Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Non-theistic Moral Realism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Non-theistic Moral Realism

    I've been thinking of non-theistic moral realism (NMN) for a while and I was wondering what everyone thought of it.

    NMN: There are objective moral values and duties. The values supervene on intrinsically valuable non-normative properties, and the intrinsically valuable non-normative properties make or cause normative objective values to be. The intrinsically valuable non-normative properties also serve as reasons for action, which serve as the action-guiding principles grounding duties. The duties are objective because the reasons are objective; and the reasons are objective because the intrinsically valuable non-normative properties are objective.

    NMN admits the existence of brute moral facts and grounds it in the primitive "making-relation" subsisting between the non-normative properties and the normative properties of the values upon which they supervene. The theist is wont to ask about the metaphysical grounding of the non-normative properties themselves. But the non-theist protests that this explanation-expectation is unnecessary because the brute fact of the "making-relation" is sufficient for the grounding. Any objection, they say, lodged against its being a brute fact could equally apply to God's nature/commands.

    This is a heavily summarized view from a philosopher from DePauw University called Erik Wielenberg.

  • #2
    I believe we have Moral Realism (what ever that is?) regardless of whether it is Theist or Non-Theist. The nature of human existence in terms of Consciousness, Will, Morality and ethics simply exists. Other arguments aside concerning determinism or compatibilism, or libertarian free will none satisfy the question. We simply have a Will and is not necessarily free.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      I believe we have Moral Realism (what ever that is?) regardless of whether it is Theist or Non-Theist. The nature of human existence in terms of Consciousness, Will, Morality and ethics simply exists. Other arguments aside concerning determinism or compatibilism, or libertarian free will none satisfy the question. We simply have a Will and is not necessarily free.
      Hey Shunyadragon,

      I appreciate your perspective. I do want to discuss the proposition,

      1. Non-theistic moral realism is the case

      whether or not the proposition,

      2. Theistic moral realism is the case.

      is the case.

      This is just in terms of the focus of the thread.

      You point out four elements of human existence:

      3. There is consciousness.
      4. There is will.
      5. There is morality.
      6. There is ethics.

      I'm assuming you're implying that these four elements entail moral realism. Non-theistic moral realists might broaden 3 and 4 by subsuming it under the heading of "cognitive faculties". I'm not sure that moral relativists would endorse 5 and 6 as implying moral realism, since moral relativism is an ethical system used to understand relative morality.

      I'm not sure what the relevance of the free-will debate has to do with moral realism, theistic or otherwise. But you admit that in affirming 4, you're affirming something relevant to 1 or 2. I'm not sure what it is, but if there is something relevant to 1 or 2, please confine its relevance to 1, as that is what I'd like the focus of the thread to be.
      Last edited by mattdamore; 02-12-2017, 06:40 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by mattdamore View Post
        I've been thinking of non-theistic moral realism (NMN) for a while and I was wondering what everyone thought of it.

        NMN: There are objective moral values and duties. The values supervene on intrinsically valuable non-normative properties, and the intrinsically valuable non-normative properties make or cause normative objective values to be. The intrinsically valuable non-normative properties also serve as reasons for action, which serve as the action-guiding principles grounding duties. The duties are objective because the reasons are objective; and the reasons are objective because the intrinsically valuable non-normative properties are objective.

        NMN admits the existence of brute moral facts and grounds it in the primitive "making-relation" subsisting between the non-normative properties and the normative properties of the values upon which they supervene. The theist is wont to ask about the metaphysical grounding of the non-normative properties themselves. But the non-theist protests that this explanation-expectation is unnecessary because the brute fact of the "making-relation" is sufficient for the grounding. Any objection, they say, lodged against its being a brute fact could equally apply to God's nature/commands.

        This is a heavily summarized view from a philosopher from DePauw University called Erik Wielenberg.
        If these non-theistic objective moral values/duties exist I never understood what power or authority they have. If we ignore or violate them what happens?
        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          If these non-theistic objective moral values/duties exist I never understood what power or authority they have. If we ignore or violate them what happens?
          Hey seer,

          I haven't fully digested the view, but I assume the view would affirm something like this. The power and authority such values/duties have is that they are objectively binding, independent of culture and human opinion, and consequent upon beings endowed with cognitive faculties. Ignoring such values implies stepping outside the realm of goodness into that of objective evil, a solecism against our nature. Thus, to ignore such values is to step outside the dignity of "being human". Whether this involves other contingencies like prison time, death penalty, fines, exile, being socially ostracized, etc., is largely dependent on social convention; but moral realism would have the ontological tools for justifying the objectivity of such values. I'd say the same about violations as well. To introduce theism as a way to justify not ignoring them or not violating them is a way, I admit. But I think the non-theistic moral realist would say that while it's sufficient to do this (but they even combat that), it's not necessary. The feeling of disgust occasioned by witnessing a rape, for example, is symptomatic of the underlying objective evil of such a state of affairs. The actual instantiation of the state of affairs in the world instantiates accompanying, non-normative, intrinsically evil properties, which "make" the normative, intrinsic properties to be, and serve as the "reasons" that beings endowed with cognitive faculties make use of to ground duties and obligations to prevent rape. It's something like that, but I'm not being entirely exhaustive.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by mattdamore View Post
            Hey seer,

