Truth of Moral Propositions

[Blue_Horizon]

Contrary to Hobbes, some philosophers argue that there is something better than simple biological survival - i.e., the virtuous life that exemplifies prudence, justice, courage and temperance.

This “noble” existence is not a means but an end in itself.

This doesn’t mean that virtue is useless. It has a social “benefit”.

I would agree that virtue ensures the better survival of the community - though the more virtuous an individual is the more likely they are to be sacrificed by that same community (cf Socrates, JC).

However that is not the topic here.
Who said that virtue appeals to everybody, is an unquestionable value for everybody. It isnt. Therefore it cannot rise to the level of an objective, unquestioned “ought”.

Obviously the rejection of virtue is almost 100% bad for the survival of a society - and likely many individuals in that same society.
But if survival is not a universal value…why is rejection of virtue bad?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

It seems that English is not your first language, so I’ll be generous and suggest that maybe didn’t come out as you might have intended. At least, I hope that that is the explanation.

I thought his questions were fair, well argued and respectful myself.

 

[Bradski]

I thought his questions were fair, well argued and respectful myself.

I’ve no problem with his questions. But I do with his statement that he doesn’t know of any argument why a child should not have sex.

 

[STT]

It seems that English is not your first language, so I’ll be generous and suggest that maybe didn’t come out as you might have intended. At least, I hope that that is the explanation.

English is not my first language but I think I was clear enough. What I wrote is what I intended. It would be nice of you if you could please reply to post #59. You just left the discussion which is not fair.

Let me just rephrase the sentence you objected: I of course could not have an intercourse at that age but I don’t know any argument or scientific evidence that why this should be bad.

 

[STT]

I’ve no problem with his questions. But I do with his statement that he doesn’t know of any argument why a child should not have sex.

Well, I am open to hear from you about the scientific evidence or argument that watching pornography for example is bad for children even if they need it.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I’ve no problem with his questions. But I do with his statement that he doesn’t know of any argument why a child should not have sex.

Thanks, that clarifies what you meant.
But given that, what is your response if a precoscious child does wish to engage in the behaviour the poster indicates?

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

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)?

Can’t we replace your “natural reason” with philosophical virtue? Could we replace it with the perfection of such virtue? Virtue is excellent to natural reason, if it were not so, we could not exalt ourselves above animal nature. The call for natural reason does not eliminate the aspect of virtue within our reason. Reason should be associated with morality, otherwise, it would just be animalistic nature that directs us into fornication. Man is above his animalistic nature because he has access to thoughts of moral excellence.

What is wisdom?–the knowledge between good and evil. Even without the bible their is still wisdom to be gained. Religion is just a mode for the transference of such virtue to man. If there was no religion wisdom could still be gained through experience. Man can think of himself as good and understand the perfection of virtue. It’s not like virtue is hidden from man. He merely needs to comprehend the world that is before him and know what this place is–this world is a moral purgatory. Man must dwell, here, in the midst of good and evil. Man must see this world as a place of justice, therefore, he sees the judgment that is upon himself. If he can recognize this then he could seek the good and virtue out of his life.

 

[fisherman_carl]

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.

Another better way is to look at how living according to how we are designed is going to be much better for us in the long run. For example if we eat mostly healthy food we are going to be healthier in the long run. This is just common sense. There is no reason to think this would not be the case for how we conduct our human relationships either. Just because something can be done, like fornication or eating tons of doritoes, doesn’t make it good for us. We have to look not only at how the behaviour affects negatively those who do it, but also how living according to the healthier way affects people positively. For example, Catholics who wait until marriage and live according to Catholic morals have a 95% chance of staying married. Whereas Catholics who do not have only a 50% chance of staying married. There is much more than this but I do not have the time.

 

[levinas12]

Oh, and a cold beer on a hot day.

Yes!

