be that we as a species would have a much more clear way to determine which laws are “good” and which ones could (perhaps should) be repealed?
For instance if we can say that objectively that drinking alcohol is not bad, then any states or countries that have laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol (like say on a Sunday) should be repealed. If on the other hand it is shown that drinking alcohol is objectively bad, then it would give those who are opposed to it firm ground to stand on if they wish to reenact prohibition.
Many issues that currently have laws prohibiting or limiting them, such as assisted suicide, recreation drug use, prostitution, etc could then be reevaluated in light of an objective standard, instead of basing some of these laws on ignorance or religious ideology that not everybody shares.
Thanks Jeff. I prefaced my questions in order to acknowledge which side of the debate I may fall. I’m open to being wrong, but I have yet to see a convincing argument “for” this subject.
My first answer then would be that I’m probably a moral nihilist – codes of behaviour stem from both one’s culture and one’s beliefs about that culture, but there are no inherent moral facts. Again, I’m open to being wrong.
As to the second question, let me pose another – on what non-moral basis are we to decide that drinking alcohol is “good” or”bad”? And what non-moral method should we use to determine whether drinking alcohol is “less bad” or “more bad” than, say, slavery or rape?
The usefulness of a moral system, as opposed to a code of behaviour deemed to be moral, lies in our ability as a species to apply it.
Matthew,
I personally am not 100% sure how I fall on the whole question of morality. I used to believe that morality was relative, mostly because I had not given it much thought and moral relativism just seemed “obvious” to me, so I did not see any purpose in looking into it deeper.
As I have spent more time around people who know much more about philosophy than I do, I have come to realize that what I once saw as “obvious” is much more subtle and nuanced than I once thought.
Now I am still trying to understand and figure out exactly what my views are, but from what I have read and discussed about moral objectivism it seems to make sense (although I have not fully abandoned moral relativism quite yet).
Re moral nihilism:
I’ve never understood holding that position. It seems to me that is a very anarchist way of viewing things. To claim nothing is moral or immoral seems quite Machiavellian to me. Then again, I have never heard good arguments in favor of the position, so perhaps put the right way it might seems more reasonable than it does at first glance.
Re alcohol:
One non moral basis that could be used to say it is bad would be that it causes medical problems with long term use (thus depriving society of useful members), and can cause impaired judgment with short term use (potentially causing violence, accidents, and other problems that again negatively affect society).
I would certainly argue that alcohol is (at least all cases I can think of off the top of my head) “less bad” then slavery and rape; because by definition those two deprive a second person from their ability to live their own life how they choose, while alcohol does not.
I like that line
Pingback: Is there a punishment worse than hell? | Thinking Critically
Sorry about the name change – logged into my WordPress account.
Re: Moral Nihilism – I think it would be fairer to say that there are indeed better ways to behave than others but that moral systems assume a hidden premise that is not shown to be true, cannot be shown to be true, or does not exist in fact. This then renders them neither true nor false. Wikipedia puts it like this:
The second form, which one might call the presupposition failure form of moral nihilism, claims that moral beliefs and assertions are not true because they are neither true nor false. This is not a form of non-cognitivism, since moral assertions are still thought to be truth-apt. Rather, this form of moral nihilism claims that moral beliefs and assertions presuppose the existence of moral facts that do not exist. This is analogous to presupposition failure in cases of non-moral assertions. Take, for example, the claim that the present king of France is bald. Some argue that this claim is truth-apt in that it has the logical form of an assertion, but it is neither true nor false because it presupposes that there is currently a king of France, but there is not. The claim suffers from “presupposition failure.”
Re: Alcohol. Which non-moral method should we use to show that having a detrimental effect on another person is worse than having a detrimental effect on another person? Is it “right” to even test this in a non-moral environment?
Moral objectiveness requires that for a moral ststement to be objectively true it must also be objectively true when viewed in a non-moral manner. My objection (sorry) to the usefulness of this is: how far does one go to show that something is actually “bad”, “sort of bad”, “kind of good”, “good” etc.
So, yes – it would be very useful to be able to pass laws, for example, in full knowledge that they are morally True. How we arrive at that knowledge seems to be a stumbling block.
EDIT:
Re: Alcohol. Which non-moral method should we use to show that having a detrimental effect on another person is worse than having a detrimental effect on oneself?
No problem with the name change…
It’s interesting that moral nihilism says that there is no moral or immoral act. I would agree that many actions are neither moral nor immoral, but to claim that no action is moral or immoral i think goes too far. It seems clear to me that depriving somebody else of their rights or doing something that has a detrimental effect on others (unless they are a willing participant, in which case they are doing it to them self) is immoral.
However, I think at this point it’s best if Sarah takes over, since she is much more familiar with these arguments than I am. I don’t mean to “duck out”, it’s just that I don’t want to make a poor argument for objective morality when somebody else is capable of making it much better than I am.
