To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?

[carpedm9587]

Depends on who they're coming from. A statement can be authoritarian without being a moral statement though. A moral statement can never not be authoritarian though.

I cannot accept that assertion. You'll have to make the case.

In that case it isn't a moral statement.

We may differ in our definition of "moral statement." My definition of a "moral statement" is one that clearly separates "good action" from "evil action," and provides guidance on how to live morally. So the statement, "It is not moral to wantonly kill" is, for me, a moral statement because it provides that guidance.

Perhaps you can share your definition of "moral statement?"

You're simply tacking on the word "morality" on a set of preferable behaviour that has nothing to do with morals in the first place.

So then our difference is apparently in the definition of the term "morals." I use this definition: "a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do." My definition of "being moral" is "conforming to a standard of right behavior." These are standard dictionary definitions. Perhaps you could offer the definition you are using?

I find, most of the time, differences are rooted in different uses of the same term.

I don't see the relevancy of this comment to our discussion.

I was drawing a parallel between the so-called "laws of physics" and the so-called "laws of morality." Both provide guidance for behavior, but neither is intrinsically authoritative. They are merely statements. They also differ in that physical "laws" are objective and measurable. Moral laws may be based on objective truths, but they are derived individually. They are internal and subjective, rather than external and objective.

[JonathanL]

I cannot accept that assertion. You'll have to make the case.

It's baked in to the very definition of what morality is.

We may differ in our definition of "moral statement." My definition of a "moral statement" is one that clearly separates "good action" from "evil action," and provides guidance on how to live morally. So the statement, "It is not moral to wantonly kill" is, for me, a moral statement because it provides that guidance.

Perhaps you can share your definition of "moral statement?"

It's pretty much the same as yours except that the "guidance" is authoritatively binding.

So then our difference is apparently in the definition of the term "morals." I use this definition: "a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do." My definition of "being moral" is "conforming to a standard of right behavior." These are standard dictionary definitions. Perhaps you could offer the definition you are using?

I find, most of the time, differences are rooted in different uses of the same term.

That definition seems fine to me, given that the term acceptable (in this instance used in the sense of "permissible") has the very sense of authority I'm arguing for built in.

I was drawing a parallel between the so-called "laws of physics" and the so-called "laws of morality." Both provide guidance for behavior, but neither is intrinsically authoritative. They are merely statements. They also differ in that physical "laws" are objective and measurable. Moral laws may be based on objective truths, but they are derived individually. They are internal and subjective, rather than external and objective.

Well, you're wrong about moral statements not being intrinsically authoritative. I'm not sure how they could be anything else. To me it seems like claiming otherwise would be equivalent to claiming that a rectangle could have more or less than 4 corners. Moral statements being authoritative is pretty much axiomatic.

And you haven't taken into account that moral laws can be internal (derived from God's nature) and still be objective (in the sense that it's obligatory for any sentient being below God's authority to follow them).

[carpedm9587]

It's baked in to the very definition of what morality is.

It's pretty much the same as yours except that the "guidance" is authoritatively binding.

I have reviewed the definition I use, which you say matches yours, and I do not see "authority" baked into it whatsoever. So this appears to me to be an assertion on your part, without substantiation. Can you provide a defense for the assertion?

That definition seems fine to me, given that the term acceptable (in this instance used in the sense of "permissible") has the very sense of authority I'm arguing for built in.

"Acceptable" and "permissible" are not the same word. Permissible is indeed an authoritative word, but that is not part of the definition we have apparently agreed to use. "Acceptable" in that definition means "able to be agreed upon" or "meets with approval." So if my moral code is "it is immoral to wantonly kill" and I choose to love by that moral code in a desire to be moral, then I will find my actions acceptable. I am the authority. If I live with a community and they share the same moral code, they too will find my actions "acceptable." That does not mean they have authority over me. They have authority over me only to the degree that I permit it. I am an independent, conscious, self-directed person.

Well, you're wrong about moral statements not being intrinsically authoritative. I'm not sure how they could be anything else. To me it seems like claiming otherwise would be equivalent to claiming that a rectangle could have more or less than 4 corners. Moral statements being authoritative is pretty much axiomatic.

