Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
I've always thought to myself that maybe it can be shown that there are in fact objective morals. The problem though is that we tend to jump straight into the tricky situations where it's not clear what is right or wrong anymore. I see this as chucking a high school kid into a 2nd year engineering unit and expecting him/her to cope. That's not logical at all.
Would it be possible to start from scratch and through logic define a basic framework where we could then expand our ideas of morals and see if objectivity is at least somewhat plausible?
What I think a good starting point is this: can it be said that it is always morally wrong to end your own race?
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
I never really thought an objective morality is possible. To me, pretty much everything is subjective. I think the main problem with creating an objective morality is when you start to look at other cultures, since their customs and behaviours are so different. However, I am open to your idea. We can see how far we can get.
As for your question, I would say yes. It is morally wrong to end your own race.
Quote:What I think a good starting point is this: can it be said that it is always morally wrong to end your own race?
Who says it is immoral in the first place?
In setting moral values for others, you first need a moral authority. EG Christians use the bible to set a list of absolute moral imperatives,which they tend to largely ignore.
Morality is based on pragmatism,and is a survival tool. Some 'moral' behaviour has even been observed in at least one other species of ape.
If morality was at all objective,ethical codes would be consistent and unchanging between virtually all cultures and times, but they are not. So far, I have been unable to discover ONE absolute, universal moral imperative.
April 12, 2012 at 11:11 pm (This post was last modified: April 12, 2012 at 11:13 pm by Reforged.)
Right and wrong are concepts we have invented which appear to work for us, that being said there are a grand variety of situations where there is no clear line between either.
Decisions have so many consequences we can't even comprehend most of them. Yes if you were to cure every disease in the world that would be a good thing on the face of it but wouldn't that cause overpopulation? Where would all the excess people live? How many could find jobs? Would some turn to crime out of desperation? How long till theres just too much excess population, our system simply collapses because of it and we are reduced to survival of the fittest again?
There really is no absolute definition of right or wrong which always holds true. Every good decision has some bad consequences, every bad decision some good consequences.
You can't control consequences but you can control your actions, your actions are what defines you. Its really a question of how you wish to be defined. Killing someone, even for the best of reasons, would leave its mark on everything you are and everything you will be.
(April 12, 2012 at 11:11 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Right and wrong are concepts we have invented which appear to work for us, that being said there are a grand variety of situations where there is no clear line between either.
Decisions have so many consequences we can't even comprehend most of them. Yes if you were to cure every disease in the world that would be a good thing on the face of it but wouldn't that cause overpopulation? Where would all the excess people live? How many could find jobs? Would some turn to crime out of desperation? How long till theres just too much excess population, our system simply collapses because of it and we are reduced to survival of the fittest again?
There really is no absolute definition of right or wrong which always holds true. Every good decision has some bad consequences, every bad decision some good consequences.
You can't control consequences but you can control your actions, your actions are what defines you. Its really a question of how you wish to be defined. Killing someone, even for the best of reasons, would leave its mark on everything you are and everything you will be.
This is the thing though.. you need to take baby steps. Even before you begin to analyze morality you need to understand for yourself where YOU stand. Do you think an action is good because the intentions were good i.e. it was always about the ends? Do you think the greater good is the way to go meaning that the means can either be good or bad, as long as you make the most people happy?
It's these building blocks that I'm talking about tied with fundamental facts of who we are as humans that I think could be used to formulate some sort of objectivity.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
Not to hijack the thread or anything, but I once wrote down my views on objective morality, which led to a pretty interesting discussion on another forum. Now, this is a pretty big essay and it can get a tad tedious.
"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion." Arthur C. Clark
A Case For Objective Morality
My views on morality are simple. I think that morality is a collection of concepts like mathematics, but one that addresses our actions. I also think that moral judgment should be based on reason and reality and not on emotions or whims. I would be repeatedly drawing on the analogy between morality and mathematics to show that objective morality is not only possible but also applicable to the world we live in. If morality is based on reality, it does not require a God to spell it out, like many of the religiots argue. However, it is also irrational to deny objective morality in order to deny religion's hold over it. After all, we don't accept the argument that logic and mathematics are any less objective if God does not exist (I know that many do present this very argument, but itís nonsensical since God has never been the premise for either). Hence I believe that morality based on reality would be objective and universally applicable in the same way logic and mathematics is.
