Objective Morality

[SumEns]

Thank you for agreeing with me so wholeheartedly.

Exactly but, as you say, it cannot be determined to be objective in the process or by such process.

Through science…no, I agree, we can come to no conclusions about morality. Through metaphysics, however, we can. Science takes us to a dead end, and further, it presumes a metaphysic to begin with, as does any physical explanation of anything.

 

[fix]

In the Enlightenment, reason was elevated above faith that was treated as superstition and myth in the conviction that reason alone, freed from prejudices and any external sentimental interferences may arrive at true cognition with accuracy and precision. This intellectual pride of reason, which set itself its own method and sphere of activity ended finally in the self-limitation of positivism, in which reason arbitrarily limits not only its own possibility of knowing, but even the existence of that reality which it cannot ascertain and measure according to its own arbitrarily chosen methods.

The refusal to view the metaphysical ground of reality is a form of enslavement of the reason that locks itself in its own self-defined prison. As such this refusal becomes an ideology that blocks the mind and disenables it from seeing what to another more open mind is obvious. Skepticism about the cognitive possibilities of the mind ends in shortsightedness that is ultimately nihilist.

In a paradoxical historical development, today it is the Church that is defending the dignity of reason, and inviting the minds of thinkers not to stop short and to reach out to the fullness of reality that can be known.[8] The reductive self-limitations of the mind however contribute to the nihilist and relativist moral climate, which denies the existence of the natural moral order and leaves the new moral virtues reacting to new moral challenges suspended in a nebulous groundless atmosphere, prone to whatever ideological winds, fashions and political manipulations, may appear.

zenit.org/article-19001?l=english

 

[Kaninchen]

Through science…no, I agree, we can come to no conclusions about morality. Through metaphysics, however, we can. Science takes us to a dead end, and further, it presumes a metaphysic to begin with, as does any physical explanation of anything.

I think that, if you look through the whole conversation, I’ve not even been arguing that there is no ‘objective’ morality’ only that would not be possible to establish any morality (morality set) as being so. I’ve not even been arguing against metaphysical justification for holding a particular morality set, only that metaphysical justifications cannot establish a morality set as being ‘objective’.

As I said earlier, I think the whole ‘objective morality’ concept causes more problems than it solves.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Exactly but, as you say, it cannot be determined to be objective in the process or by such process.

Of course it can. When were were a small species living on the Savannah of Africa, and out nightly camps were surrounded byh hungry hyenas, we were in objective danger.

And if we allow members of our species to commit murder, rape, robbery, that is also objective danger. Therefore murder, rape, robbery and similar crimes are objectively wrong.

There are, as I pointed earlier, some things that are wrong because we say they are wrong. But there are other things that are wrong, whether we say it or not.

 

[fix]

I think that, if you look through the whole conversation, I’ve not even been arguing that there is no ‘objective’ morality’ only that would not be possible to establish any morality (morality set) as being so. I’ve not even been arguing against metaphysical justification for holding a particular morality set, only that metaphysical justifications cannot establish a morality set as being ‘objective’.

As I said earlier, I think the whole ‘objective morality’ concept causes more problems than it solves.

Please define objective.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Please define objective.

Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice.

Murder is objectively wrong – that is, it represents a real and serious threat to society. Tearing the tag off a pillow or cushion is not objetively wrong – it is wrong only because we have a law saying it is illegal.

 

[SumEns]

I think that, if you look through the whole conversation, I’ve not even been arguing that there is no ‘objective’ morality’ only that would not be possible to establish any morality (morality set) as being so. I’ve not even been arguing against metaphysical justification for holding a particular morality set, only that metaphysical justifications cannot establish a morality set as being ‘objective’.

As I said earlier, I think the whole ‘objective morality’ concept causes more problems than it solves.

Study Aquinas, not that you will , or want to, and he will show you how ‘metaphysical justifications’ CAN establish that morality IS objective. We can come to know these justifications by the light of our own natural reason.

 

[fix]

Not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice.

Murder is objectively wrong – that is, it represents a real and serious threat to society. Tearing the tag off a pillow or cushion is not objetively wrong – it is wrong only because we have a law saying it is illegal.

Thank you. Now the poster says that whether murder is right or wrong is not the issue. She seems to think there is no proof it is objectively wrong even when it is self evident.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Thank you. Now the poster says that whether murder is right or wrong is not the issue. She seems to think there is no proof it is objectively wrong even when it is self evident.

No doubt she will modify her opinion if a hyena gets her.

 

[Kaninchen]

Study Aquinas, not that you will , or want to, and he will show you how ‘metaphysical justifications’ CAN establish that morality IS objective. We can come to know these justifications by the light of our own natural reason.

