Truth of Moral Propositions

[levinas12]

I know the forum has addressed this issue many times over. However, I’m too lazy to do research previous threads. So, if anyone is interested, here goes.

Are moral statements subject to truth claims? How do you argue for or against a particular moral statement?

I would like to take a naturalistic approach for the time being, i.e., not rely on the bible as revealed truth.

So let us, for the sake of specificity, consider the statement: fornication is morally wrong.

How do you justify this statement using just our natural reason?

Well, you can look at the effect of fornication on the well-being of both individuals and society - this would embrace both virtue ethics and consequentialism/utiliterianism.

So what are the bad consequences of fornication? Are there ways to mitigate some bad consequences (e.g., through artificial birth control)? But then wouldn’t artificial birth control itself have bad consequences (e.g., sexual promiscuity, an abortion mentality)?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

How does one decide if a proposition is true or false? By employing an epistemological method. Metaphysics deals with propositions of “existence”, or “is”. Ethics deals with “ought” propositions. However, “ought” statements depend on at least two “legs”. One is what exists (metaphysics) and the other is what do we want to achieve?

Using your “fornication” example, IF there is a God, and IF that God disapproves of fornication, and IF that disapproval leads to eternal torture, THEN one OUGHT NOT fornicate, since the short term pleasure is more than counterbalanced by eternal torture.

However, this line of reasoning requires proof that THERE IS a God, and this God disapproves of fornication, and that disapproval leads to eternal torture. As long as these prerequisites cannot be PROVEN, there is no way “transcendent” reason not to fornicate. (And, of course, these prerequisites cannot be met.)

The other line is purely natural reasoning. 4NICK8 (there actually was a license plate in California some time ago with these letters ) means to have sex outside marriage. The rational stance is that as long as NO one else is affected, or ALL affected parties agree, it is no one else’s business. Two (or more) people, who have no commitment to others AND have complete agreement can do whatever they want.

Some opponents want to bring in “adultery”, but that is nonsense. Adultery presupposes marriage. But even in that case, if the married parties agree on an “open marriage”, where both members give permission to the other to have sex with outside partners, it is only their business.

Society is not affected. The actual partners have a mutual agreement. Other people are not even aware of the act. So how can “fornication” be disapproved on purely natural ground? It would be just as nonsensical as decrying “masturbation” as “immoral”. (Oops… I heard that there are some people who actually do that.)

**I have never heard of an epistemological method which can decide the “truth value” of a “PURELY ought” proposition, without specifying the circumstances. **

 

[Wesrock]

This deserves a longer response, but the direction of sex towards, not just procreation, but also child-rearing, the long maturation time of human children, the natural need for stable family units to facilitate this, the incredibly powerful emotional ties humans generally naturally have in regards to sex and relationships (and the heartbreak and jealousy that follows betrayal), the complementary nature of male and female physiology, suggests that the natural law is towards lifetime pairing. Fornication undermines what is natural (in terms of direction) to human sexual relationships and divorces the sex act from its ends.

That there are exceptions to the way some people handle such bonds or that they can condition themselves to handle it differently doesn’t change what is natural to being human, the same way that there are exceptions to people having two eyes doesn’t change that it is natural and normal to Humana having two eyes, etc . . . This is different than “what is in nature,” it’s about “what is natural to being human” where we look at “humanness” as being something akin to a platonic form (not exactly, but I think that’s is the easiest way to quickly draw attention to what we mean). Exceptions in the world don’t undermine this study of what is natural to a being, because there is no perfect instantiation out there, and humans have a responsibility to live according to the natural law because we possess the faculty of reason.

 

[Wesrock]

The rational stance is that as long as NO one else is affected, or ALL affected parties agree, it is no one else’s business. Two (or more) people, who have no commitment to others AND have complete agreement can do whatever they want.

Calling something THE rational stance doesn’t make it so. This is simply liberal (and I mean that in its technical sense, not as a slur, like some do) philosophy of ethics, and requires as much of a reasoned defense as anything else. It’s not some default, neutral position.

 

[o_mlly]

I know the forum has addressed this issue many times over. However, I’m too lazy to do research previous threads. So, if anyone is interested, here goes.