The statements given above are my opinions and they have no argumentative value unless I provide a sound reasoning for them. In order to make a good case for Objective Morality I need to a) define the related terms, b) provide sound premises and c) draw valid conclusions.
To have a cogent discussion, I think that the definition of following terms needs to be established.
Morality: Code of conduct based on the knowledge of good and bad. By itself, the definition of morality does not encompass any goals nor does it specify any actions that are exempt from its purview. Like mathematics, it is a tool of evaluation. Where math helps us evaluate physical objects, morality helps us evaluate actions of moral agents.
Moral Agents: A being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong. This definition requires that the agent should be able to act according to his judgment and not be bound by his instincts or nature. He can, in fact, act contrary to them.
Moral Code: An individual's understanding of moral concepts. To avoid confusion, I would be referring to descriptive morality as a moral code and normative morality as morality.
Objective: Independent of whims, wishes, emotions or desires of an individual and based on reality.
Subjective: Dependent on whims, wishes, emotions or desires of an individual.
Absolute: Applicable to all individuals and in all situations alike.
Relative/Contextual: Though both are considered to be opposites of absolute, there is a difference. Contextual means dependent on situation and relative means dependent on both situations and individuals. As such, relative can be considered a combination of contextual and subjective.
What I would be arguing for here is the possible existence of objective, contextual morality. Morality is an abstraction, like mathematics and has no physical existence. It exists as a concept and can be objective if it is based on rational premises and applicable to objective reality. I'm not trying to argue that perfect objective morality exists in a Platonean plane of abstractions, that right and wrong have weekly dinner with truth and falsehood, but that this concept can and should be developed.
Now the definitions are out of the way, I'll move to the premises.
1) Life and free will are preconditions for a moral agent. This one seems self-evident since non-live things cannot make moral judgments and neither can things that act according to instinct. Since the term free-will has more meta-physical implications, I think 'liberty to act on one's judgment would be more appropriate. This does not mean that the agent is free to escape the reality in which he acts or free from the consequences of his actions. Also, the ability to make one's own judgment implies a capacity for rational judgment but does not necessitate it.
2) Morality based on rationality would be self-consistent and universally applicable. Since reality cannot be self-contradictory, neither can a purely rational concept which is a derivation of it.
It is usually argued that morality is not purely rational since its concepts depend on emotions and instincts of moral agents as well as on reality. I agree. Currently there is no moral code in existence which is purely rational. Such a moral code needs to be developed by separating the emotional components.
By universal applicability, I'm talking about applicability in the same sense as mathematics. Once the concepts have been developed, they would apply to all actions of moral agents the same way math applies to all physical objects. However, the same way as different concepts of math are applicable in different situations, different moral concepts would be applicable as well.
A little more on universal applicability. A person can only rely on morality to be a guide to his actions to the extent he stays true to his premises. The premises he violates by his actions cannot be used to justify or defend his position as a moral agent.
3) Values. This is the trickiest one and the biggest block of subjectivity that morality has to overcome to be considered truly objective.
Values are the goals of our actions, something that we seek to achieve. They are derived from our physical, mental and spiritual needs and they are what motivate us to act. Whether consciously or unconsciously, everyone holds a structure of values. A person who rationally thinks about his goals and motivations would have a cogent, hierarchical structure. A person led solely by instinct or emotions would only have range-of-the-moment values i.e. things he feels like wanting then and there.
And here's the argument for subjectivity: Since values depend on our desires, they cannot be purely objective. Hence no system guiding us to them can be purely objective.
One of the issues here, I believe, is the definition of subjectivity. While reading something to be subjective, we often assume the words "independent of reality" added to "dependent on an individual's mind". This is usually done by proponents of objectivity who do not want to let in any arbitrariness in a matter as important as morality. This point is the difference between a qualified belief and just a belief.
If my belief in evolution was just a belief, independent of objective proof, my position would be no more valid than a creationist. But the basis of my belief is not my desire to believe in evolution but the overwhelming proof in favor of it. Similarly, you can hold purely subjective values, i.e. independent of the world you live in or you can base your values on your objective needs.
Maslow has been of a lot of help here. He has given us an hierarchy of objective needs which can form a base for us to derive our values. Values derived rationally and exclusively from this structure would be objective and achievable by the tenets of objective morality.