            I haven't fully digested the view, but I assume the view would affirm something like this. The power and authority such values/duties have is that they are objectively binding, independent of culture and human opinion, and consequent upon beings endowed with cognitive faculties. Ignoring such values implies stepping outside the realm of goodness into that of objective evil, a solecism against our nature. Thus, to ignore such values is to step outside the dignity of "being human". Whether this involves other contingencies like prison time, death penalty, fines, exile, being socially ostracized, etc., is largely dependent on social convention; but moral realism would have the ontological tools for justifying the objectivity of such values. I'd say the same about violations as well. To introduce theism as a way to justify not ignoring them or not violating them is a way, I admit. But I think the non-theistic moral realist would say that while it's sufficient to do this (but they even combat that), it's not necessary. The feeling of disgust occasioned by witnessing a rape, for example, is symptomatic of the underlying objective evil of such a state of affairs. The actual instantiation of the state of affairs in the world instantiates accompanying, non-normative, intrinsically evil properties, which "make" the normative, intrinsic properties to be, and serve as the "reasons" that beings endowed with cognitive faculties make use of to ground duties and obligations to prevent rape. It's something like that, but I'm not being entirely exhaustive.
            Well Matt, that was a mouthful! First, things like prison time, death penalty, fines or moral disgust would naturally be in the picture with or without objective moral values/duties. A Stalin still does what he does and gets away with it whether objective moral values/duties exist or not, they in fact are not binding on him in any fashion. As despot is killed in a revolution whether objective moral values/duties exist or not. Some men find rape morally repulsive others find it pleasurable. I just do not see any practical use for non-theistic objective moral values/duties .
            Last edited by seer; 02-12-2017, 08:16 PM.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by mattdamore View Post
              Hey Shunyadragon,

              I appreciate your perspective. I do want to discuss the proposition,

              1. Non-theistic moral realism is the case

              whether or not the proposition,

              2. Theistic moral realism is the case.

              is the case.

              This is just in terms of the focus of the thread.

              You point out four elements of human existence:

              3. There is consciousness.
              4. There is will.
              5. There is morality.
              6. There is ethics.

              I'm assuming you're implying that these four elements entail moral realism. Non-theistic moral realists might broaden 3 and 4 by subsuming it under the heading of "cognitive faculties". I'm not sure that moral relativists would endorse 5 and 6 as implying moral realism, since moral relativism is an ethical system used to understand relative morality.

              I'm not sure what the relevance of the free-will debate has to do with moral realism, theistic or otherwise. But you admit that in affirming 4, you're affirming something relevant to 1 or 2. I'm not sure what it is, but if there is something relevant to 1 or 2, please confine its relevance to 1, as that is what I'd like the focus of the thread to be.
              I understand and will interact on the Non-Theist perspective focusing on #1. Though it is difficult to isolate it from the different perspectives of the nature of our Will. I personally do not believe #1 can be distinguished from #2.
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-12-2017, 08:56 PM.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                I understand and will interact on the Non-Theist perspective focusing on #1. Though it is difficult to isolate it from the different perspectives of the nature of our Will. I personally do not believe #1 can be distinguished from #2.
                . . . from the human perspective.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Well Matt, that was a mouthful! First, things like prison time, death penalty, fines or moral disgust would naturally be in the picture with or without objective moral values/duties. A Stalin still does what he does and gets away with it whether objective moral values/duties exist or not, they in fact are not binding on him in any fashion. As despot is killed in a revolution whether objective moral values/duties exist or not. Some men find rape morally repulsive others find it pleasurable. I just do not see any practical use for non-theistic objective moral values/duties .
                  Sorry for the mouthful! The view itself is pretty complex and I'm trying to do it justice, but even after the mouthful, I have to say I'm still leaving a lot out.