Are moral statements subject to truth claims? How do you argue for or against a particular moral statement?

…

Well, you can look at the effect of fornication on the well-being of both individuals and society - this would embrace both virtue ethics and consequentialism/utiliterianism.

So what are the bad consequences of fornication? Are there ways to mitigate some bad consequences (e.g., through artificial birth control)? But then wouldn’t artificial birth control itself have bad consequences (e.g., sexual promiscuity, an abortion mentality)?

“Ought” becomes “is” only after one separates human needs from human wants. When a human need exists then a reciprocal obligation to provide exists either in oneself, in another or in the community.

IFF the parties agree on what constitutes human nature then the parties can productively debates on the morality of human acts.

If a person believes that conception is a possible effect of fornication and murder is a permissible mitigating method then that person will be chaste.

 

[Wesrock]

Sorry for triple posting. A common objection is to try to evaluate the morality and teleological purpose of individual parts of a person, like the hands, or feet, and to try to demonstrate an absurdity. This confuses the issue, thinking we are concerned solely with the purpose and teleology of the genitalia. That’s not the case. My understanding of natural law is that we look at this in relation to the natural ends and teleology of the whole person, not just in relation to parts. Sex, procreation, child-rearing, sexual relationships are all tied up in the natural ends of the whole person and our species (and others).

 

[Cheiron]

How does one decide if a proposition is true or false? By employing an epistemological method. Metaphysics deals with propositions of “existence”, or “is”. Ethics deals with “ought” propositions. However, “ought” statements depend on at least two “legs”. One is what exists (metaphysics) and the other is what do we want to achieve?

Using your “fornication” example, IF there is a God, and IF that God disapproves of fornication, and IF that disapproval leads to eternal torture, THEN one OUGHT NOT fornicate, since the short term pleasure is more than counterbalanced by eternal torture.

I must protest your conclusion. Your conclusion that one ‘ought not fornicate’ is derived from the threat of torture and the logic of self-preservation. The implication is that morality is decided by the person able to impose his morality on everyone else under the threat of violence. I don’t think “might makes right” is a good way to evaluate morality.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Calling something THE rational stance doesn’t make it so. This is simply liberal (and I mean that in its technical sense, not as a slur, like some do) philosophy of ethics, and requires as much of a reasoned defense as anything else. It’s not some default, neutral position.

You placed the emphasis on “THE”, not I. And no, there is no need to justify the principle of “if I do not hurt anyone else, then they have no grounds for rejecting this principle”. It is the default position. Just imagine the opposite: “anyone can take exception to any kind of behavior, whether it affects others in a detrimental fashion or not”? What would be the result of such a principle?

As for the “natural law”: The great apes (which include humans) are different from the rest of the animal kingdom. We are the only types of species which can enjoy sex without the built-it nudge for procreation. THAT is the natural, biological environment. Procreation is still there, but it is just an option, nothing more.

I must protest your conclusion. Your conclusion that one ‘ought not fornicate’ is derived from the threat of torture and the logic of self-preservation. The implication is that morality is decided by the person able to impose his morality on everyone else under the threat of violence. I don’t think “might makes right” is a good way to evaluate morality.

I don’t like it myself. But that is reality, whether we like it or not. The mafia uses the same tactics: “do as I demand, and you will be rewarded. Defy me and you will have to deal with the consequences.”

 

[Bradski]

O_mlly has it pretty well covered. You cannot take something in isolation and declare it to be morally wrong.

So fornication…sorry, the word is really too bizarre to use outside of a fire and.brimstone pulpit sermon…sex cannot be considered in isolation. You need a conditional clause:

Having sex is wrong IF …

Fill in the dots and supply a reasonable argument and you have a moral position.

 

[STT]

I must protest your conclusion. Your conclusion that one ‘ought not fornicate’ is derived from the threat of torture and the logic of self-preservation. The implication is that morality is decided by the person able to impose his morality on everyone else under the threat of violence. I don’t think “might makes right” is a good way to evaluate morality.