SO, are purely objective values possible?
Yes. Clearly Maslow has proven that.
Are purely subjective values possible?
Yes.
For most people, values are neither purely objective nor subjective. Overall, their value structure corresponds to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but it is also influenced by their personal preferences.
So, does that mean that objective morality is absolutely impossible?
No, it does not. Objective morality does define any inherent goals, the same way math doesn't define any inherent goals. You may choose to calculate the probability of getting an ace in the next poker hand or you may choose to get the Fourier transform of a sine wave, the concepts of math are equally applicable and it does not make mathematics any less objective. And it does not preclude mathematical concepts from applying to the desired result. You may set out to prove that 2=3, but you cannot, not unless you violate one or more of the underlying principles. Similarly, your goals or values may themselves be rational or irrational, but that does not mean that the concepts of morality are open to subjective alteration.
Further drawing on the math analogy, there may be many methods to achieve your desired goal. Methods that yield answers closest to the desired result are better than those that don't. There may be different methods that are equally applicable and you have to choose between one of them. Methods that violate the mathematical premises cannot be right. And you may stay true to the premises, yet mistakenly use inapplicable concepts. In all these cases math hasn't suddenly become subjective because your subjectivity has never been a part of the premise.
Summing up the last premise. morality does not tell you what to want, it tells you if what you want is right and what is the right way to get it. In other words, your desire for a value itself is not the basis for morality, but the rational evaluation of that desire is. This is why introduction of subjective values as goals for your actions does not make morality subjective.
Phew. That was long. I think most of you must have given up. If you haven't I would once again like to remind you that these are the concepts required for developing morality. If I were to summarize my premises, I would say that a life where the agent has the capacity rationally choose his values and the actions required to achieve them, is the premise of morality because that is the situation where it is applicable. If any of the factors i.e. life, value, choice or capacity of rational choice are missing, the concepts of morality would not be applicable. But if all these concepts are applicable, the person cannot choose to forgo the moral responsibilities of his actions.
I'm not sure, but there may be additional premises which I may have missed.
Having laid out the objective premises of a moral code, here are some of the conclusions which form a part of my own moral code and can be included as tenets of objective morality.
1. Since life and liberty are preconditions for a moral agent, not moral action can violate these premises. Hence, actions like slavery, murder and rape are objectively wrong. This tenet, I think, overcomes one of the shortcomings of the golden rule. If it is good to do unto others as I would have them do unto me and I do not mind being murdered, then am I morally justified in killing as many people as I can before I'm gunned down? The answer, by my conclusion, is no, it is still objectively wrong.
But I think I need to qualify this conclusion a bit more. While I think I know the conditions required to qualify a being as a moral agent, I still haven't figured out if there are any disqualifying conditions. I would like to conclude that if the goals or actions of an agent violate the moral premises, he is no longer a moral agent; at least to the extent he has violated the premises. According to this conclusion, death penalty for a murderer or jail for a criminal are morally justified actions. But, as of now, I have no irrefutable rational justification for this conclusion.
2. The question of who owns your life is also answered by the first premise. For you to be held morally accountable, you must be responsible for your own actions. This is not possible if someone else owns your body and mind. And since you are responsible for your actions, you should own the product of your actions. Hence, whatever I have produced by my labor and my mind, I get to keep it. I may choose to give it away for something better or I may choose to give it away, but that should be my choice. If someone else takes it away by robbery or fraud, that person is acting immorally. Once again, this applies so long as I haven't violated any of the moral premises while creating or utilizing the value.
3. Given that your life is your own and for your own purpose, you are free to choose the purpose and have to take the responsibility for your actions as long as neither of them invalidate the premises of morality i.e. stand up to the standards of objective morality.
4. Morality can be divided in three parts- legal, social and personal. The legal morality would be completely objective and exist to make sure that rights of one moral agent are not violated by another. It needs to determine if one moral agent's rights i.e. the preconditions required for his existence as a moral agent have been violated by another. This morality is a negative code of conduct, in the sense it tells you what you cannot do. Social morality refers to the general principles of interaction with others. Since a person cannot exist in isolation, social relationships are of value to him. Following the principles of social morality, such as benevolence, decency etc. help you achieve and keep these social values. However, these rules are not enforceable by the society. The only thing you would lose from not acting in accordance to them would be those social values. Personal morality is the moral code you apply to your daily life for the achievement of your own values.