                  I didn't mean to say that things like prison time follow from moral realism; that's why I said that those activities would be a matter of convention. What would hold Stalin, a despot, or the rapist accountable would be the non-normative, intrinsically good properties inhering in morally relevant states of affairs, grasped by agents with cognitive faculties, and then mapped onto the normative, intrinsically good properties upon which they supervene, whilst also such non-normative, intrinsically good properties serving as the reasons (constituting action-guiding moral principles) for moral obligations. The practical use of such non-theistic approaches would, according to them, be the ability to denounce moral evils and wrong actions (and praise moral good and right actions). According to this view, the rapist who finds rape pleasurable is objectively evil, deserving of moral opprobrium, and subject to that legal censure backed by a justice system that (per the moral realist) can succeed or fail to align itself with the objective moral furniture of good and evil, right and wrong.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by mattdamore View Post
                    I've been thinking of non-theistic moral realism (NMN) for a while and I was wondering what everyone thought of it.

                    NMN: and the intrinsically valuable non-normative properties make or cause normative objective values to be. The intrinsically valuable non-normative properties also serve as reasons for action, which serve as the action-guiding principles grounding duties. The duties are objective because the reasons are objective; and the reasons are objective because the intrinsically valuable non-normative properties are objective.

                    NMN admits the existence of brute moral facts and grounds it in the primitive "making-relation" subsisting between the non-normative properties and the normative properties of the values upon which they supervene. The theist is wont to ask about the metaphysical grounding of the non-normative properties themselves. But the non-theist protests that this explanation-expectation is unnecessary because the brute fact of the "making-relation" is sufficient for the grounding. Any objection, they say, lodged against its being a brute fact could equally apply to God's nature/commands.

                    This is a heavily summarized view from a philosopher from DePauw University called Erik Wielenberg.
                    Not sure if I understand all of the terms...but I might diagree if I think this means what I think it means....."There are objective moral values and duties. The values supervene on intrinsically valuable non-normative properties, "
                    I think there are "objective" values (= "universal") but only because inherent human nature is similar and this makes it appear as if these values are "objective". In this sense this (nature) has to be "normative". This "inherent normal" (?) might serve as "reason" for action---as you say, but reason is not objective....in fact human reasoning is very subjective---our creativity can make a wrong into a right and a right into a wrong. (That is why we have hypocrisy---we do not adhere to claimed values because of inconvenience and use our "reasoning" to justify such conduct)

                    If the human species existed together on earth with another intelligent non-human species whose "inherent normal" (nature) was different---then their "objective" values would necessarily be different---simply because their survival would depend on a different set of conditions/nature.....(Thus, "human moral values" cannot apply to God---nor can they apply to other animal species because they are "not human")

                    "Making-relation" may appear sufficient grounding for moral values/principles---but because human reason can be subjective---such principles can become relative and utilitarian. Such a situation will eventually lead to moral bankruptcy. In order to have long-term consistency of moral values/principles it is better to make them "objective" in a metaphysical (abstract) sense so as to give such values the quality of wisdom/truth (Wisdom = knowledge that remains true/correct over time) A metaphysical paradigm need not have "God" in it---but it does need to have a narrative that explains human purpose and the meaning of our existence, one that will remain consistent over a very long period of time.

                    here is a scenario of a society without a metaphysical paradigm:-
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbBv2ZGC2VI

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      I understand and will interact on the Non-Theist perspective focusing on #1. Though it is difficult to isolate it from the different perspectives of the nature of our Will. I personally do not believe #1 can be distinguished from #2.
                      This response is keeping in mind your qualification "from a human perspective". Thus, your position seems to be that from a human perspective, you do not believe that theistic moral realism can be "distinguished" from non-theistic moral realism. Because it seems to me that we can, perhaps you could unpack that for me. For right now, I'll just say that it seems that we can because all I need to do to distinguish the two is to include or exclude the moniker "theistic". To include it would be to say that God explains and is the ground for objective morality; and to exclude it would be to provide an account of objective morality that does not include God as part of its ontological structure - that it would be sufficient to ground it in something other than God in order to adequately substantiate its objective status.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mattdamore View Post
                        What would hold Stalin, a despot, or the rapist accountable would be the non-normative, intrinsically good properties inhering in morally relevant states of affairs, grasped by agents with cognitive faculties, and then mapped onto the normative, intrinsically good properties upon which they supervene, whilst also such non-normative, intrinsically good properties serving as the reasons (constituting action-guiding moral principles) for moral obligations.
                        Right, but how does that stop a Stalin, or curb his behavior? A bullet in the head would do a much better job. Again, nothing really happens if he ignores these objective moral standards. It all seems like a rhetorical exercise with no teeth.