 

[Wesrock]

You placed the emphasis on “THE”, not I. And no, there is no need to justify the principle of “if I do not hurt anyone else, then they have no grounds for rejecting this principle”. It is the default position. Just imagine the opposite: “anyone can take exception to any kind of behavior, whether it affects others in a detrimental fashion or not”? What would be the result of such a principle?

As for the “natural law”: The great apes (which include humans) are different from the rest of the animal kingdom. We are the only types of species which can enjoy sex without the built-it nudge for procreation. THAT is the natural, biological environment. Procreation is still there, but it is just an option, nothing more.

Use of the definite article does have certain implications, but whatever. I used to think exactly like you are in terms of ethics, and ultimately you’re missing the point that there is no “default” position. Any ethical framework has to be defended, and just because it’s currently in vogue doesn’t exempt it from that. You take for granted certain ontological and epistemological beliefs, perhaps some which have been ingrained in you since childhood. Furthermore, you really ignored the very brief outline I gave and then completely misrepresented the natural law argument as “everything that occurs in nature.”

I must protest your conclusion. Your conclusion that one ‘ought not fornicate’ is derived from the threat of torture and the logic of self-preservation. The implication is that morality is decided by the person able to impose his morality on everyone else under the threat of violence. I don’t think “might makes right” is a good way to evaluate morality.

I wasn’t going to comment on it because it’s really irrelevant to the central issue of just making the case based solely on natural reasons without just appealing first to God, but since it’s become a popular talking point, such an argument with appeal to God has nothing to do with might makes right, it derives fundamentally from what he *is *and how he ontologically differs from us or any other created thing that gives him any such right, not because he’s the might to enforce it.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Any ethical framework has to be defended, and just because it’s currently in vogue doesn’t exempt it from that.

One needs to defend only if there is an “attack”. You are welcome to bring on an attack. But be specific.

To be more precise: is there any argument which would put me on defensive? Yes, I assert that the default position is that “if there is no harm, there is nothing to defend”. Neither beneficial nor neutral actions need to be defended. If that is not self-evident, I don’t know what is. Just think about a hypothetical exchange:A: “I gave 5 dollars to a homeless person”.
B: “Why did you do that?”
A: “She looked hungry, and I wanted to help her”.
B: “Can you defend this action?”
A: “What is there to defend?”
B: “Well, any action, which has ethical overtones needs to be defended”.
A: “Are you kidding me?”

On the other hand, contemplate:A: “I beat up this person”.
B: “Why did you do that?”
A: "Because he was about to rob someone.
B: “Can you defend this action?”
A: “It was an act of defense. And acts of defense are self-evidently correct”.

If you bring forth some actual arguments, I will be most happy to entertain them. But the generic “any ethical framework has to be defended” is simply vacuous.

Furthermore, you really ignored the very brief outline I gave and then completely misrepresented the natural law argument as “everything that occurs in nature.”

First, I deny the validity of the idea of “natural moral law”. But I am willing to contemplate it, as long as it is rational. However, to assert that “natural” law is NOT founded on nature is ridiculous. Where does this alleged “natural law” come from? But please do not say that it is “scratched” on the human heart…

 

[levinas12]

If a person believes that conception is a possible effect of fornication and murder is a permissible mitigating method then that person will be chaste.

Can you elaborate a bit more on this?

 

[Cheiron]

I don’t like it myself. But that is reality, whether we like it or not. The mafia uses the same tactics: “do as I demand, and you will be rewarded. Defy me and you will have to deal with the consequences.”

Yeah, but does that make it moral? I believe that’s the issue here.

I wasn’t going to comment on it because it’s really irrelevant to the central issue of just making the case based solely on natural reasons without just appealing first to God, but since it’s become a popular talking point, such an argument with appeal to God has nothing to do with might makes right, it derives fundamentally from what he *is *and how he ontologically differs from us or any other created thing that gives him any such right, not because he’s the might to enforce it.

No, it was completely relevant. OP asked if there is any truth to moral statements. Vera_Ljuba’s conclusion that one “ought not fornicate” - a moral statement - was based on the threat of hell. Even if that threat is real, I don’t think that’s a good way to determine whether a moral statement is true or false.

 

[levinas12]

Yeah, but does that make it moral? I believe that’s the issue here.