5. Here I would like to insert an example for contextual vs. subjective morality. Suppose I live in a society where being atheist is considered a sin. If people find out you are an atheist, you would be ostracized. But for me, living an honest life is of greater value than any social relationship, so I do not hide my sinful proclivities. Hence, I'm a social pariah. For another person the order of values is in reverse i.e. he'd rather live a socially secure life than an honest one. So he'd rather lie to everyone around him and live among them. Now, since both of us behaved rationally and made the most logical choice according to our value structures and since the right choice for each was the opposite of others, doesn't that mean that morality is subjective?
No, it does not. First of all, since objective morality needs to be completely rational and a moral concept that dogmatically ostracizes a belief system is not, that particular moral tenet would never make to the concepts of objective morality. Further, inclusion of an irrational concept into the society's moral code would prove that it is atleast partly and probably greatly irrational. However, let's assume that that particular tenet has somehow made its way into the moral code and is now a part of the reality. After all, you have to act within the context reality has provided you.
Remember when I talked about how the evaluation of values plays a part in forming the premise for morality. Well, the same applies to forming a value structure. Here, I can just go with my gut feeling of what is more important to me or I can perform a rational cost-benefit analysis of which would be better for me. Any other details of my life, such as the attitude of my family and friends, the aspects of my life in the society, would form the context of the issue. And if I have performed all these calculations reasonably, I can be sure that the other person would make the same choice if he was in my situation i.e. had the exact same context as mine. And if I make a mistake along the way or risk making a mistake by letting my emotions factor in, I would end up making a wrong choice and my life would be worse for it. Of course, I could have gone with just my gut-feeling and ended up making the right choice anyway, but which way do you think is better?
As to the question itself, I cannot answer it, since I have never been in that situation and hence am incapable of knowing the complete context. What I can say is, for two rational guys to have such opposing value structures; the context of their actions would be very much different. And that is a fact of life. No two situations or individuals are exactly the same, which is why a choice that was right in one context, is wrong in another.
Here I listed some of the general principals of objective morality. My own moral code, which I hope has been correctly derived from it, has some of the following tenets.
1. My values are subject to moral judgment. Hence I cannot morally justify any actions taken to achieve immoral values. Hence my goals cannot include subjugation of people or murdering someone.
2. Morality does not guarantee achievement of all my values. This is why a cogent hierarchy is required. And while values can be generated automatically, I must strive to discard any values with irrational or contradictory basis. This is not always possible, but that is no excuse not to try at all.
3. Living happily is of value to me. Since living in a free and benevolent society is conducive to it, creating such a society is a derivative value. To the extent that any action taken to create such a society does not contradict any of my higher values, I must do so.
4. I must strive to act rationally in all situations. Since I am only human, it may not be possible all the time since I'm constrained in knowledge and time. I will definitely make mistakes and make wrong choices. To the extent it is possible, I must try to correct them afterwards.
One final word on emotions. With all my talk about rationality, it must seem like I'm suggesting that human beings should be two-dimensional robot-like creatures who do not feel. That is not the case. Iím against using emotions as a basis for our actions. First of all, the cause of emotions is largely unknown. It may be due to random neurological transmissions in our brains, but the consistency with which we feel them towards different things, I believe that they are based on our subconscious. And for most of us, out that is a mass of irrational contradictions and definitely does not from a good basis to guide your actions.
Secondly, emotions are usually a response to a stimulus, for example the prospect of losing something you value would incite fear. Since most of us create a value structure subconsciously and hence irrationally, we associate specific emotions with gaining or losing that value with the intensity of the emotion corresponds directly to the importance of what was gained or lost. Thus emotions provide a great tool for evaluation. Hence the argument is not that that a perfectly rational being would be incapable of emotion, but that his emotional responses to events would correspond to what he should rationally feel. He would feel happier after making a right choice and he would feel guilty after making a wrong one. I believe that if a person completely internalizes a rational and coherent moral code, he'd discover that his first emotional response to an event would correspond to what objective morality would prescribe his response to be. In fact, I think I can give an example supporting this. Take religious people, whose moral code is usually a mass of irrational contradictions. But having grown up with it, they have internalized it completely. Which is why their first response upon seeing something that their code describes as evil, is disgust and hatred. I don't think that they have to run to their holy book to check up on their facts, they know it almost automatically. Even if it is proven to them that their moral code is irrational and they are shown what the rational choice would be, they still feel disgusted by it because of their internalized moral compass. Now, if a rational person happens to have internalized an objective moral code, he can be reasonably certain that his emotional response while making a choice would indicate whether the choice is rational or not. In this case, he can safely use his emotions as a basis for his actions. In such a case he wouldn't require a great deal of time and thought to evaluate each and every choice, his emotions have already him a hint as to what the right choice is.