Maybe after Harris’ new book comes out and he makes the scientific argument for morality it will make more sense to me (since I’ve always been more interested in science than philosophy)…
Hey Matt,
Thanks for your questions. Yeah, tell me about the painfulness of the comments section! Sorry you had to read through that…. So yes, 1) the rightness or wrongness of an act is a determined by the conduciveness to human flourishing. Is what I’m doing helpful to a person’s well-being or is it a hindrance? Former: moral; Latter: immoral. Yes, the assumption is that there are objective facts about what constitutes a fruitful human life. Some of these facts include: friends, love, happiness, productivity, meeting of basic needs for food and shelter, intelligence, minimization of unnecessary pain…
2) Having a slave is wrong. Wrongness is a spectrum, so the less damage you do to human life, the less wrongness there is. Right, having 10 slaves is better or “less immoral” than having 20. Both scenarios are immoral but one is less wrong simply because fewer human lives are being damaged. Conversely, donating money to help 20 children in Africa get clean water is moral – helping 40 is even better! So morality is on a scale – this allows us to compare moral (and immoral) acts and agents.
3) Animals have rights as sentient creatures. Hunting for sport is immoral.
On my view, as soon as we can recognize what hurts people and what helps them, we can be comfortable saying “This action is right.” and “This action is wrong.”
I hope this helps.
Sarah,
Would you consider an act immoral if the only person who it “hurt” was the one doing the act.
For instance, injecting somebody else with heroin (without their consent) is immoral, since they are being harmed. But would injecting myself with heroin be immoral? It is not conducive to human flourishing, but it is also a choice I made for myself.
Also, I can see some conflict with the “happiness, productivity” part of your list, since many people find alcohol, pot, etc to make them happier, but these things also (generally) have the negative side effect of making people less productive.
Is hunting for food also immoral? As far as the animal is concerned, the end result is the same.
Hey Matt,
You ask good questions. You know, I struggle with whether or not I think someone can be immoral to himself… and had been actually rethinking this lately – my position had been that you can’t, but it seems more and more plausible. You are right, if my standard is conduciveness to human flourishing, it would absolutely follow we can be unethical to ourselves…I’m tempted by this…but on the fence.
Hunting for food, only when sufficient nutrition cannot be found in non-animal sources does not give me ethical qualms. It makes me sad that nature is designed so that animals have to die to nourish us, but I do think a human life is more valuable simply because our sentient experience is more robust. You are right, the end result is the same for the animal, no matter what we are using them for, but this is not the point. Intention and purpose has extreme importance in moral evaluation. For example, I steal a loaf of bread from a baker as a dare, just to amuse my friends versus I steal a loaf of bread from a baker to prevent starvation of my child. In both cases, the baker loses a loaf of his bread, which he took time and money to make. However, I think one of these moral acts is quite egregious compared to the other. It may be both are immoral, but one is more immoral than the other (back to the idea we discussed before of morality being on a scale), and the moral difference is intention.
*cough*
Ummm, Matt didn’t ask about somebody being immoral to them self and hunting for food. Somebody else did…
*cough*
That said, I’m actually kind of happy that you’re on the fence. I enjoy asking people questions in their realm of expertise that they can’t answer definitively. It either means my questions make no sense, or that I understand enough about the topic that my questions are the same ones being struggled with by the experts.
I do disagree with you on the stealing a loaf of bread example though.
I think the act of stealing the loaf of bread is equally immoral in both cases (since it is the exact same action). HOWEVER in one case there is a secondary act (the idea that the bread is going to a starving child) which itself is moral, and (at least in my view) balances out the theft of the bread.
ha, oh geez, I’m out of it – didn’t see that was you there Jeff…
It doesn’t seem like you disagree with the stealing a loaf of bread example. You acknowledge the good intention/purpose “balances” out the theft. That is just the point – it just seems immoral to let a child die when stealing one loaf of bread could prolong his life for a day. There is no “secondary moral act” -there is only one action, stealing the bread for the child. Either this action has moral worth or it doesn’t.
Intentions absolutely matter in moral evaluation. Two actions can be exactly the same and one is immoral and one is moral, and the only difference lies in intention. Try this example – Case A, I borrow $10 from you, but have no intention of paying you back. Case B, I borrow $10 and have every intention of paying you back. Don’t we say in case A, I acted unethically but in case B, there is no ethical problem? We say this because intention matters when ascribing morality to an action.
Also, I neglected to respond to your objection that happiness is a problematic criterion. It isn’t because happiness is distinct from pleasure. Shooting heorin may give one pleasure, but that is not happiness, in an objective sense. Happiness is the result of living well – this means not abusing one’s body with harmful drugs. This is a very Aristotelian view I’m giving – there are certain standards for happiness that we share. There is variation for subjective happiness of course. Philosophy makes me happy, while physics makes you happy. These are both noble pursuits based on a universal human standard for happiness: knowledge. Human happiness is dependent on acquiring knowledge. Yes, this means people with severe cognitive limitations can’t experience happiness in the most robust, human sense. This view is in the vein of ancient greek philosophy, it is politically incorrect, but I think it’s right. That is, a normal-functioning brain is necessary (not sufficient) for robust human happiness.
Re the bread example:
Why is that one action and not two? The first action being stealing the bread, and the second action being giving it to the starving child?
I agree that in the end, stealing it to feed a child is “better” than stealing it on a dare, but I would argue that it’s because of the morality of the second action. I’m unsure why this would all count as one act, and not two separate acts?