No, it was completely relevant. OP asked if there is any truth to moral statements. Vera_Ljuba’s conclusion that one “ought not fornicate” - a moral statement - was based on the threat of hell. Even if that threat is real, I don’t think that’s a good way to determine whether a moral statement is true or false.

Truth, whether moral truth or other types of truth, compels us to acknowledge it.

So when someone says “you must not fornicate”, what is “force” of the “must” - is it the same “must” that compels us to acknowledge, e.g., that 2 plus 2 equals 4. or that there are electrons?

But doesn’t this presuppose that morality can have its own sort of truth? That is, is morality “rational”, is there a “congruence” at work in morality between us and “what is out there” (to quote the X Files) - are there moral “facts”?

A related question: is there “natural” access to “what is out there” with respect to morality, or do we have to depend completely on revelation?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Yeah, but does that make it moral? I believe that’s the issue here.

I did not say that it is “moral”. And that is not the issue. Is it “true” is the question?

No, it was completely relevant. OP asked if there is any truth to moral statements. Vera_Ljuba’s conclusion that one “ought not fornicate” - a moral statement - was based on the threat of hell. Even if that threat is real, I don’t think that’s a good way to determine whether a moral statement is true or false.

But the threat of hell does not make it “true”. “Ought” statements cannot have a “true” or “false” associated with them. And they are not alone. There are many statements which belong to this category.

For example: “Tomorrow it will rain at this particular location at that particular time”. Is this a true or a false statement? It is neither. It refers to an expectation. Not all propositions have a “truth” value associated with them. Just for the fun of it, try to parse this proposition: “This statement is false”.

 

[o_mlly]

Can you elaborate a bit more on this?

If we agree that a human being needs to live then we agree human beings have a right to life.

With the right to life, the subjunctive mood becomes declarative: “ought” become “is.”

If we have a right to life then others ought to respect the same.

One ought not take an action that kills another; such an act is evil.

One ought not take an action that puts another life in danger of death; such an act is evil.

One ought not fornicate. Such an action may kill another.

 

[Cheiron]

Truth, whether moral truth or other types of truth, compels us to acknowledge it.

So when someone says “you must not fornicate”, what is “force” of the “must” - is it the same “must” that compels us to acknowledge, e.g., that 2 plus 2 equals 4. or that there are electrons?

But doesn’t this presuppose that morality can have its own sort of truth? That is, is morality “rational”, is there a “congruence” at work in morality between us and “what is out there” (to quote the X Files) - are there moral “facts”?

A related question: is there “natural” access to “what is out there” with respect to morality, or do we have to depend completely on revelation?

I think we should use our brains to construct moral frameworks. I would like to see a morality that is, for lack of a better word, intelligently designed.

I did not say that it is “moral”. And that is not the issue. Is it “true” is the question?

Levinas12 asked if moral statements are subject to truth claims. I assumed your reasoning was related to OP’s question.

But the threat of hell does not make it “true”. “Ought” statements cannot have a “true” or “false” associated with them. And they are not alone. There are many statements which belong to this category.

That’s exactly what I’ve argued for in other threads as well. There is no true or false morality in an objective sense.

For example: “Tomorrow it will rain at this particular location at that particular time”. Is this a true or a false statement? It is neither. It refers to an expectation. Not all propositions have a “truth” value associated with them. Just for the fun of it, try to parse this proposition: “This statement is false”.

Well, that statement can be true or false, but we wouldn’t know until after it has rained. .
.

 

[levinas12]

There is no true or false morality in an objective sense.

Morality and obligation go hand in hand. Whence the sense of obligation?

 

[levinas12]

“Ought” statements cannot have a “true” or “false” associated with them.

But then where does the feeling of “ought” come from? In everyday situations, we experience moral “demands”. A demand seems to come from a place external to us. We somehow “perceive” it. In fact, in the history of philosophy, the expression “moral sensibility” pops up over and again. “Sensibility” is used here to reflect that the source of moral demands, like the source of perceptions, seems to be “outside of us”, is immediate and not under our control. We are “confronted” or “hailed” by the “ought” - that is, “stopped in our tracks”. Of course, how we deal with the “ought” is subject to our reasoning.