I feel like I ended up arguing more in favor of rational morality rather than objective morality. But from what I have read, objective, by the virtue of being dependent on reality, is almost certainly rational, whereas with subjectivity, there is no such certainty. This is why I think that rational morality must necessarily be objective.
Addressing the OP's points - Yes, I do believe that objective morality is possible and the only time it would be right to end your race is when your race has given up its right to live.
April 12, 2012 at 11:30 pm (This post was last modified: April 12, 2012 at 11:32 pm by FallentoReason.)
(April 12, 2012 at 11:23 pm)padraic Wrote:
Quote:Or maybe there is a situation where the right thing would be to kill humanity?
What is your moral authority for claiming such an action is immoral?
The universe seems to favour life. I am here not because I wanted to (obviously I didn't get a say in that) but because the universe supports life. I have the right to live out this bizarre occurrence that is me. Why would it be right to take that away from me?
Quote:IF I accept the action is immoral,I am unable to accept the rule is absolute without knowing ALL of the possible scenarios, which I do not.
You don't need to know all the possible scenarios. Morals ethics almost works as a sort of algebra. Where do you think the moral good part lies? In the means or the end? Is it morally good to kill humanity as a means to some sort of end, or do you think people should never be used as merely tools to an end?
(April 12, 2012 at 11:28 pm)genkaus Wrote: Not to hijack the thread or anything, but I once wrote down my views on objective morality, which led to a pretty interesting discussion on another forum. Now, this is a pretty big essay and it can get a tad tedious.
"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion." Arthur C. Clark
A Case For Objective Morality
My views on morality are simple. I think that morality is a collection of concepts like mathematics, but one that addresses our actions. I also think that moral judgment should be based on reason and reality and not on emotions or whims. I would be repeatedly drawing on the analogy between morality and mathematics to show that objective morality is not only possible but also applicable to the world we live in. If morality is based on reality, it does not require a God to spell it out, like many of the religiots argue. However, it is also irrational to deny objective morality in order to deny religion's hold over it. After all, we don't accept the argument that logic and mathematics are any less objective if God does not exist (I know that many do present this very argument, but itís nonsensical since God has never been the premise for either). Hence I believe that morality based on reality would be objective and universally applicable in the same way logic and mathematics is.
The statements given above are my opinions and they have no argumentative value unless I provide a sound reasoning for them. In order to make a good case for Objective Morality I need to a) define the related terms, b) provide sound premises and c) draw valid conclusions.
To have a cogent discussion, I think that the definition of following terms needs to be established.
Morality: Code of conduct based on the knowledge of good and bad. By itself, the definition of morality does not encompass any goals nor does it specify any actions that are exempt from its purview. Like mathematics, it is a tool of evaluation. Where math helps us evaluate physical objects, morality helps us evaluate actions of moral agents.
Moral Agents: A being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong. This definition requires that the agent should be able to act according to his judgment and not be bound by his instincts or nature. He can, in fact, act contrary to them.
Moral Code: An individual's understanding of moral concepts. To avoid confusion, I would be referring to descriptive morality as a moral code and normative morality as morality.
Objective: Independent of whims, wishes, emotions or desires of an individual and based on reality.
Subjective: Dependent on whims, wishes, emotions or desires of an individual.
Absolute: Applicable to all individuals and in all situations alike.
Relative/Contextual: Though both are considered to be opposites of absolute, there is a difference. Contextual means dependent on situation and relative means dependent on both situations and individuals. As such, relative can be considered a combination of contextual and subjective.