Re the $10 example:
The immoral action is not the borrowing of the $, the immoral action is intentionally lying.
Re “happiness is distinct from pleasure”:
How exactly are they distinct?
If smoking pot or shooting heroin gives somebody pleasure, then wouldn’t that mean that they are happy? For some people pleasure is more important than not abusing their body. For instance, I’d rather live 50 years and enjoy my time, than live 100 and not enjoy life.
Re “people with severe cognitive limitations can’t experience happiness in the most robust, human sense”:
Does this mean that killing somebody with autism (or some other severe cognitive disorder) is not as bad morally as killing somebody with out such a disorder? Since the suffering they experience would be less, and the total happiness they are being deprived of would be less?
As much as I enjoy a debate on applied ethics, I think the question at hand is whether moral objectivsim is a better way to resolve these issues than any other method.
It is a requirement of many varieties of moral objectivism that the assertion is shown to be true in a non-moral sense BEFORE we can consider it to be morally true.
I consider it a given that we cannot have “certain knowledge” of anything, that the best we can hold is “reliable knowledge”. This is, I believe, one of the bedrocks of naturalistic philosophy – which I subscribe to.
So then, for me, your assertions made to qualify moral objectivism as the preferrable meta-ethical position sound a little different:
1) Happiness is better than suffering…as far as we know right now.
2) Kindness is a virtue and cruelty is a vice…as far as we know right now.
3) It is wrong to punish someone for a crime he/she did not commit…as far as we know right now.
etcetera, etcetera. (The assertion about Hitler seems to be circular to me by the way, regardless of whether I think it is true)
How is this more useful in forming normative moral codes than other meta-ethical positions?
Also – there is a large jump between making an assertion and having it be true. If one wants to make the assertion that “Happiness is better than suffering”, then one must prove it in a non-moral manner for it to be true in a moral sense. Is “common knowledge” a useful way to determine the truth of such an assertion? It was “common knowledge” for the greater part of human history that supernatural entities were real and intervened in our lives, but many of us now hold that to be false.
What about scientific reasoning? Can science show the truth of these assertions in a reliable manner? How does science measure whether slavery is wrong? Who will be the arbiter of whether the answer has been provided to an acceptable degree?
I could go on – but the question remains as to how are we to come to reliable knowledge about the truth of a moral assertion in a non-moral manner?
Thanks for the conversation so far. I really do like having my preconceptions challenged. Keep it up.
Sam Harris’ new book, which will be coming out soon, tackles this topic exactly.
He has also talked about it in a number of venues, included his recent TED talk:
Not having read the book yet I can’t say whether or not he make a good case, but I would certainly start there for any discussion of science and morality (and since I am going to see him in October when he comes to DC, I’ll be buying and reading the book at that time).
Jeff –
If you want to look at the bread stealing example as comprised of two actions, here they are:
1) Steal a loaf of bread.
2) Give a STOLEN loaf of bread to a starving child.
(Not “give a loaf of bread to a starving child” which is clearly a moral action.)
Re: $10
The immoral action is not lying – the deception is what makes the action immoral. The action is “Borrow $10 while having no intention of paying the person back.” When we ask to “borrow” money as opposed to just asking if we can “have” it, the implicit assumption is that this money will be returned. The person doing the borrowing didn’t tell a lie – he was deceptive in his borrowing (One action), and this is just as bad. The point is just that he didn’t 1) borrow the money and 2) lie about his intentions regarding the money. He 1) borrowed the money WITH the intent of not paying it back (one action).
Re: pleasure vs. happiness – happiness has an objective standard to back it: conduciveness to human flourishing. The person shooting up heroin is getting pleasure from his action, but this good feeling is not properly called happiness because on my view happiness is a state of well-being. You offer a false dichotomy when you say you would rather enjoy 50 years than live 100 years and not enjoy your time. In the context of the discussion, 50 years of debilitating drug use is not the only alternative to a miserable life. In fact, I’d argue the point that a drug abuser isn’t even experiencing pleasure anymore – a real abuser is addicted and must take the drug to feel “okay”. The pleasure has long since faded as the addiction exacerbates. The drug abuser has the miserable life, in fact. Anyway, even if I grant the drug abuser (as opposed to a recreational drug user) gets pleasure from his drugs, there is a smorgasboard of activities he could be doing that would actually make him happy – read, learn, travel, love, develop relationships…of course I agree 50 years of happiness is remarkably better than 100 years of misery. The false dichtomy is that misery is the alternative to drug use. (In fact, chronic drug use causes misery.)
Pleasure is what I feel from reading US Weekly. Happiness is gained when I read a good book on neuroscience. The distinction is again, simply based on what kind of activities cultivate the human brain. There is nothing wrong with pleasure – I’m not destroying my soul if I want to read US Weekly or zone out to an episode of reality television. Now if I were doing this 80% of the time, yes this would be a problem! So if someone wants to smoke a joint every now and then, I don’t have a problem. Chronic drug use is VERY different.