Part of the definition of "rectangle" includes "four right angled corners," so to suggest otherwise is to attempt to change the definition of the word. There is no part of the definition of "moral" that requires an authority to establish the code. An authority is only required to enforce the code. Since I enforce my own moral code, I am that authority. I can cede that authority to someone else if I choose to, but unless I am compelled by force or drug or some other vehicle, that authority cannot be taken from me. If I am compelled - then I am no longer the moral actor.

And you haven't taken into account that moral laws can be internal (derived from God's nature) and still be objective (in the sense that it's obligatory for any sentient being below God's authority to follow them).

If you go back, Chrawnus, I think you will find I have been saying that morality is an internal construct right along, hence my position.

As for god, I am atheist, Chrawnus, so I do not believe a god exists and I cannot root my morality in such a being. Adrift and I are in a discussion about the moral nature of god in a separate thread. Suffice it to say I find the idea fairly problematic, which is one of the many reasons I'm atheist.

But even if there were a God and defined a moral code - it would simply be another moral code by another sentient being. God could compel me to adhere to the code (by virtue of his/her/its power), or punish me if I do not, but god cannot compel me to adopt that moral code. The moral code I adopt will be an internal choice, unless I willingly choose to adopt the moral code of this god, or any other person/group.

[JonathanL]

I have reviewed the definition I use, which you say matches yours, and I do not see "authority" baked into it whatsoever. So this appears to me to be an assertion on your part, without substantiation. Can you provide a defense for the assertion?

I'm not sure how to defend something which you take for axiomatic.

"Acceptable" and "permissible" are not the same word. Permissible is indeed an authoritative word, but that is not part of the definition we have apparently agreed to use. "Acceptable" in that definition means "able to be agreed upon" or "meets with approval." So if my moral code is "it is immoral to wantonly kill" and I choose to love by that moral code in a desire to be moral, then I will find my actions acceptable. I am the authority. If I live with a community and they share the same moral code, they too will find my actions "acceptable." That does not mean they have authority over me. They have authority over me only to the degree that I permit it. I am an independent, conscious, self-directed person.

You're obviously parsing the definition that you've put forward in a different way than I am. It doesn't make much sense to me at all to read the word "acceptable" in the definition in any other way than in the sense of something being "permissible".

Part of the definition of "rectangle" includes "four right angled corners," so to suggest otherwise is to attempt to change the definition of the word. There is no part of the definition of "moral" that requires an authority to establish the code. An authority is only required to enforce the code. Since I enforce my own moral code, I am that authority. I can cede that authority to someone else if I choose to, but unless I am compelled by force or drug or some other vehicle, that authority cannot be taken from me. If I am compelled - then I am no longer the moral actor.

Moral statements being authoritative doesn't mean that you cannot refrain assenting to them only that it is proper for you to assent to them. Or at least moral statements are asserted by the the person putting them forward to be statements to which you should assent. Unless that person is idiosyncratic in their definition of "moral" of course.

I am atheist, Chrawnus, so I do not believe a god exists and I cannot root my morality in such a being. Adrift and I are in a discussion about the moral nature of god in a separate thread. Suffice it to say I find the idea fairly problematic, which is one of the many reasons I'm atheist.

But even if there were a God and defined a moral code - it would simply be another moral code by another sentient being. God could compel me to adhere to the code, or punish me if I do not, but god cannot compel me to adopt that moral code. The moral code I adopt will be an internal choice, unless I willingly choose to adopt the moral code of this god, or any other person/group.

God's inability to compel you to adopt His moral code (unless he overrides your free will) doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it's authoritative or not, and neither does the fact that accepting it is an internal choice.

Again, moral statements are authoritative in that they are purported to be statements that it is proper or required to assent to, not that it's impossible to reject them.

[demi-conservative]

I'm not sure how to defend something which you take for axiomatic.

You're obviously parsing the definition that you've put forward in a different way than I am. It doesn't make much sense to me at all to read the word "acceptable" in the definition in any other way than in the sense of something being "permissible".

Standard procedure of emotivists.

Redefine all important moral terms, then pretend system of theirs is still one type of moral system, even though all important stuff has been redefined

[demi-conservative]

If you can assert it without argument, I can deny it without further argument.

Let me know when you can do grounding. Won't hold breath though!!!

How are Christians any better?

Thanks conceding atheists can't ground!! Now, Christians can.

How do Christians know what is right or wrong?