Please describe how one would set up a series of crucial physical tests of predictions derived from the morality set.

Aquinas belongs to your premises set, not mine.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Please describe how one would set up a series of crucial physical tests of predictions derived from the morality set.

Aquinas belongs to your premises set, not mine.

Well, we start with a large cage containing a hungry hyena . . .

 

[SumEns]

Please describe how one would set up a series of crucial physical tests of predictions derived from the morality set.

Aquinas belongs to your premises set, not mine.

I don’t know if I am missing the point or you are. There is a simple and inescapable fact, that no matter what you talk about you will get into metaphysics. Even when I talk about the chromatophores on the subdermal layers of skin on Cephalopods, I will get into metaphysics. How? When we talk about the nature of the thing itself, and how we come to know it. It is by way of abstracting from what we sense that we can come to know things that are not physical. It is by knowing what is not physical that allows us to understand morality, what it is and where it comes from. We have an innate moral capacity. Some of ours works better than others, but it is there, and the only way to understand the nature of our innate moral capacity we go to metaphysics. If you think for one second that you can avoid it you are mistaken.

As for Aquinas…if you were serious about accepting, or not, metaphysics, you would read his works. If you disagree then at least you would have some material to argue against, but you never know, if you open your mind and give him a good read, you might be singing my song.

 

[Kaninchen]

I don’t know if I am missing the point or you are.

I’m not against the idea that the metaphysical is an important part of the process of conjecture - what marks out the ‘objective’, however, is that it’s testable against the physical.

There is a simple and inescapable fact, that no matter what you talk about you will get into metaphysics. Even when I talk about the chromatophores on the subdermal layers of skin on Cephalopods, I will get into metaphysics. How? When we talk about the nature of the thing itself, and how we come to know it.

The ‘nature’ of the thing itself? Since when has Aristotelean essentialism been allowed back into the scientific method?

It is by way of abstracting from what we sense that we can come to know things that are not physical.

Is this a defense of induction?

It is by knowing what is not physical that allows us to understand morality, what it is and where it comes from. We have an innate moral capacity. Some of ours works better than others, but it is there, and the only way to understand the nature of our innate moral capacity we go to metaphysics. If you think for one second that you can avoid it you are mistaken.

I’m not the one denying the ‘subjective’ as part of the process of discernment, I’m the one saying that the ‘subjective’ is not a means of establishing the ‘objective’.

As for Aquinas…if you were serious about accepting, or not, metaphysics, you would read his works. If you disagree then at least you would have some material to argue against, but you never know, if you open your mind and give him a good read, you might be singing my song.

You’re making assumptions you oughtn’t to make - I’m old enough to have been to College and been somewhat beyond Phil 101! Again, Aquinas is part of your premises set, not mine.

 

[SumEns]

“I’m not against the idea that the metaphysical is an important part of the process of conjecture - what marks out the ‘objective’, however, is that it’s testable against the physical.”

Can you test qualia? You can test and measure my responses, but not the thing itself. Assuming morality was subjective, how can you test this subjective morality itself? Even if it was subjective, it is still qualitative, and still out of Science’s reach. Science is limited. Even scientists will admit as much.

“The ‘nature’ of the thing itself? Since when has Aristotelean essentialism been allowed back into the scientific method?”

When we categorize biological entities into groups, do you think it is merely accidental? Of course not. There are certain essential characteristics in each group for which it is either included or discluded from the group. We also, implicitly, agree with efficient and material causation. Like it or not it seems that “Aristotelean essentialism” is implicit in the scientific method. If you studied Aristotle in your Philosophy 101, he was not a theist, was a scientist/empiricist (to some degree), and believed whole heartedly in immaterial things(eg active and passive noos) and metaphysics The foundation for which all else is built on.

Lastly…“I’m not against the idea that the metaphysical is an important part of the process of conjecture - what marks out the ‘objective’, however, is that it’s testable against the physical”. So if everything is subjective, you are telling me that all and only subjectivity leads to objectivity. Seems like you are contradicting yourself. By the by, the Principle of Non-Contradiction is not scientifically demonstrable, or demonstrable at all for that matter. Will you deny it’s objectivity as well.

 

[Kaninchen]

Can you test qualia? You can test and measure my responses, but not the thing itself. Assuming morality was subjective, how can you test this subjective morality itself? Even if it was subjective, it is still qualitative, and still out of Science’s reach. Science is limited. Even scientists will admit as much.

This ‘problem’ is merely a product of the ‘objective morality’ idea – I don’t have to link morality to objective phenomena in a ‘scientific’ way because I’m arguing that you can’t do so. The ‘problem’ you have set for me here, in other words, is totally irrelevant to my position.