Re: severely cognitive impaired people. Yes, you ask the right question. On my view, it is going to turn out that if we were forced to choose the life of a normal-functioning adult or a severely cognitive impaired person, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, we ought to save the person with the normal-functioning brain. This is because this person has a higher capacity to flourish as a human being. This person has more access to rich experiences. This scenario is likely never to occur so we need not worry about it. 99.99% of the time we can go along treating the person with severe cognitive disabilities and the normal functioning person as having equal worth, as we should. If this is unpalatable, consider something we all readily accept – we should save a child’s life before an elderly person’s life, if forced to make the choice. Well, why do we accept that? We accept that because ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, the child has more access to rich experiences, due to his youth, while the elderly person is only going to decline cognitively. We are making a utilitarian calculation. The same principle is again at play in valuing human life over animal life. Why do we value human life more? The reason is we draw lines between pleasure and happiness and we understand that a human being has a very rich conscious life that is superior to that which an animal is capable of (not talking about primates, let’s keep it simple, a dog, e.g.). When a tough decision must be made, we ought to evaluate what kind of quality of life the person is capable of. We do this all the time, it just sounds awful to include severely disabled people in the way I’ve done, but I think it is completely consistent with society’s views – why we choose the child over the grandmother, the human over the dog. We are rank-ordering, calculating value of lives because we recognize not every human life is worth the same. I don’t think the suffering would be less, as you suggest. (The severely cognitively disabled person is going to be in pain if you kill him just like the normal-functioning person.) It isn’t about who suffers less if they die. It’s about who has more to gain from being alive. Fortunately, we are never going to have to make such an ugly decision outside of a forced thought experiment.
Re the bread example:
In the end whether it is one action or two, the result is the same, stealing to feed a starving child is more moral than stealing for a dare.
So I’ll concede to it being one action I guess (although intuitively it still seems as if it’s two.
Re $10:
Wouldn’t the lie be that you said you want to borrow (which implies paying back)? I guess you could call that deception, but in my mind “deception” does not mean immoral in the same way that “lie” does.
Re pleasure vs happiness:
I’d argue that not all drug use is debilitating. In fact there are times when drug use can make one more productive. If somebody is severely depressed a drug like extacy can help them actually function. If somebody has low energy, then a drug like meth can give them a bit of “pep”. If somebody’s mind is constantly racing, a drug like cocaine can actually help them focus (yes I know that one sounds counter-intuitive, but trust me). In these cases (and a few others I know of) drug use actually brings about therapeutic effects and can be “conduciveness to human flourishing”.
Obviously people can take drug use too far. And with some drugs (like heroin) it seems to be the norm to take it too far. But for many people, they are able to live their lives, hold a job, enjoy their friends, and still do drugs which society deems “bad”. If this life style gives them pleasure, and they do not want to change, I’d say that they have fulfilled the idea of happiness in their life, at least as far as they want to. Sure they could do more with their life potentially, but if their motivations are different than most of society, I don’t see why they should be expected to conform.
Re severely cognitive impaired people:
This part leads to something Peter Singer has brought up in talks and his writings. If a cognitive impaired person has less capacity to flourish than a “normal” person, then wouldn’t it be possible for a VERY severely cognitive impaired person to have less capacity to flourish than a non-human animal? And if so, should that person be treated how we currently treat non-human animals? Or does this lead to the idea that we should treat all animals with much more “respect” than we do now?
I think a human life no matter how debilitated is more valuable than an animal’s life, so no, I would never advocate a severely cognitively impaired person be treated like a non-human animal, meaning I can conceive of no case where a non-human animal’s life is more valuable than even the most disadvantaged human being. I do agree that we ought to treat animals with much more respect than we currently do! I think that while we can say human X has a more valuable life than human Y, we can’t do this comparison cross-species, between a human and a non-human animal because the human life will be more valuable. The only case I can think of in which this would not hold true is if the human is a vegetable. In such a case, it would be awfully hard to defend the life of said human over a non-human animal. So the point is, the human would have to be VERY poorly off to have a lower “life value” than a non-human animal where “very poorly off” = a vegetable essentially. Yeah, I don’t agree with Singer and his accusations of speceism – I think a human being just in virtue of being a human being has a high value, and a human would have to be terribly compromised to ever make me say a non-human animal’s life was more valuable.
Re: drug use – I’m not talking about recreational use, I’m talking about full-out abuse – that is debilitating and dehumanizing.
It’s not about conforming, it’s about reaching one’s potential, which as you point out, isn’t being reached. That is the objection. True happiness arises from exactly this – fulfilling one’s potential – pushing onesself to be the best human he/she can be. I’m not arguing against enjoyment and pleasure that comes from drug use – I’m saying it’s inferior to activities which cultivate the brain, resulting in an objective well-being. I am making a distinction between subjective satisfaction and happiness backed from an objective standard: conduciveness to human flourishing/ objective well-being. I’m not impressed that their motivations are different – to that I’d just say they have the wrong motivations. They ought to be motivated by activities that accomplish the type of happiness I describe.
Deception can be just as immoral as an explicit lie. Witholding information can have the same negative immoral effect as an explicit lie. Think about cheating on someone. The cheating spouse gets caught. Would the wife be mollified if he said “But dear I never lied to you – I never said I wasn’t cheating!” No, she would and should blame him all the same. He withheld this information and betrayed her trust. Marriage is a social contract, and he broke it. Similarly when we borrow money, we enter into a social contract where the expectation is the money will be returned.