 

[o_mlly]

Another better way is to look at how living according to how we are designed is going to be much better for us in the long run. For example if we eat mostly healthy food we are going to be healthier in the long run. This is just common sense. There is no reason to think this would not be the case for how we conduct our human relationships either. Just because something can be done, like fornication or eating tons of doritoes, doesn’t make it good for us. We have to look not only at how the behaviour affects negatively those who do it, but also how living according to the healthier way affects people positively. For example, Catholics who wait until marriage and live according to Catholic morals have a 95% chance of staying married. Whereas Catholics who do not have only a 50% chance of staying married. There is much more than this but I do not have the time.

The OP’s general inquiry, “Truth of Moral Propositions,” appears hung-up on the particular question of the morality of fornication. Since some are predisposed to permit such acts, a reasoned argument is “dead on arrival.” The desire for sex, a bodily good of the lower appetites, can and does often darken our reason.

Applying the general inquiry to a mental good instead may overcome built-in biases on sexual behaviors.

So, same argument structure substituting lying for fornication:

• Human beings needs to know the truth.
• A human need translates into a human right creating in oneself, others and the community a reciprocal obligation to respect that right.
• Therefore, it is morally evil to lie to a person who has a right to know the truth.

Who justifies lying to one who has a right to the truth as morally neutral or good? Which premise(s) are untrue? If no one then this moral claim has truth value.

 

[levinas12]

But if survival is not a universal value…

Hobbes would argue that the instinct for “survival” is more like a natural force than a value … so it cannot really be “rejected”

 

[levinas12]

Here is an excerpt from one article:

Reasons not to fornicate, besides "God said so"
orthodoxwriter.com/2012/03/reasons-not-to-fornicate-besides-god.html

The ultimate “expert” on any subject is, of course, God—but here are ten expert recommendations from the secular world against sleeping/living together before marriage. In one way or another, they all echo the Lord’s commandment.

1. It leads to an increased rate of infidelity.

Both partners need to learn how to control their urges and impulses before marriage. If one or both of you can’t keep your hands off of the other now, a wedding isn’t magically going to teach you how to keep them off of other people in the future. Research on thousands of men across multiple countries confirms this: More sex during dating means more infidelity during marriage.

2. It leads to an increased rate of divorce.

If you sleep with someone you don’t end up marrying, your risk of divorce will be significantly higher once you do get married. In a study of 6,500 married women, the divorce rate was three times higher for those who’d had multiple sexual partners than for those who were never intimate with anyone other than their husbands.

3. It leads to decreased sexual satisfaction in marriage.

People tend to think you have to “practice” physical intimacy before marriage in order to get the most out of it during marriage. One of the most liberal studies ever conducted, however, revealed the opposite: People who were completely abstinent prior to marriage are more satisfied during marriage, particularly those who abstained for religious reasons.

4. It leads to decreased feelings of romance.

Sexual experience with a partner you don’t end up staying with leads to a lessened experience of romance with whomever you do end up with. There’s a direct relationship between the number of your past partners and your feelings of romance with your current partner: The higher the number of partners, the lower the feelings of romance.

5. It leads to less love and overall satisfaction in marriage.

Decreases in romance and sexual satisfaction aren’t the only consequences of out-of-wedlock sexual experiences. Research confirms that the highest levels of love and overall satisfaction belong to people who (1) are married, (2) had the fewest number of sexual partners, and (3) did not live together with their current or any previous partners.

6. It leads to poor decision-making and partner-selection.

Sex outside of marriage is directly related to poor relationship choices. Physical intimacy clouds good judgment. Several studies have shown that if you’re abstinent while dating, you’re likely to use better discretion in selecting a prospective partner. If you’re sexually active, however, you’re likely to overlook important aspects of a potential mate’s character, fidelity, and sexual history as long as you think that person is “sexy.”

7. Just because it’s great now doesn’t mean it will be great later.

Physical intimacy during dating isn’t representative of what it will be like during marriage, even if you marry the same person with whom you’ve been intimate. One researcher explains that this is because “the dating relationship has an agenda that marriage does not. … There is a lot of pressure to win over a partner, which causes a person to consciously or unconsciously please that partner in ways that may be very temporary.” He adds that the very reason a new relationship is so exciting is because of the tension of not having explored sexual intimacy with that person.

