Originally posted by seer
View Post
You ask for a “higher standards” to prove the standard right. This is in vain if the standard cannot be proven right (like you claim) and completely unnecessary if it can be proven right. When the question is answered, the questioning stops. There is no problem about infinite regress, if one does not presuppose that no answer can be given.
The actual consequences if there is no moral reality
To claim that no objective standard exists or can be proven right, is to make a claim about moral reality in and of itself. It is to say that moral reality is of such a form that only opinions can exist about it. That would have to go for rape, murder, concentration camps and so on. No one is allowed to hold anything but an opinion about it. No truth can be stated, is the claim, which by the way (contradictory) is held to be true. The statement has rather far reaching consequences. We will simply have nothing to say to any extremist claiming they have the right to kill us. Or perhaps we can say “I believe in a God, and he may even exist, but I cannot prove it, but if he does, he thinks you are wrong. But anyway, this is a moral theory I have in my head, it does not have an independent existence. God may have, but I cannot prove it.”
From an existential point of view, it is impossible for any human being to hold consistently that all kinds of actions are equally good. You may call the above an appeal to emotion. That is in and of itself a claim. It might equally as well be founded in conscience, self reflection, basic ideas about fairness, empathy and the ability to reflect on the conditions of other people. These may not all be founded in a deep philosophical line of reasoning, but they are still a lot more than just emotions.
It would make it impossible to value or disvalue anything, and it would make it impossible to act. From a philosophical perspective we are bordering at contradiction if we claim that it is a truth about moral reality that no such reality exists. This is why your claim that I should “give up” and go for relativism (at least if it is in its most relative form) is so completely misunderstood. Those who reject moral theories often go straight ahead to claim that one should not teach these theories, because they are untrue and it is unfair to ask anyone to follow them. However, then they already hold ideas about what is preferable, and since it is not only that they do not want to promote them but also that I should not, they are making it a rather universal claim in and of itself.
No one decides
We are moving closer to an important truth following this. To ask “who decides” if a universal moral truth is true is to ask a contradictory question, since if it is universal, then no one decides. If it is universalizable it cannot by its very nature be subjective. So rather, the correct answer would be could it be universalised.
You make the claim: “And as far as I know moral truths only exist in, or are formulated, in minds - they have no independent existence.” Again we see a presupposition that what goes on in ethical thinking cannot be proven right. You claim any theory, and this includes your own (which you seem to forget), just goes on in the mind, and has no independent existence. How, then, can you make the claim that my theory is wrong, if no objective reality exists? You yourself, by doing so, make a statement about moral reality. And by the very same logic you can only claim that in your mind, God is the foundation of ethics, you cannot claim that statement has any independent existence or truth value. Unless you want to contradict yourself. So why should we even give it any serious consideration?
A misunderstanding of subjectivity
The goals of ethics may be subjective. If we go for science, which we can all agree is objective (or at least should be), the same would go for the goals behind scientific research. I have to have the aim to find out what the truth about a specific scientific matter is. I can then move on to find out, using scientific method, what the truth about it is. So my subjective goal is the reason for me finding anything instead of nothing, it determines the matter about which i obtain knowledge, but it does not determine what the truth of the matter is. If ethics concerns itself with a valid, universal and logical framework, then what is the difference? Seer's constant claim about everything being "subjective" seems to rely on a misunderstanding of the proces in which a subjective aim results in a logical and rational, fact based presentation.
The foundation of the categorical imperative is not that Kant or anyone else had a personal feeling for the principle. If that was it, it would have no philosophical value. The reason it has force is that it can be universalized. We could imagine a universe in which everyone followed the principle: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”
We could have everyone doing that at the same time. We could have everyone not killing at the same time. So no one needs to “decide” that it can be universalized. We could not have everyone killing, stealing or using force at the same time. That would simply not be possible. To claim that it is a universal truth that you can kill, is to claim that it is ok to kill you. And is it even killing then?
To simply claim you do not like killing, is a subjective statement. To realise the consequences it would have if everyone did so, and therefore to realise it cannot be universal, is a completely different matter. It is moving from a personal opinion of something that follows a line of reasoning that is rational, valid and universal. Which is why those who try to avoid it put themselves in a very bad position. So there is no need for a higher standard to determine whether some kinds of actions can be universalized while others cannot. It is easy to see.
So the specific approach in ethics may be subjective. However:
- Logic is not subjective
- Validity is not subjective
- The facts used in the line of reasoning are not subjective
- It is not subjective whether anything can be universal or not
So, your statement about a problem seems to include far more problems in and of itself.
Comment