Re human life vs non-human animal life value:
You beat me to my next question, which was going to be Terri Schiavo.
But even ignoring a true vegetable, I’m not sure I’d go so far as to say human life ALWAYS outweighs non-human animal life.
Re drug use:
I’d say there is a long spectrum between the person who smokes a join occasionally, and the person who’s living on the street because drugs cost them their lives.
For instance there are many musicians who’s song writing has been fueled not just by drug use, but by heavy drug abuse (Hendrix, the Dead, Phish, much of Bob Dylan, Led Zepplin, Rolling Stones, hell let’s just say virtually everybody who wrote or sang a non-pop song from 1965 – 1980).
Let’s use the Beatles as an example. Their early pop work was good, but most people would accept the claim that it was not as good as Sgt Peppers, the White Album, Abbey Road, etc. Now by most accounts, at least John and George were both using heavily (Paul as well although he denies it, and nobody cares what Ringo was going) during this period. It would not be hard to make a case that their drug use helped them flourish significantly MORE than if they had never used drugs at all.
There are many examples of people who’s drug abuse was more prevalent than the Beatles (Keith Richards comes to mind first), but who a case could be made that the drug use/abuse actually improved their life.
Obviously not all (in fact probably not many) drug users will fall into that category, but I’d argue that while the upside may not be AS high, there still can be an upside for some number of people.
I know you don’t mean it to sound this way, but this kind of comes across as arrogant. You’re claiming that an outside person can know better than an individual about what makes that individual happiest. Some people don’t enjoy learning. Some people don’t have the desire to improve, they are perfectly happy with their life as it is.
Re a lie vs deception:
You’re right. I concede.
Riiight, yeah let me modify my statement – human life is always more valuable unless the person is a vegetable or a dangerous criminal such as Hitler (I know you love using Hitler as an example in discussions
). I’d sooner save a mouse than the life of Hitler. When I made that statement I wasn’t thinking of human beings who are wildly defective and dangerous.
I’m rather intrigued by the example you give of musicians whose work was as great as it was, arguably because of drug use. Such musicians were making great music, touring, etc, and this demonstrates that they did not have debilitated lives (or they’d be passed out on the couch perhaps as opposed to writing and performing music which takes quite a bit of brain power!) Yet, they were doing damage to their brain all the same. This damage shortened the lives of many musicians. We know the classic case all too well of the musician who died too young because of drug abuse. So, what this shows is the musicians were more productive musically on a substantial amount of drugs (we aren’t just talking about smoking a joint a few times a week). I may still wonder if they were happy…the example you give here is clever Jeff because you know how much I love great music, but I can’t let my benefit supercede the mental health of these musicians. I still want to say their mental health was compromised. Despite the fact they made such amazing music and drugs were the impetus, I think I have to stick to the fact that drug abuse is an impediment to mental well-being, which by the same token is an impediment to real human happiness. So granted, they were very productive musically!
Am I arrogant to presume what kinds of activities are most conducive to a rich human life? I don’t think so. I feel very comfortable saying a life without learning is a life not worth living (Isn’t that a famous quote?). As for your other example of a person who is content not to improve, I have scorn for such a person.
What someone feels like doing and what is actually good for them is not always the same thing. We don’t let children run around and do whatever they feel like because an outside person shouldn’t tell them what to do to be happy. Well, some adults are mentally lazy like children often are and not much more intelligent, so these people should be judged regarding what they ought to be doing in their lives. We do it all the time. We say a hoarder ought to seek help because this dysfunctional behavior is bad for them. We say compulsive eaters ought to seek help because obesity is bad. We expect compulsive gamblers to get help – same thing with drug abusers, kleptomaniacs. So we judge what ought to make someone happy all the time, and we don’t think it’s arrogant to do so. This is because we know there are objective standards to what makes a rich, fulfilling human life and sitting on the couch all day (every day) eating bon bons watching soap operas (doing online gambling during commercials?) smoking pot is NOT it.
I often waste my days doing things that are not productive because I am too lazy to do what I know I need to do to keep my life moving in the right direction. It is very easy to be complacent. I think a human being ought to live in a way that challenges him/her to become the best version of himself that he can be. That may sound trite, but I think it’s true. I don’t feel guilty of arrogance to say so.
Jeff – New thoughts. I recall an Aerosmith interview, in which the band members lamented that their drug abuse ruined their relationships and cut their career short. If it hadn’t been for Run DMC wanting to collaborate on “Walk this way” with them, they might not have gotten their career back on track. The message from the band was this: We got away with it, but don’t do this.
As it turns out, Aerosmith was a statistical outlier, like the other music legends you mention. THEY flourished (yes, I’m changing my mind here) but they were lucky! Most musicians who abuse drugs don’t flourish, and we must count these “misses” as well as the “hits”. As it turns out, the misses overwhelm the hits hands down.
These legendary musicians were happy, flyin’ high at the time they were making this amazing music strung out on drugs but what is really relevant is the cumulative reflective evidence. Aerosmith looked back on their career and expressed regret that they let their drug habits get out of control. So when you ask how we can ascertain their level of happiness, we can, but we can’t just pick one time slice – the time when they were riding the wave of success – we have to look at the whole picture.