What I would be arguing for here is the possible existence of objective, contextual morality. Morality is an abstraction, like mathematics and has no physical existence. It exists as a concept and can be objective if it is based on rational premises and applicable to objective reality. I'm not trying to argue that perfect objective morality exists in a Platonean plane of abstractions, that right and wrong have weekly dinner with truth and falsehood, but that this concept can and should be developed.
Now the definitions are out of the way, I'll move to the premises.
1) Life and free will are preconditions for a moral agent. This one seems self-evident since non-live things cannot make moral judgments and neither can things that act according to instinct. Since the term free-will has more meta-physical implications, I think 'liberty to act on one's judgment would be more appropriate. This does not mean that the agent is free to escape the reality in which he acts or free from the consequences of his actions. Also, the ability to make one's own judgment implies a capacity for rational judgment but does not necessitate it.
2) Morality based on rationality would be self-consistent and universally applicable. Since reality cannot be self-contradictory, neither can a purely rational concept which is a derivation of it.
It is usually argued that morality is not purely rational since its concepts depend on emotions and instincts of moral agents as well as on reality. I agree. Currently there is no moral code in existence which is purely rational. Such a moral code needs to be developed by separating the emotional components.
By universal applicability, I'm talking about applicability in the same sense as mathematics. Once the concepts have been developed, they would apply to all actions of moral agents the same way math applies to all physical objects. However, the same way as different concepts of math are applicable in different situations, different moral concepts would be applicable as well.
A little more on universal applicability. A person can only rely on morality to be a guide to his actions to the extent he stays true to his premises. The premises he violates by his actions cannot be used to justify or defend his position as a moral agent.
3) Values. This is the trickiest one and the biggest block of subjectivity that morality has to overcome to be considered truly objective.
Values are the goals of our actions, something that we seek to achieve. They are derived from our physical, mental and spiritual needs and they are what motivate us to act. Whether consciously or unconsciously, everyone holds a structure of values. A person who rationally thinks about his goals and motivations would have a cogent, hierarchical structure. A person led solely by instinct or emotions would only have range-of-the-moment values i.e. things he feels like wanting then and there.
And here's the argument for subjectivity: Since values depend on our desires, they cannot be purely objective. Hence no system guiding us to them can be purely objective.
One of the issues here, I believe, is the definition of subjectivity. While reading something to be subjective, we often assume the words "independent of reality" added to "dependent on an individual's mind". This is usually done by proponents of objectivity who do not want to let in any arbitrariness in a matter as important as morality. This point is the difference between a qualified belief and just a belief.
If my belief in evolution was just a belief, independent of objective proof, my position would be no more valid than a creationist. But the basis of my belief is not my desire to believe in evolution but the overwhelming proof in favor of it. Similarly, you can hold purely subjective values, i.e. independent of the world you live in or you can base your values on your objective needs.
Maslow has been of a lot of help here. He has given us an hierarchy of objective needs which can form a base for us to derive our values. Values derived rationally and exclusively from this structure would be objective and achievable by the tenets of objective morality.
SO, are purely objective values possible?
Yes. Clearly Maslow has proven that.
Are purely subjective values possible?
Yes.
For most people, values are neither purely objective nor subjective. Overall, their value structure corresponds to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but it is also influenced by their personal preferences.
So, does that mean that objective morality is absolutely impossible?
No, it does not. Objective morality does define any inherent goals, the same way math doesn't define any inherent goals. You may choose to calculate the probability of getting an ace in the next poker hand or you may choose to get the Fourier transform of a sine wave, the concepts of math are equally applicable and it does not make mathematics any less objective. And it does not preclude mathematical concepts from applying to the desired result. You may set out to prove that 2=3, but you cannot, not unless you violate one or more of the underlying principles. Similarly, your goals or values may themselves be rational or irrational, but that does not mean that the concepts of morality are open to subjective alteration.
Further drawing on the math analogy, there may be many methods to achieve your desired goal. Methods that yield answers closest to the desired result are better than those that don't. There may be different methods that are equally applicable and you have to choose between one of them. Methods that violate the mathematical premises cannot be right. And you may stay true to the premises, yet mistakenly use inapplicable concepts. In all these cases math hasn't suddenly become subjective because your subjectivity has never been a part of the premise.
