On moral objectivity
This is a duplicate of a post I am attempting to make as part of a discussion on free will and morality on Uncommon Descent. I put it here as well because quite a lot of work went into it and my comments on UD often don't make the cut.
I thought this was an interesting argument from Borne in #30.
You could use the same argument whenever anyone claimed something was subjective. E.g. “you claim there is no objective basis to clothes fashion. But upon what objective basis is this claim made? To try and prove to the contrary is to prove you yourself believe that you some higher authority about what is fashionable.”
The fallacy is that the question of whether fashion is subjective or objective is not itself a question about what is fashionable. It is a logical/epistemological question about how we make judgements about fashion. In the same way the question of whether moral values are objective is not itself a moral judgement. It is a question about the logical/epistemological basis for morals. You don’t answer such questions by appealing to a higher authority!
Those that believe that we need a higher authority to provide a basis for moral judgements should consider how we actually conduct discussions and arguments about moral matters. I offer a small story to illustrate the point. I apologise for the length of the post.
Suppose a middle class western man is appalled by the situation in some stricken African country. He is a doctor and believes that he could make a big difference if he went out there and could save many lives, but it would mean leaving his wife and family and his wife objects. He is a devout Christian and he tries to find the answer in his Bible or prays for guidance. He comes to the conclusion that God is telling him the right thing is to go. His wife is agnostic. She argues on the lines of – How sure are you that you really can save all these lives? When we married you made a commitment. Have you considered the children? Why can’t someone else do it? Etc. Is she making a logical error by appealing to a common human sense of what is right or wrong rather than seeking to interpret God’s will. If the husband discovers a verse in the Bible that says unequivocally that trying to save lives is more important than family ties – is she proven wrong?
The concept that is missing is suspended subjectivity. It is a bit like Dennett’s intentional stance. It is fact of human nature that we are sufficiently similar in our reactions to the suffering of others, injustice etc that we assume that if we describe things powerfully enough or assemble enough facts then eventually we will come to the same decision. The wife is working on this assumption. (Something similar applies to aesthetics).
There is no higher authority or ultimate proof to resolve whether the husband or the wife is right: just common desires for compassion and fairness and an assumption that the other can be made to see their point of view. They can’t call in the ethics expert to tell them which was right, as they could get a legal expert to tell them what was legal. The husband may try to produce a book of rules e.g. in the form of the Bible, but the wife can always undermine it by pointing out that a particular rule would imply suffering or injustice or broken commitments. The husband might defend it simply by saying - ah but it is in the book therefore it is God’s word therefore it must be moral. In this case I suggest the wife might feel justifiably aggrieved. More likely he will say something on the lines of she has misinterpreted the rule and actually it does lead to less suffering or greater justice or it is an inevitable consequence of the gift of free will or whatever. i.e. he has to justify the rule.
I thought this was an interesting argument from Borne in #30.
The standard atheist doctrine is that there are no objective moral values. But upon what objective basis is this claim made?! None whatsoever!
And to try to prove the contrary is to prove that you yourself believe you have some higher authority to use to do so!
You could use the same argument whenever anyone claimed something was subjective. E.g. “you claim there is no objective basis to clothes fashion. But upon what objective basis is this claim made? To try and prove to the contrary is to prove you yourself believe that you some higher authority about what is fashionable.”
The fallacy is that the question of whether fashion is subjective or objective is not itself a question about what is fashionable. It is a logical/epistemological question about how we make judgements about fashion. In the same way the question of whether moral values are objective is not itself a moral judgement. It is a question about the logical/epistemological basis for morals. You don’t answer such questions by appealing to a higher authority!
Those that believe that we need a higher authority to provide a basis for moral judgements should consider how we actually conduct discussions and arguments about moral matters. I offer a small story to illustrate the point. I apologise for the length of the post.
Suppose a middle class western man is appalled by the situation in some stricken African country. He is a doctor and believes that he could make a big difference if he went out there and could save many lives, but it would mean leaving his wife and family and his wife objects. He is a devout Christian and he tries to find the answer in his Bible or prays for guidance. He comes to the conclusion that God is telling him the right thing is to go. His wife is agnostic. She argues on the lines of – How sure are you that you really can save all these lives? When we married you made a commitment. Have you considered the children? Why can’t someone else do it? Etc. Is she making a logical error by appealing to a common human sense of what is right or wrong rather than seeking to interpret God’s will. If the husband discovers a verse in the Bible that says unequivocally that trying to save lives is more important than family ties – is she proven wrong?
The concept that is missing is suspended subjectivity. It is a bit like Dennett’s intentional stance. It is fact of human nature that we are sufficiently similar in our reactions to the suffering of others, injustice etc that we assume that if we describe things powerfully enough or assemble enough facts then eventually we will come to the same decision. The wife is working on this assumption. (Something similar applies to aesthetics).
There is no higher authority or ultimate proof to resolve whether the husband or the wife is right: just common desires for compassion and fairness and an assumption that the other can be made to see their point of view. They can’t call in the ethics expert to tell them which was right, as they could get a legal expert to tell them what was legal. The husband may try to produce a book of rules e.g. in the form of the Bible, but the wife can always undermine it by pointing out that a particular rule would imply suffering or injustice or broken commitments. The husband might defend it simply by saying - ah but it is in the book therefore it is God’s word therefore it must be moral. In this case I suggest the wife might feel justifiably aggrieved. More likely he will say something on the lines of she has misinterpreted the rule and actually it does lead to less suffering or greater justice or it is an inevitable consequence of the gift of free will or whatever. i.e. he has to justify the rule.
posted by Mark Frank at 11:11 am
0 comments