So for the overwhelming majority of people, drug abuse will NOT be conducive to human flourishing, but there will be statistical outliers like the bands you mention.
Re human vs non-human animals:
While I’m sure I could come up with more examples where you’d save the life of an animal (Brandy) over the life of a person (“the squirrel”), I get your point. Based on the fact that I’m not a vegetarian I think I would have to say that I agree, although somehow it just seems too black and white to make that claim.
Essentially I think you’re right, even though it “feels” wrong.
Re drug use:
I would argue the fact that they made it to shows, and wrote more music does not show they “they did not have debilitated lives”. In many cases they just had very good managers and other people associated with the band that dragged them from city to city and threw them out on stage. Watch almost any episode of “Behind the Music”, and you’ll get a glimpse of just how f’d up their lives were. There is a well known story about Ozzy Osborn where he was on tour with Poison (or some other cheesy hair band) as his penning act, and they ran out of drugs. The dealer was on the way, but it was going to be a couple of hours; and Ozzy could not wait. So he did what any fully functioning person would do, he found an ant hill, and pours a line of sugar from the hill out a few inches. He then waited for the ants to get on the sugar, and he pulled out a straw and snorted a line of ants. This is not the action of somebody who’s life in NOT debilitated.
However at the same time, if you look at Ozzy’s life, would he be where he is today without his drug use/abuse?
Now I know that you’ve already agreed that “for the overwhelming majority of people, drug abuse will NOT be conducive to human flourishing, but there will be statistical outliers”. But I think it can go a step further than that even. If we can say that the negatives of drug use/abuse can be outweighed by the benefits in some cases (such as the Beatles), I think we can find other examples where the benefits were not quite so high, but they still outweighed the negatives.
Let’s say we have a person who did not enjoy their life for whatever reason. This person has the type of mind that constantly races when it’s not being put to use, and constantly obsesses over the negative aspects of their life. Now this person has a decent job and makes decent $, but something about their life just nags on them, and they can’t stop obsessing over it. Perhaps they’ve tried prescription meds to no avail, when suddenly they are introduced to ecstasy, cocaine and other drugs. Use of these drugs manages to help them stop obsessing over those aspects of their life they’d rather forget, and despite the negatives they go through in their life due to this drug use, they manage to put their life together in a better manner than it was before (better job, nice house, wife, etc). I’d argue that while this may not be the “norm”, it’s also not just a fluke. And it’s a clear example of drug use promoting human flourishing.
Re content to not improve:
While I agree that it may not the “best” way to live a life, for some people it’s “good enough” and it makes them happy. I love science, and I think the world would be a better place if everybody understood more about science. But I don’t look negatively at those for who science is “just not their thing”.
—–
Overall I think I agree with most of your ideas here, I just view it as much more gray, and you seem to be describing it as more black and white.
I think I know now why much of this conversation seems to grate on me – the elevation of humanities importance. I cannot accept that as a fact in the face of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
We live in a huge universe that is, for the most part, completely indifferent to our existence. While it may be better for humans that humans flourish, I find it hard to accept that it is objectively better in the grand scheme of things.
Jeff, you asked me right after my first post here about moral nihilsm. This is where it comes from for me – the universe just does not care if we better ourselves or not. There is, I think, no such thing as an objective moral fact – only facts that are subject to our existence and the developmental state we are in at the time.
Compare it to other facts that we consider to be objectively true – that gravity exists, that evolution is true, that we orbit our star instead of the other way around – we hold that these things are true regardless of our ability to observe them, regardless of our existence.
If we whish to conceive of a morality based on objective facts, let us not fall into the same traps that have been made by religious zealots for thousands of years. We are not important, except to ourselves.
Re: Sam Harris at TED. I did like his talk and, bearing in mind some of what I said above, I think he raised many excellent points. I was disapointed at the end, however, as I think he ducked that last question. Admittedly it could have been phrased a little better, but the intention was clear. I wonder how Mr. Harris would answer the question, “If science showed that strict religious practices, such as those under Sharia law, had no negative effect on humanity’s ability to flourish – would you be willing to change your mind about them?”
Thanks for the converation guys, I have had to do a lot of thinking and questioning over the last few days and that almost never hurts.
I agree with you about not liking the idea of universally elevating humans over non-human animals. That is why I kept pressing Sarah on the idea that there are cases where non-human life can be looked at as more valuable than human life. It seems to me that it should be viewed much more as a spectrum, and that there is some amount of overlap between human and non-human animals.
I do think however when talking about morality, nobody is talking about true universal morality. It seems to me, as if it’s always assumed morality is only referring to the actions of humans. Nobody calls a tiger who kills a person immoral, because non-human animals are not held to the same standard we hold ourselves to. I may be wrong, but I believe that all systems of morality are referring solely to human actions and ethics.
I agree 100% that the universe (and even closer to home, the planet) gives a crap about the flourishing of mankind. But that does not mean that morality does not exist, even if it is just a human construct. This is where I tend to differ a bit from Sarah’s view. While I am starting to understand, and accept, many of the ideas of objective morality, I still think I would call myself a moral relativist. My problem with moral relativism has always been that I don’t like that idea based on this idea, it’s difficult to make a case that slavery has not always been bad. Objective morality seems to solve this dilemma for me, although I’m still trying to “feel it out”, to make sure I’m not giving up on one flawed system for another.