Not really relevant to current topic, but answer is: partly from Bible.

By the way, if you say the Bible, I will ask about Exodus 21:20-21.

Ask!

Who is more moral? The Christian who does right because he is convinced God is watching and he will suffer in the afterlife if he is not good? Or the atheist who does right because that is the right thing to do?

Again, doesn't seem relevant!! Though to me, since I am not Judge, what difference does it make???????...since they both do right thing?

[carpedm9587]

I'm not sure how to defend something which you take for axiomatic.

Actually, I DON'T take it for axiomatic. You appear to - but you also appear to be defining "moral" in a way that makes it fit what you want it to be. I'm simply trying to go with the conventional dictionary definition. You are free to define it any way you want, of course, but if we do not define the term the same way, we will not come to any agreement and that is the source of our disconnect.

You're obviously parsing the definition that you've put forward in a different way than I am. It doesn't make much sense to me at all to read the word "acceptable" in the definition in any other way than in the sense of something being "permissible".

I understand that is part of your definition, but the two words do not mean the same thing to me, and do not align in the dictionary either. The set of "permissible" things is wider than the set of "acceptable" things. That is because some actions may be permissible without being acceptable. For example, in our society, it is permissible to wear a T-Shirt with a Nazi slogan on it. We consider it permissible because we value free speech. But it would not be considered acceptable by most people (except other Nazis and white supremacists, of course). To permit or not permit is an act of authority. To accept or not accept is not. I'm not sure how else to explain it.

Moral statements being authoritative doesn't mean that you cannot refrain assenting to them only that it is proper for you to assent to them. Or at least moral statements are asserted by the the person putting them forward to be statements to which you should assent. Unless that person is idiosyncratic in their definition of "moral" of course.

But if someone else is telling me I "should" act a certain way, as measured by their moral code, they are attempting to exert authority over me, using their moral code as the measure. They do not have that authority unless I grant it to them. They are free to evaluate my actions according to their own internal moral code, and they are free to accept or not accept my actions as moral - they are even free to say I OUGHT to act in way X to be moral - but that is according to their moral code, not mine. Their moral code has no authority over me. They have no authority over me. Indeed, my moral code doesn't have authority over me. Only I have that.

God's inability to compel you to adopt His moral code (unless he overrides your free will) doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it's authoritative or not, and neither does the fact that accepting it is an internal choice.

I see no reason why the situation is any different for a hypothetical god than it is for my neighbor or my community. If there is a god, and this god has an internal moral code, it has no more authority over me than my neighbor's. I can choose to adopt that god's moral code. I can decide that this god is wiser, and more knowledgeable than I, and so it is likely their moral code is better than mine because it takes in factors I cannot see. But, as an independently sentient being, I have to relinquish authority for for someone else's moral code to override my own, setting aside being compelled, of course.

Again, moral statements are authoritative in that they are purported to be statements that it is proper or required to assent to, not that it's impossible to reject them.

That does not make them authoritative. At best it makes them informational. Perhaps we disagree on the definition of "authoritative?"

[carpedm9587]

Standard procedure of emotivists.

Redefine all important moral terms, then pretend system of theirs is still one type of moral system, even though all important stuff has been redefined

What on earth is an "emotivist?" And exactly which term did I redefine? The definitions I offered were right out of Merriam Webster.

[JonathanL]

Actually, I DON'T take it for axiomatic. You appear to - but you also appear to be defining "moral" in a way that makes it fit what you want it to be. I'm simply trying to go with the conventional dictionary definition. You are free to define it any way you want, of course, but if we do not define the term the same way, we will not come to any agreement and that is the source of our disconnect.

And I'm saying you're not going with the conventional dictionary definition, or at least you're not reading it correctly.

I understand that is part of your definition, but the two words do not mean the same thing to me, and do not align in the dictionary either. The set of "permissible" things is wider than the set of "acceptable" things. That is because some actions may be permissible without being acceptable. For example, in our society, it is permissible to wear a T-Shirt with a Nazi slogan on it. We consider it permissible because we value free speech. But it would not be considered acceptable by most people (except other Nazis and white supremacists, of course). To permit or not permit is an act of authority. To accept or not accept is not. I'm not sure how else to explain it.