8. It creates unnecessary complications in the marriage bed.

There’s a learning curve with everything in life, including the physical aspects of a relationship. When both spouses enter into a marriage inexperienced in that respect, they learn together, and a very special bond is created as a result. But when both spouses have learned things from being with other people—or worse, when one has and the other hasn’t—it gives rise to memories of past experiences, regrets about the ways in which one’s spouse might not measure up, and feelings of jealousy from the spouse.

9. It hides existing relationship problems and creates additional ones.

In marriage, sex can’t be separated from the other aspects of the relationship—the good and the bad. In dating, however, sex very often precedes the development of a solid relationship. Because of this, it can mask problems that exist but haven’t yet been identified by one or both partners. It can create temporary feelings of euphoria that will ultimately shatter, once those problems begin to surface. And if physical attraction happened to be the primary basis of the relationship, then there won’t be much left to salvage when that falls apart.

10. It can make a relationship very unstable.

According to one psychological model, there are five dimensions to any relationship: Knowledge, trust, reliance, commitment, and touch. If the level of touch exceeds the level of anything else—if you don’t know everything you need to know about your partner; if you haven’t been together long enough to prove that this is someone you can trust; if you can’t or don’t know how to rely on him or her; and if there isn’t sufficient commitment (i.e., a marriage)—then the relationship becomes very unstable. It will leave you desiring all of the other aspects, but with no guarantee of ever receiving them.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes!

But funny that such things are more about pleasure or rest than survival.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Hobbes would argue that the instinct for “survival” is more like a natural force than a value … so it cannot really be “rejected”

Fornication is presumably borne of the same instinct?

The problem is this biologically driven instinct for survival is actually fairly blind and limited.
It’s based on a short range pleasure drive.

Reason is far better tool achieving “survival”.
But if we break away from the pleasure drive…formulating exactly what “survival” really means in terms of intellectual end goals becomes very problematic.

Some interpret the “survival” in the “survival instinct” to mean indulging simply in the biological pleasure aspect in ever smarter ways that biology itself never thought of! Eg vomiting and eating even more.

Hence the problem of values wrt morality. Before there can be an ought there must be an objective understanding of what reasoned survival must consist in.
But there is no one answer to that question.
And the more basic survival instinct we all have is capable of so many well reasoned answers none of which is any more definitive than any other.

 

[levinas12]

Fornication is presumably borne of the same instinct?

The instinct of self-preservation embraces sex, food, shelter, etc. … basically, our lower animal needs. According to Hobbes, human beings, in distinction from the other animals, have “reason” as a calculating ability that can be used to devise means for self-preservation (you could say that this is the Robinson Crusoe “twist” to the instinct).

Here “reason” has only to do with the means, not the ends. Reason only calculates; it does not “provide” the ends. This is significant change from ancient Greek ethics where “reason” is not confined to the means but is essential to arriving at the truth of the ends of human being as distinct from the ends of animal being. In Hobbes, the ends are reduced to biological animal needs - the virtues are merely means to these animal “ends”, not ends in themselves. So reason becomes “castrated” in modern philosophy (Kant does this but in a somewhat different “key”).

The ends are governed by the various passions/emotions which in turn are governed by the instinct for survival. The weakness in Hobbes is this latter step. For example, how do, for example, pride and the desire for glory (a very important human “marker” in Hobbes) relate to self-preservation, especially since this “marker” can be lethal.

 

[STT]

The instinct of self-preservation embraces sex, food, shelter, etc. … basically, our lower animal needs. According to Hobbes, human beings, in distinction from the other animals, have “reason” as a calculating ability that can be used to devise means for self-preservation (you could say that this is the Robinson Crusoe “twist” to the instinct).

Here “reason” has only to do with the means, not the ends. Reason only calculates; it does not “provide” the ends. This is significant change from ancient Greek ethics where “reason” is not confined to the means but is essential to arriving at the truth of the ends of human being as distinct from the ends of animal being. In Hobbes, the ends are reduced to biological animal needs - the virtues are merely means to these animal “ends”, not ends in themselves. So reason becomes “castrated” in modern philosophy (Kant does this but in a somewhat different “key”).