Re Sam Harris talk:
I agree that it was not 100% perfect, but it made a lot of sense to me when I first watched it. His talk certainly has made me quite excited about the release of the new book, which will delve much deeper into the subject of science as a basis for morality. As the type of person who’s much more scientifically minded then philosophy minded, it will finally put morality into a realm I feel at ease in. I won’t know until I’ve read it, but it seems as if his book may lead to an objective basis for morality that does not have to at the same time be universal or humanity centric, and which will allow me to better understand at least one major aspect of philosophy.
It would be interesting to hear Harris’ response to a question similar to that one you give, although that specific one I think is flawed. Since sharia law quite clearly puts ½ of humanity (women) as less than the other ½ (men) it would seem ludicrous to suggest it does not have an obvious negative effect on human flourishing.
I know this was Sarah’s post, and Sarah’s subject, so I hope you (and her) don’t mind me “crashing” the comments, but I found the discussion interesting, and I think i learned something from each of you.
OK,
So, first of all, right, morality is a human construct. When I advocate for objective morality, I do so with the understanding that it only makes sense in a human context. Objective moral values don’t exist without humanity. Since we are here, we can look around and figure out what kinds of actions make us flourish and what actions make us falter. This is how we construct an objective morality. Right, moral facts are not true regardless of our existence – our existence necessitates them.
Matt – RE: “I wonder how Mr. Harris would answer the question, “If science showed that strict religious practices, such as those under Sharia law, had no negative effect on humanity’s ability to flourish – would you be willing to change your mind about them?”
IF science showed there were no negative effects from a practice then yes, Harris, and any other moral objectivist, would not have any justification to deem that practice immoral. Like any objective discipline, we assign moral value wherever the evidence leads us. As Jeff rightly points out, the evidence would not/ does not show this!
Jeff – Right, non-human animals are not moral agents, and therefore don’t have moral responsibilities, so are not morally judged.
Moral relativism is a very dangerous view that a particular culture (not human culture – human culture DOES determine morality) determines the morality of an action. A moral relativist is committed to saying female genital mutilation in various African societies is moral because these culture sanction it. I know this is not what you want to say. I think if I make the following distinction, you’ll see what you really mean.
Slavery has always been an immoral practice. Moral relativists CANNOT make this statement. It is immoral to treat human beings as property. This has always been true. The question is did society X act immorally because they had slaves? To answer that question we need to know what information the society had on hand, and assess whether or not they should have reasonably been expected to know better. Let’s use a scientific example to illustrate the point. Society X believed the world was flat. Were they stupid? Well, to answer that question we need to know what information the society had on hand, and assess whether or not they should have reasonably been expected to know better. What gets tricky with moral objectivism is there are two separate questions: 1) Is act A immoral? (Suppose the answer is “yes”.) Then, 2) Should society x be blamed for act A? It is often the case that someone (or a society) did something wrong but they shouldn’t be blamed for it because they couldn’t have reasonably been expected to have known to do otherwise.
Re moral relativism:
Your slavery example is precisely the type of thing that has always given me pause my my understanding of morality.
I personally view slavery as having always been abhorrent, but due to lack of knowledge in the past is it understandable why it was practiced (understandable but not acceptable).
For me the founders of the US have always been my biggest conflict on this issue. There were people in the 18th century who were outspoken about the evils of slavery, and yet people who I respect, like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, etc seemingly were content to own other human beings, while fighting for their own freedom from British oppression. I feel as if they should be held responsible by historians for owning slaves, because as intelligent as they were it’s hard to comprehend them NOT understanding the hypocrisy of their position.
To me, moral objectivism mostly solves this issue (at least better than moral relativism), but until I feel that I understand it better, I just don’t think I’m ready to say I accept it. Possibly after Harris’ book comes out and I read it, I’ll have answered any remaining objections in my own mind.
For my own education – let me try and reduce the equation to the following:
“An action taken by a moral agent is always morally correct if the intention is to positively affect a sentient being’s capacity to flourish.
Conversely, an action taken by a moral agent is always morally incorrect if the intention is to negatively affect a sentient being’s capacity to flourish.
All else being equal, a sentient being with a greater potential capacity to flourish is more valuable than a sentient being with less potential capacity to flourish.
A moral agent should neither be blamed or praised for an action taken if they could not reasonably have known what effect it would have on a sentient being’s capacity to flourish.”
Does this sound reasonable and mostly correct, given the discussion so far?
Matt – this is great except one clarification in the first two sentences (that like you say, are converses of each other, so I’ll just address the first.)
So, you have “An action taken by a moral agent is always morally correct if the intention is to positively affect a sentient being’s capacity to flourish.”