The words permissible and acceptable do definitely align with each other in some contexts. In some cases two words can have pretty much the equivalent sense of meaning. Looking up allowable, permissible and acceptable in the online Oxford dictionary clearly shows that in some cases they're interchangeable. My assertion is that that is the case when it comes to the usage of "acceptable" in your definition of morals.

And just to give a non-moral example of when they align: "An acceptable chess move" and "A permissible chess move" are equivalent to each other.

But if someone else is telling me I "should" act a certain way, as measured by their moral code, they are attempting to exert authority over me, using their moral code as the measure. They do not have that authority unless I grant it to them. They are free to evaluate my actions according to their own internal moral code, and they are free to accept or not accept my actions as moral - they are even free to say I OUGHT to act in way X to be moral - but that is according to their moral code, not mine. Their moral code has no authority over me. They have no authority over me. Indeed, my moral code doesn't have authority over me. Only I have that.

Having authority isn't the same thing as exerting authority though. I'm not sure why you're so insistent on going on these tangents to be honest.

I see no reason why the situation is any different for a hypothetical god than it is for my neighbor or my community. If there is a god, and this god has an internal moral code, it has no more authority over me than my neighbor's. I can choose to adopt that god's moral code. I can decide that this god is wiser, and more knowledgeable than I, and so it is likely their moral code is better than mine because it takes in factors I cannot see. But, as an independently sentient being, I have to relinquish authority for for someone else's moral code to override my own, setting aside being compelled, of course.

Again, choice makes no difference to whether or not a statement is authoritative or not.

That does not make them authoritative. At best it makes them informational. Perhaps we disagree on the definition of "authoritative?"

You seem to be using a definition of "authoritative" that requires the party upon which the authority is imposed to accept that authority. I'm using "authoritative" to mean "demanding obedience" (but note that "demanding" isn't the same as "forcing").

[Adrift]

Adrift and I are in a discussion about the moral nature of god in a separate thread. Suffice it to say I find the idea fairly problematic, which is one of the many reasons I'm atheist.

Actually, I sort of gave up on that discussion because I couldn't really understand the disconnect. It seemed to me that the link I had offered sufficiently answered the questions you were raising (as far as I could understand them), but you didn't seem to find the answers very satisfying, so I sort of shrugged and decided that there wasn't much more I could offer.

[demi-conservative]

What on earth is an "emotivist?"

Playing dumb? Look it up!!

And exactly which term did I redefine? The definitions I offered were right out of Merriam Webster.

Again, playing dumb, trying to use dictionary like that for technical terms.

[seer]

I never said it did - you didn't ask that question. Moral codes are internal constructs, so they are subjective to the individual, or to the common community that holds them. Some moral codes are close to universal, so they are subjectively held by most of the species. I have no idea what an alien moral code would look like.

I believe that the common ground we as humans have in our moral codes is because we live in the same universe, and see the same a priori truths. Most people would see their own existence and happiness as an a priori good - and so have a moral code designed to achieve that. Most see the relational nature of humans and recognize the need to extend that code beyond the self, for the reasons I have cited. That basis is so widely held, these basic tenets have found their way into the basic moral codes of most religions, and have been woven into the legal structures of most countries.

Carpedm, I went to the alien thing for a reason. To show that your a priori assumptions do not logically lead to ethical truths or facts. Any more than those assumptions tell us whether it is ethical or unethical to kill or eat cows or dogs or cats...

[carpedm9587]

And I'm saying you're not going with the conventional dictionary definition, or at least you're not reading it correctly.

The words permissible and acceptable do definitely align with each other in some contexts. In some cases two words can have pretty much the equivalent sense of meaning. Looking up allowable, permissible and acceptable in the online Oxford dictionary clearly shows that in some cases they're interchangeable. My assertion is that that is the case when it comes to the usage of "acceptable" in your definition of morals.

And just to give a non-moral example of when they align: "An acceptable chess move" and "A permissible chess move" are equivalent to each other.

I am not going with an "unconventional" definition. I am going with the dictionary definition. But you have landed on the source of our disagreement in your comment above. Your point about the relationship between "acceptable" and "permissible" is a good one. Note, however, that it does not obviate mine, but simply shows a second way to look at it. You are using one sense, and I another. That does not make yours right and mine wrong or mine right and yours wrong. It simply means we are not going to agree because we are focusing on two different meanings of the language. I suggest we are likely doing that as a function of our worldviews. Yours makes little/no sense in my worldview, and mine (apparently) makes little/no sense in yours.