When we categorize biological entities into groups, do you think it is merely accidental? Of course not. There are certain essential characteristics in each group for which it is either included or discluded from the group.

Taxonomies are purely humanly contrived organizational constructs. They are not part of the scientific method, they are products arrived at by checking data against organizing principles derived from theory.

We also, implicitly, agree with efficient and material causation. Like it or not it seems that “Aristotelean essentialism” is implicit in the scientific method. If you studied Aristotle in your Philosophy 101, he was not a theist, was a scientist/empiricist (to some degree), and believed whole heartedly in immaterial things(eg active and passive noos) and metaphysics The foundation for which all else is built on.

Aristotelian essentialism is not part of the scientific method.

Lastly…“I’m not against the idea that the metaphysical is an important part of the process of conjecture - what marks out the ‘objective’, however, is that it’s testable against the physical”. So if everything is subjective, you are telling me that all and only subjectivity leads to objectivity. Seems like you are contradicting yourself. By the by, the Principle of Non-Contradiction is not scientifically demonstrable, or demonstrable at all for that matter. Will you deny it’s objectivity as well.

The first part of understanding comes with a ‘guess’ or ‘conjecture’, the leap of imagination – it’s not the origin of the guess that matters in the acquisition of ‘objective knowledge’ about the world but, rather, whether it’s testable.

 

[SumEns]

“Taxonomies are purely humanly contrived organizational constructs. They are not part of the scientific method, they are products arrived at by checking data against organizing principles derived from theory.”

I wouldn’t say purely. What we are doing is recognizing that certain things have essential characteristics such that if said trait were to be removed it would no longer be in that class of entity. We need categories before we have a method. So categories are important to the scientific method. Further, without essences, we have no categories. No categories means no science as we know it. Essentialism is essential.

About those principles. I see you neglected to comment on the non-demonstrability of the principle of non-contradiction. If you deny this principle you deny science, unless you want to say that genes are and are not responsible for, say, coding proteins simultaneusly, at the same time in the same way. Then science would not have happened. If you agree that the principle is true, you just gave into something that is non-physical, and not provable by science. Congratulations.

“Aristotelian essentialism is not part of the scientific method.” See above. By the way this is not an argument, you’ll need to try a little harder than this. Where are those premises, wheres logic 101?

“The first part of understanding comes with a ‘guess’ or ‘conjecture’, the leap of imagination – it’s not the origin of the guess that matters in the acquisition of ‘objective knowledge’ about the world but, rather, whether it’s testable.”

The first thing we know, via simple apprehension, is objective and that is “being” (esse). This is not something you can deny or be wrong about, and being per se is not testable. Modus ponens, the principle of non-contradiction, simplification, material implication…none of these are testable in a scientific paradigm and yet the scientific paradigm follows logic. If all things must be testable, then we would have never gotten to big SCIENCE. Science is based off of certain indemonstrable unprovable first principles…opps, there goes Aristotle again.
I will say that after this, yes there is a lot of guessing, and being wrong. But this does not mean we cannot come to know that morality is objective. Our epistemological capacity is beautiful, and powerful, you shouldn’t underestimate it.

 

[Kaninchen]

I wouldn’t say purely. What we are doing is recognizing that certain things have essential characteristics such that if said trait were to be removed it would no longer be in that class of entity. We need categories before we have a method. So categories are important to the scientific method. Further, without essences, we have no categories. No categories means no science as we know it. Essentialism is essential.

Well, it’s the end of the conversation - this is a conversation for an entirely different thread, probably for an entirely different board. We couldn’t be further apart on any subject than we are on this one and the subject is huge.

 

[cpayne]

I’m not against the idea that the metaphysical is an important part of the process of conjecture - what marks out the ‘objective’, however, is that it’s testable against the physical.

This was the point at which I got really, REALLY bored and stopped reading, so please forgive me if someone else pointed this out already.

The main problem here is that Kaninchen seems to think that “objective” means “physically testable.” Most other people would also accept “logically sound” (that is, both valid and true) as “objective.” Since Kaninchen doesn’t, you will never get him / her to agree.

If there are logically sound arguments against murder (some have already been mentioned), then murder is objectively wrong. And anyone who doesn’t accept induction as a method of gaining empirically testable and valid knowledge is never going to accept logically sound arguments, since the PREMISES of logically sound arguments are based on induction. (This is true even for deductive arguments.)

In other words: Save your typing fingers. A skeptic can always come up with some kind of response, even to the obviously true.

 

[cpayne]

Addendum to the last sentence: The fact that some kind of response can be made even to the obviously true does not at all change its obvious truth.

 

[Kaninchen]

Wow!

The ghost of induction walks!