Summing up the last premise. morality does not tell you what to want, it tells you if what you want is right and what is the right way to get it. In other words, your desire for a value itself is not the basis for morality, but the rational evaluation of that desire is. This is why introduction of subjective values as goals for your actions does not make morality subjective.
Phew. That was long. I think most of you must have given up. If you haven't I would once again like to remind you that these are the concepts required for developing morality. If I were to summarize my premises, I would say that a life where the agent has the capacity rationally choose his values and the actions required to achieve them, is the premise of morality because that is the situation where it is applicable. If any of the factors i.e. life, value, choice or capacity of rational choice are missing, the concepts of morality would not be applicable. But if all these concepts are applicable, the person cannot choose to forgo the moral responsibilities of his actions.
I'm not sure, but there may be additional premises which I may have missed.
Having laid out the objective premises of a moral code, here are some of the conclusions which form a part of my own moral code and can be included as tenets of objective morality.
1. Since life and liberty are preconditions for a moral agent, not moral action can violate these premises. Hence, actions like slavery, murder and rape are objectively wrong. This tenet, I think, overcomes one of the shortcomings of the golden rule. If it is good to do unto others as I would have them do unto me and I do not mind being murdered, then am I morally justified in killing as many people as I can before I'm gunned down? The answer, by my conclusion, is no, it is still objectively wrong.
But I think I need to qualify this conclusion a bit more. While I think I know the conditions required to qualify a being as a moral agent, I still haven't figured out if there are any disqualifying conditions. I would like to conclude that if the goals or actions of an agent violate the moral premises, he is no longer a moral agent; at least to the extent he has violated the premises. According to this conclusion, death penalty for a murderer or jail for a criminal are morally justified actions. But, as of now, I have no irrefutable rational justification for this conclusion.
2. The question of who owns your life is also answered by the first premise. For you to be held morally accountable, you must be responsible for your own actions. This is not possible if someone else owns your body and mind. And since you are responsible for your actions, you should own the product of your actions. Hence, whatever I have produced by my labor and my mind, I get to keep it. I may choose to give it away for something better or I may choose to give it away, but that should be my choice. If someone else takes it away by robbery or fraud, that person is acting immorally. Once again, this applies so long as I haven't violated any of the moral premises while creating or utilizing the value.
3. Given that your life is your own and for your own purpose, you are free to choose the purpose and have to take the responsibility for your actions as long as neither of them invalidate the premises of morality i.e. stand up to the standards of objective morality.
4. Morality can be divided in three parts- legal, social and personal. The legal morality would be completely objective and exist to make sure that rights of one moral agent are not violated by another. It needs to determine if one moral agent's rights i.e. the preconditions required for his existence as a moral agent have been violated by another. This morality is a negative code of conduct, in the sense it tells you what you cannot do. Social morality refers to the general principles of interaction with others. Since a person cannot exist in isolation, social relationships are of value to him. Following the principles of social morality, such as benevolence, decency etc. help you achieve and keep these social values. However, these rules are not enforceable by the society. The only thing you would lose from not acting in accordance to them would be those social values. Personal morality is the moral code you apply to your daily life for the achievement of your own values.
5. Here I would like to insert an example for contextual vs. subjective morality. Suppose I live in a society where being atheist is considered a sin. If people find out you are an atheist, you would be ostracized. But for me, living an honest life is of greater value than any social relationship, so I do not hide my sinful proclivities. Hence, I'm a social pariah. For another person the order of values is in reverse i.e. he'd rather live a socially secure life than an honest one. So he'd rather lie to everyone around him and live among them. Now, since both of us behaved rationally and made the most logical choice according to our value structures and since the right choice for each was the opposite of others, doesn't that mean that morality is subjective?
No, it does not. First of all, since objective morality needs to be completely rational and a moral concept that dogmatically ostracizes a belief system is not, that particular moral tenet would never make to the concepts of objective morality. Further, inclusion of an irrational concept into the society's moral code would prove that it is atleast partly and probably greatly irrational. However, let's assume that that particular tenet has somehow made its way into the moral code and is now a part of the reality. After all, you have to act within the context reality has provided you.