The ends are governed by the various passions/emotions which in turn are governed by the instinct for survival. The weakness in Hobbes is this latter step. For example, how do, for example, pride and the desire for glory (a very important human “marker” in Hobbes) relate to self-preservation, especially since this “marker” can be lethal.

I think that is intellect that gives us significant advantage to animal. We cannot justify why we should obey instinct in order to have a life based on reason.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The instinct of self-preservation embraces sex, food, shelter, etc. … basically, our lower animal needs. According to Hobbes, human beings, in distinction from the other animals, have “reason” as a calculating ability that can be used to devise means for self-preservation (you could say that this is the Robinson Crusoe “twist” to the instinct).

Here “reason” has only to do with the means, not the ends. Reason only calculates; it does not “provide” the ends. This is significant change from ancient Greek ethics where “reason” is not confined to the means but is essential to arriving at the truth of the ends of human being as distinct from the ends of animal being. In Hobbes, the ends are reduced to biological animal needs - the virtues are merely means to these animal “ends”, not ends in themselves. So reason becomes “castrated” in modern philosophy (Kant does this but in a somewhat different “key”).

The ends are governed by the various passions/emotions which in turn are governed by the instinct for survival. The weakness in Hobbes is this latter step. For example, how do, for example, pride and the desire for glory (a very important human “marker” in Hobbes) relate to self-preservation, especially since this “marker” can be lethal.

Thanks for sharing your obviously specialist understanding of Hobbes.
It does seem to be what I partially intuited above. Namely reason is seen as little more than a more complicated, less time bound, version of the “survival instinct” emotions…which still seems to be driven by a pleasure/pain principle…though making delayed gratification, and endured pain, possible over longer periods of time.

I would suggest the “survival” instinct though is not really about survival but pleasure.
Obviously the biological structures involved are usually such that they signal pleasure/pain in functions that do tend to promote survival…primarily individual, but sometimes communal.

Yet most of us would probably agree that humans in fact are able through reason to transcend the pleasure principle as a hardwired “end” built into biological/neurological organs …and be driven by a “firmware” defined end that is somehow additionally constructed by the individual through ongoing experience…which we might call happiness. For happiness it is possible for someone to endure a lifetime of deprivation, pain and absence of biological pleasure.
In fact it seems that happiness can even change the perception of what is biologically pleasurable to some degree if it is “learnt” at an early enough age. I don’t just mean perversions, but also the ability to actually feel biological pleasure when attaining some fairly esoteric speculative happiness ends such as solving an engineering design problem or admiring an artists skill or feeling all is well with the world even if one is dying of painful cancer.

If the above be even half right then happiness, unlike pleasure, is far less objective an end.
At least pleasure is hardwired into biology and generally the same situations and reactions hold the same for most individuals. What brings happiness…not so much.

Which suggests “ought” is a rationally effective means to attaining the end of happiness. But if what makes for happiness varies significantly from individual to individual…then the ought is only as valid as the same type of happiness is sought by a community.

 

[levinas12]

For example, how do, for example, …

Needless to say, this phraseology is redundant … as it is redundant to say, it’s redundant …

 

[levinas12]

Just to provide closure … in modern philosophy (beginning with Hobbes), reason is reduced to calculating only the means … as opposed to the ancient Greeks, where reason revealed the ends as well as the means … in modern philosophy reason no longer discloses the essences, the natures, the final causes of entities (including human beings) … other than the biological imperatives, the ends pursued by human beings become entirely random and free floating, loosed from the moorings of any putative human “nature” … the ends are no longer anchored in a non-human moral order … there is no truth pertaining to moral propositions … de gustibus non est disputandum …

 

[levinas12]

… the ends are no longer anchored in a non-human moral order … …

a non-human moral order … that is, an order that is not “invented”, “constructed”, by human beings …

This displacement, this suppression of natural ends with respect to human beings, is a catastrophe …