                        The practical use of such non-theistic approaches would, according to them, be the ability to denounce moral evils and wrong actions (and praise moral good and right actions). According to this view, the rapist who finds rape pleasurable is objectively evil, deserving of moral opprobrium, and subject to that legal censure backed by a justice system that (per the moral realist) can succeed or fail to align itself with the objective moral furniture of good and evil, right and wrong.
                        But cultures have generally have considered rape evil without consideration to these objective standards. Of course many cultures did on religious grounds. Then I would have to ask, when did rape suddenly become objectively evil? I mean we find it in the animal kingdom even with higher primates - is it evil for them too? Or it's not because they just can't grasp the concepts?
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by siam View Post

                          "Making-relation" may appear sufficient grounding for moral values/principles---but because human reason can be subjective---such principles can become relative and utilitarian. Such a situation will eventually lead to moral bankruptcy. In order to have long-term consistency of moral values/principles it is better to make them "objective" in a metaphysical (abstract) sense so as to give such values the quality of wisdom/truth (Wisdom = knowledge that remains true/correct over time) A metaphysical paradigm need not have "God" in it---but it does need to have a narrative that explains human purpose and the meaning of our existence, one that will remain consistent over a very long period of time.
                          This is a clear example where in a discussion of NMN cannot be considered alone. Both siam and seer, and others will also likely argue, are proposing the necessity of the existence of an 'outside objective authority (God) for humanity to be moral and ethical. The comparison between option #1 and option #2 cannot be avoided.

                          Siam argues here that the subjective nature of human moral and ethical decision making would lead to some kind of 'moral bankruptcy,' therefore an objective source outside the human condition is necessary. This goes to the root of the Theistic arguments for morality, which is highly flawed, because there is no feasible way to compare what our moral and ethical nature would be in a world with God, and a world with God. Morality and ethics have both subjective and objective attributes naturally. The problem of materialism and 'moral bankruptcy' versus altuism, unselfish motives, and compassion naturally exist in ALL human societies regardless of whether God exists or not. We do not have an atheist cold robotic materialist world devoid of altruism and unselfish compassion that we can compare to justify a world with the necessity of God.

                          here is a scenario of a society without a metaphysical paradigm:-
                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbBv2ZGC2VI
                          This is an excellent series of lectures by Michael Sandel that addresses issues, tension and conflict between materialism versus altruism and human intrinsic values, but this does not present a scenario of a society without a metaphysical paradigm. ALL societies throughout history have experienced this conflict and tension between the extremes of human motivation. A natural (NMN) has demonstrated through the natural evolution of behavior that altruism and unselfish motivations do have survival value for social animal societies where money or hierarchal material and authority advantage cannot or does not buy everything. Primate societies and other intelligent animal societies show altruistic and unselfish behaviors that are of survival value for cooperation and social order necessary for their survival.
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-13-2017, 07:50 AM.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            This is a clear example where in a discussion of NMN cannot be considered alone. Both siam and seer, and others will also likely argue, are proposing the necessity of the existence of an 'outside objective authority (God) for humanity to be moral and ethical. The comparison between option #1 and option #2 cannot be avoided.

                            That is not what I have argued. What I have argued that if there are not universal moral truths and a universal authority to enforce moral law then we live in an unjust universe where ethics are culturally relative. And even if Matt's objective moral duties and values do exist there is no enforcement mechanism, no mechanism that would differ from what we have without acknowledgment of these objective moral duties. So in the end, a Stalin and a Mao murder millions and die a good old age - they win. Evil wins.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              But cultures have generally have considered rape evil without consideration to these objective standards. Of course many cultures did on religious grounds. Then I would have to ask, when did rape suddenly become objectively evil? I mean we find it in the animal kingdom even with higher primates - is it evil for them too? Or it's not because they just can't grasp the concepts?
                              I think to further your point, there are plenty of cultures that have not considered rape evil. Marital rape is perfectly legal in Saudi Arabia, while in the US it is considered horrific and unconscionable. In fact, here is a list of nations who do not find marital rape unlawful,


                              Afghanistan
                              Algeria
                              Bahrain
                              Bangladesh
                              Botswana
                              Brunei Darussalam
                              Central African Republic
                              China
                              Chad
                              Democratic Republic of Congo
                              Egypt
                              Eritrea
                              Ethiopia
                              Haiti
                              India
                              Indonesia
                              Iran
                              Iraq
                              Ivory Coast
                              Jordan
                              Kuwait
                              Laos
                              Lebanon
                              Libya
                              Malawi
                              Mali
                              Malaysia
                              Mongolia
                              Morocco
                              Myanmar
                              Nigeria
                              Oman
                              Palestinian territories
                              Saudi Arabia
                              Senegal
                              Singapore
                              South Sudan
                              Sri Lanka
                              Sudan
                              Syria
                              Tajikistan
                              Tanzania
                              Tunisia
                              United Arab Emirates
                              Uganda
                              Vietnam
                              Yemen
                              Zambia

                              Non-theistic moral realism can't account for why some cultures are fine with marital rape and why others are not, or who among the nations are right for holding one view on the subject versus another.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                              160 responses
                              508 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                              88 responses
                              354 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                              21 responses
                              133 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X