Remember when I talked about how the evaluation of values plays a part in forming the premise for morality. Well, the same applies to forming a value structure. Here, I can just go with my gut feeling of what is more important to me or I can perform a rational cost-benefit analysis of which would be better for me. Any other details of my life, such as the attitude of my family and friends, the aspects of my life in the society, would form the context of the issue. And if I have performed all these calculations reasonably, I can be sure that the other person would make the same choice if he was in my situation i.e. had the exact same context as mine. And if I make a mistake along the way or risk making a mistake by letting my emotions factor in, I would end up making a wrong choice and my life would be worse for it. Of course, I could have gone with just my gut-feeling and ended up making the right choice anyway, but which way do you think is better?
As to the question itself, I cannot answer it, since I have never been in that situation and hence am incapable of knowing the complete context. What I can say is, for two rational guys to have such opposing value structures; the context of their actions would be very much different. And that is a fact of life. No two situations or individuals are exactly the same, which is why a choice that was right in one context, is wrong in another.
Here I listed some of the general principals of objective morality. My own moral code, which I hope has been correctly derived from it, has some of the following tenets.
1. My values are subject to moral judgment. Hence I cannot morally justify any actions taken to achieve immoral values. Hence my goals cannot include subjugation of people or murdering someone.
2. Morality does not guarantee achievement of all my values. This is why a cogent hierarchy is required. And while values can be generated automatically, I must strive to discard any values with irrational or contradictory basis. This is not always possible, but that is no excuse not to try at all.
3. Living happily is of value to me. Since living in a free and benevolent society is conducive to it, creating such a society is a derivative value. To the extent that any action taken to create such a society does not contradict any of my higher values, I must do so.
4. I must strive to act rationally in all situations. Since I am only human, it may not be possible all the time since I'm constrained in knowledge and time. I will definitely make mistakes and make wrong choices. To the extent it is possible, I must try to correct them afterwards.
One final word on emotions. With all my talk about rationality, it must seem like I'm suggesting that human beings should be two-dimensional robot-like creatures who do not feel. That is not the case. Iím against using emotions as a basis for our actions. First of all, the cause of emotions is largely unknown. It may be due to random neurological transmissions in our brains, but the consistency with which we feel them towards different things, I believe that they are based on our subconscious. And for most of us, out that is a mass of irrational contradictions and definitely does not from a good basis to guide your actions.
Secondly, emotions are usually a response to a stimulus, for example the prospect of losing something you value would incite fear. Since most of us create a value structure subconsciously and hence irrationally, we associate specific emotions with gaining or losing that value with the intensity of the emotion corresponds directly to the importance of what was gained or lost. Thus emotions provide a great tool for evaluation. Hence the argument is not that that a perfectly rational being would be incapable of emotion, but that his emotional responses to events would correspond to what he should rationally feel. He would feel happier after making a right choice and he would feel guilty after making a wrong one. I believe that if a person completely internalizes a rational and coherent moral code, he'd discover that his first emotional response to an event would correspond to what objective morality would prescribe his response to be. In fact, I think I can give an example supporting this. Take religious people, whose moral code is usually a mass of irrational contradictions. But having grown up with it, they have internalized it completely. Which is why their first response upon seeing something that their code describes as evil, is disgust and hatred. I don't think that they have to run to their holy book to check up on their facts, they know it almost automatically. Even if it is proven to them that their moral code is irrational and they are shown what the rational choice would be, they still feel disgusted by it because of their internalized moral compass. Now, if a rational person happens to have internalized an objective moral code, he can be reasonably certain that his emotional response while making a choice would indicate whether the choice is rational or not. In this case, he can safely use his emotions as a basis for his actions. In such a case he wouldn't require a great deal of time and thought to evaluate each and every choice, his emotions have already him a hint as to what the right choice is.
I feel like I ended up arguing more in favor of rational morality rather than objective morality. But from what I have read, objective, by the virtue of being dependent on reality, is almost certainly rational, whereas with subjectivity, there is no such certainty. This is why I think that rational morality must necessarily be objective.
Addressing the OP's points - Yes, I do believe that objective morality is possible and the only time it would be right to end your race is when your race has given up its right to live.
So only when everyone within that race has given their permission? Would you ever agree to that?
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
April 12, 2012 at 11:38 pm (This post was last modified: April 12, 2012 at 11:39 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
I guess this is a carry over from an adjacent thread? I think you must start with the working hypothesis that a universal moral principle indeed exists and that our real problem is learning how to recognize it.