My concern with this is with the “if the intention” clause. Intentions are very important in morality, however I think the wording you’ve provided in your normative theory elevates them too highly. A deranged person could intend all kinds of good things in his actions towards you, yet little of what he is doing is actually contributing to your well-being. So, we don’t want to say he is acting morally just because he has good intentions. Again, intentions are important but they don’t make the morality (or immorality) of an action. Removing the “if the intention” clause also guards against unreasonable acts of paternalism. Someone may think they know whats best for me, and intend my well-being, but this in of itself doesn’t necessitate a moral action towards me…we need something else…
We don’t want to take intentions out b/c then we are left with a theory that looks much like utilitarianism (with kind of an Aristotelian flavor – he spoke of flourishing). An act would be moral purely on the consequences of that act, i.e., if it led to one’s flourishing. The problem here is someone could have bad intentions in performing an action, and by accident, his plans are foiled, and the act actually ends up benefiting the recepient. This agent did not perform a moral action because of course he had devious objectives, which happened to be spoiled somehow by unforseen factors.
So, I’d modify it to say “An action taken by a moral agent is moral if the agent reasonably presumed a positive effect on a sentient being’s capacity to flourish.” Intentions are important in morality but they must be reasonable. The rationality of intentions are assessed, naturally, by understanding and observing what actually makes humans better off. Suppose you think I’m better off without my sick dog because I often complain of how high-maintenance she is, so you take her away from me. Well this wasn’t a moral action for a couple of reasons: 1) you didnt have my consent, which in this scenario would have been necessary to obtain as I’m in a rational state of mind and 2) you didn’t take the time to talk to me about my relationship with her, and had you done so you would have understood I’m actually better off taking care of her. So what I’m trying to illustrate is you acted without having sufficient information about the situation, and had you taken the time to obtain it, which is a reasonable expectation as I would have provided it to you upon being asked, you would have then been able to REASONABLY presume (or anticipate) what was best for me regarding my dog, and it wasn’t taking her away.
So, I can’t willy nilly do things to you because I think them good for you, I must be reasonable in my assessment of what is conducive to your flourishing. And how do we know if your assessment is reasonable? Well, in the dog case, you can know that by seeking out the relevant and available information at hand. The assessment has a good shot at being reasonable if sincere inquiry and reflection preceded it.
Let’s test out this normative theory against slavery, which we know is an immoral action (or institution, rather). In taking a slave, we can’t reasonably presume a positive result for this person’s capacity to flourish. I’m unpersuaded that a slave-owner for one minute thought forcing someone to give up his own plans and projects to serve his own was most conducive to his flourishing. I really don’t want to presume much else about what a slave-owner thought regarding the effects of slavery, but for my purposes if I can be confident that the slave-owner didnt actually think slavery was going to enhance the slave’s life in meaningful way, I can say his action violated the normative principle I provided. This is because the slave-owner couldnt have reasonably presumed, given what he had to have known about human beings and what makes them flourish, slavery to be conducive to human flourishing.
I appreciate this exchange Matt b/c it has forced me to refine some critical ideas.
Sarah,
Earlier in this conversation I talked about the potential benefits of recreation drug use. Well listening to one of my many science podcasts last night I stumbled across some new research that shows the anti-depressant effects of one such “party drug”, Ketamine.
Now I can’t speak for the motives of everybody who ever tried Ketamine, but I can say that it’s not the only currently illegal drug that has benefits for the user. Drugs such as Ecstasy, LSD, and Marijuana have long been known to have medical and psychological benefits.
Jeff, I looked at the article – that is very interesting. I support marijuana for cancer patients, and other medical purposes. So, similarly if it is shown that one of these fun party drugs helps with depression, as long as no brain damage occurs as a side effect, I’m okay with that.
Almost all medications have side effects. I take pain meds for my back, and those are addictive, often cause anxiety, and can cause long term damage.
And they don’t have the additional “fun” benefits of a drug like ketamine or ecstasy or acid or pot.
I can’t get through all of these comments.
My opinion, of your 11 assertions, I would take only a version of the 1st one as axiomatic, and the others should be derived on that basis.
example. Rape is wrong because the suffering inflicted on the victim outweighs the happiness gained by the rapist. Burning coal and oil is immoral because the happiness this brings us today is less than the happiness lost by people of the future who will not get the chance to be born when the planet is destroyed.
Other principles may be needed to form a more complete objective system for resolving conflicts where one person’s interests conflict with another’s. I believe that the free market may often lead to something close to happiness maximization in transactions.
Your blog is pretty interesting to me and your subject matter is very relevant. I was browsing around and came across something you might find interesting. I was guilty of 3 of them with my sites. “99% of site managers are guilty of these 5 BIG errors”. http://tinyurl.com/d8r7ejo You will be suprised how easy they are to fix.
Involuntary harvesting of body parts from a live donar is moral because the happiness of the 5 terminally ill recipients and their families outweighs the sorrow of the 1 … Oh wait no, maybe we need Some value ethics instead?
Hi Sarah, thank you for your excellent post which made the case for moral objectivism with great clarity! I will be drawing on this in the philosophy group I have recently joined here in London, UK. In his weekly email today the facilitator said we had agreed we were all moral relativists. I have replied that I am certainly not! I chanced upon your post on the internet and will look forward to reading more of them.
Sarah, thank you for this excellent piece summing up the case for moral objectivism with great clarity. I will be drawing from it in the philosophy circle I have recently joined here in London UK. Our facilitator wrote in his weekly email that we had all agreed we were moral relativists – to which I have replied that I am certainly not! I will read some more of your blog posts with great interest.