Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
We can all come up with examples of “sounds like it should be an absolute moral imperative” that seems to be subjective in certain circumstances. “Nazi’s at the door with Anne Frank in the Attic” scenarios come to mind ...
That reminds me ... I need to read Sam’s new eBooklet on lying. It’s just sitting there in my Kindle, waiting ... (forgot aboot it).
I’m quite encouraged that my anxiety isn’t unique. While I do not share Sam’s view on morality what I do greatly appreciate is his zeal and intention to TRY and formulate objective moral concepts. I find I have more empathy for an unsuccessful attempt to create a principle than I do for a rather more logical determination that no such effort is fruitful.
So I’d put this question to ya’ll. Do you prefer to rest upon some post modern abdication of collective/objective morality in favor of relativism or is a worthwhile goal to pursue some as-of-yet unformed moral code? I’m inclined toward the latter but not without considerable conflict. There may attributes to human moral intuition that favor an untethered approach. I’m exploring this vigorously and appreciate your input.
Thanks again.
You are assuming that there is a collective/objective morality when there is no reason to believe there is other then you dislike relativism/reality.
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 28 September 2011 10:53 PM
Brick Bungalow - 28 September 2011 10:07 PM
Ok, good stuff.
Do you prefer to rest upon some post modern abdication of collective/objective morality in favor of relativism or is a worthwhile goal to pursue some as-of-yet unformed moral code?
I lean towards the latter. I dislike and distrust relativism. I cannot see how I could ever be convinced that (for example) it is morally right to stone a young couple to death for sex outside marriage or to hang a couple of 18 year old boys for engaging in a bit of sexual activity together. I feel an instinctive, visceral moral indignation and anger at such cruelty and injustice. That is why I feel the need to pursue moral realism and anchor morality in something like the WBCC. When gods are found to be false, morality only makes sense in terms of conscious creatures and their flourishing. It is we who must find out what is good for us and what is moral. Morality comes from us. When we know what is good for us we have valid, rational reasons for deciding whether something is morally correct or not and for acting in the morally correct manner.
I do not think it needs to be as difficult as philosophers have heretofore made it . Parfit and other moral realists and Sam Harris are on the right track.
Relativism doesn’t make stoning objectively right or wrong or say that you have to be convinced of it.
I’m quite encouraged that my anxiety isn’t unique. While I do not share Sam’s view on morality what I do greatly appreciate is his zeal and intention to TRY and formulate objective moral concepts. I find I have more empathy for an unsuccessful attempt to create a principle than I do for a rather more logical determination that no such effort is fruitful.
So I’d put this question to ya’ll. Do you prefer to rest upon some post modern abdication of collective/objective morality in favor of relativism or is a worthwhile goal to pursue some as-of-yet unformed moral code? I’m inclined toward the latter but not without considerable conflict. There may attributes to human moral intuition that favor an untethered approach. I’m exploring this vigorously and appreciate your input.
Thanks again.
You are assuming that there is a collective/objective morality when there is no reason to believe there is other then you dislike relativism/reality.
Not a bit. I assume a null set. My PREFERENCE is to keep an eye peeled for something a bit more substantial.
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 29 September 2011 06:38 AM
Jefe - 29 September 2011 06:02 AM
IIn some cases we have god(s) posited as the source of Objectivity - but this only works if the god(s) so posited are not themselves subjective constructs of human socialization.
In other cases we have lofty ideals posited as the source of Objectivity (WBCC) - but this also falls into a pattern of subjective interpretation based on a heirarchy of needs and social structures.
Jeff, I don’t see the WBCC as a lofty ideal. It is a very practical way of deciding what is good and it it something that we know objectively a lot about already. Subjectivity may always play a role in preferences, just s it does in aesthetics but we can objectively measure what is good or bad for us and what would contribute to our flourishing or otherwise. We might not always have the answers but in principle, questions about well-being are answerable. Where we don’t have answers it just means we need more knowledge and that knowledge will come from science. And let’s not forget that we are not talking about what is pleasurable here. What is pleasurable is not always good (boiling babies for example). That example is a no-brainer. Other examples may be more difficult but in principle there are answers.
I cannot see any other way of anchoring morality in objective reality other than to use something like the WBCC as a metric. This gets us out of the bind of Moore’s open question (the so called naturalistic fallacy) and it relieves us of the unsatisfactoriness of relativism that ends in nihilism. Moreover, and very importantly, it provides a means whereby a consensus about what is right might be reached.
I don’t disagree, Rob.
WBCC is a metric we can measure (to a large degree) and something that most folks can sink their teeth into (in one way or another).
Maximizing WBCC for All through Moral Evolution, however, adds the loft to the basic notion.
I’m also not saying it’s unattainable. But if we categorize it into a single, larger than life statement about the betterment of all through maximizing WBCC, we are obligated to recognize the hot-air providing the loft in the statement.
Further, even if we have WBCC as an objective cornerstone for our analysis of ethics and morality, the outcome of our changes still remains relative to our clarity of understanding of the results of changes we make to further the goal of maximizing WBCC.
Again, I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, but I think we need to recognize the blend of Objective/Subjective in these endeavors.
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 29 September 2011 07:08 AM
That is arguable, GAD. I doubt we will be able to agree on the matter. Happy to discuss, though.
I’m a moral relativist and I am against stoning, am I wrong?
For example, you can be horribly offended that the Romans fed the Christians to the lions for the entertainment of the crowd, but still understand that if you were brought up in those times and in that culture you probably would have cheered along with everyone else in the stadium. You can be offended at something without taking the “holier than thou” stance that you have the authority and right to pass judgement.
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 29 September 2011 07:08 AM
That is arguable, GAD. I doubt we will be able to agree on the matter. Happy to discuss, though.
I’m a moral relativist and I am against stoning, am I wrong?
For example, you can be horribly offended that the Romans fed the Christians to the lions for the entertainment of the crowd, but still understand that if you were brought up in those times and in that culture you probably would have cheered along with everyone else in the stadium. You can be offended at something without taking the “holier than thou” stance that you have the authority and right to pass judgement.
When I consider those kinds of issues I always need to know if there was any real opposition to such things at the time, because if I were me now then I likely would have, in fact, and if you’re saying I wouldn’t have been me now then it’s kind of like just asking what “I” would do if “I” were some random person then rather than me, and that hardly seems a compelling question.
Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 29 September 2011 07:08 AM
That is arguable, GAD. I doubt we will be able to agree on the matter. Happy to discuss, though.
I’m a moral relativist and I am against stoning, am I wrong?
For example, you can be horribly offended that the Romans fed the Christians to the lions for the entertainment of the crowd, but still understand that if you were brought up in those times and in that culture you probably would have cheered along with everyone else in the stadium. You can be offended at something without taking the “holier than thou” stance that you have the authority and right to pass judgement.
When I consider those kinds of issues I always need to know if there was any real opposition to such things at the time, because if I were me now then I likely would have, in fact, and if you’re saying I wouldn’t have been me now then it’s kind of like just asking what “I” would do if “I” were some random person then rather than me, and that hardly seems a compelling question.
Suppose you were stolen as a baby and put in a time machine and sent back to Roman times and were raised by a Roman family according to their value system.