Having authority isn't the same thing as exerting authority though. I'm not sure why you're so insistent on going on these tangents to be honest.

Again, choice makes no difference to whether or not a statement is authoritative or not.

You seem to be using a definition of "authoritative" that requires the party upon which the authority is imposed to accept that authority. I'm using "authoritative" to mean "demanding obedience" (but note that "demanding" isn't the same as "forcing").

It is not clear to me how a discussion of how "authority" is derived is a tangent when the claim is that a moral statement is "intrinsically authoritative?"

So I return to the dictionary and I find "authoritative" means:

- having, marked by, or proceeding from authority;
- possessing recognized or evident authority

Because the second aligns with my interpretation (that authority must be recognized or be evident), I suspect your interpretation springs from the first - which hinges on the word "authority." So looking that up I find (numbered for ease of reference):

1 - power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior (the president's authority)
2 - freedom granted by one in authority (who gave you the authority to do that?) (odd that a definition would use the word IN the definition)
3 - persons in command (the general had authority over the troops)
4 - a governmental agency (the Transit authority")
5 - grounds, warrant ("the was sufficient authority to accept the claim")
6 - convincing force ("the actor's skill lent authority to the play")
7 - a citation used in defense or support (he used the Bible as his sole authority)
8 - a conclusive statement, such as an official decision of a court
9 - decision taken as a precedent (3) :testimony
10 - an individual cited or appealed to as an expert (the prosecutor called the psychiatrist as an authority on the subject).

The only one I can see here that even comes close to supporting your claim that a moral statement can be (or is?) intrinsically authoritative is 8) a conclusive statement. Because a moral statement is arrived at as the conclusion of a reasoning process, it can be called a "conclusive statement." Of course, if new information arises to cause me to re-examine my original lines of thought, the moral statement may change, but the new one will still be a "conclusive statement."

So if that is your meaning, then I have no problem with describe a moral statement as "authoritative" in this sense. In much the same way, the laws of physics are "authoritative." They are likewise conclusive statements that may change if new evidence emerges..

Somehow, I suspect that is not what you meant, but I'll leave you to clarify.

Chrawnus - one thing I want to note. I don't think we have encountered one another before. I enjoy a spirited debate because it exercises the mind, and helps me to sort out my thinking and to come to an understanding of how others think. I enjoy the back and forth in much the same way someone who enjoys fencing enjoys the back and forth (or tennis, racquetball, chess, etc.). Indeed, there is a sense of "sport" or "game" to it. But my wife tells me I can sometimes be TOO enthusiastic. She does NOT enjoy such discussions, so I am careful not to engage in them with her. But please know that I do not enter these discussions looking to provoke or to "crush" others. I simply enjoy the exchange. Yes, I enjoy "scoring a point," but I also enjoy learning something I had not considered before (e.g., your point above about permissible/acceptable).

However, if it begins to feel like a battle and it is not enjoyable for you, say the word and we can simply agree to end it, shake, and walk away.

[carpedm9587]

Actually, I sort of gave up on that discussion because I couldn't really understand the disconnect. It seemed to me that the link I had offered sufficiently answered the questions you were raising (as far as I could understand them), but you didn't seem to find the answers very satisfying, so I sort of shrugged and decided that there wasn't much more I could offer.

Understood. I'm still thinking through other ways to explain it. If I come up with something, I'll give it another shot. Until then - thanks for the exchange.

[carpedm9587]

Playing dumb? Look it up!!

Again, playing dumb, trying to use dictionary like that for technical terms.

Demi - I would respectfully suggest that you are making an assumption about me you cannot know to be true, and which was, in fact, untrue. I find no value in "playing dumb." It's pointless. However, I do plead guilty to being lazy - and I did ask you to define something I could/should have looked up for myself. "Emotivist" is apparently someone who proposes a model of ethics based on emotion. I have never heard that term before, so thanks for expanding my vocabulary. As I have not, in any place I know of, advocated an emotional basis for morality, I have to reject the term as not being applicable to me.

As for the rest of the claim, as far as I can tell, I am using words consistent with standard dictionary usage. If you know of a place I am not, by all means, present it. Until then, there does not appear to be much I can respond to.