Philosophy Now Forum

My question was: what could make morality objective?

In effect, this means: what has to be the case for a moral assertion to be factually true?

Reflecting on the many interesting suggestions here, I think there's a simple problem: they all beg the question. For example:

Q Why is slavery wrong? A Because it destroys personal freedom. Q Why is it wrong to destroy personal freedom? A Because ... and so on.

Any justification for a moral judgement boils down to: 'Because X is morally right / wrong' - so the premise is used to justify itself - begging the question. And that was the point of my OP.

Peter, it's all about which theory of truth one subscribes to.

Belinda wrote: ↑Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:11 am The phrase "objective of morality" . I take it that RC Saunders and Skip intend by that phrase that morality is a necessary function of any society. Would RC and Skip please comment on morality as a necessary structural component of society.

I have, often.
Humans, as well as other high-cognitive social animals, have many and various needs, drives and emotions. These manifest differently by individual and by situation, so that they very often come into conflict with one another. Yet, mutual protection and trust are necessary to their survival, especially given their long maturing period, during which they need both physical security and a great deal of instruction in life-skills.

In order to ensure a peaceable and co-operative community, every individual must relinquish a degree of personal freedom and spontaneous self-expression, so as not to piss off the other members to the point of killing or banishing him. In a family or small clan, such orderly behaviour is generally enforced by the elders by direct reprimand of rambustious youth; by maturity, acceptable deportment becomes habit; it also becomes easier, once the hormones settle down and the individual understands the benefits of social approval.

Once the tribe grows beyond the ability of a few senior members to discipline, the rules of conduct need to be codified, so that all members know what's allowed and what isn't, without having to be supervised all the time. It must apply to all, be clear to all, and generally (if not unanimously) respected.
As the group grows - and especially if it incorporates non-related clans - that code becomes more complex (including rights, privileges, immunities, duties, obligations, etiquette and protocol) and requires a non-partisan enforcing agency. The law must be above any individual - even the chieftain. In humans, the way this has worked most effectively is to invoke an authority higher than any human: a god or ideal state or constitution or.

If the law is not consensual, not fairly and impartially enforced and not seen to be effective, it will be disregarded or overthrown. Anarchy or open rebellion are destructive to the community, so it's incumbent on the lawmakers to build in a degree of flexibility to accommodate changing circumstances, changing needs, changing attitudes. Thus: an amending formula and/or periodic plebiscite, and constant negotiation as to kinds and means and severity of enforcement.

Belinda

But since a moral assertion has no truth value, theory of truth is irrelevant. Unless I'm missing something.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jul 27, 2018 2:05 pm My question was: what could make morality objective?

In effect, this means: what has to be the case for a moral assertion to be factually true?

Reflecting on the many interesting suggestions here, I think there's a simple problem: they all beg the question. For example:

Q Why is slavery wrong? A Because it destroys personal freedom. Q Why is it wrong to destroy personal freedom? A Because ... and so on.

Any justification for a moral judgement boils down to: 'Because X is morally right / wrong' - so the premise is used to justify itself - begging the question. And that was the point of my OP.

You seem to ignore the most potent answers to your OP. Like shared humanity, that sane (and intelligent) people have actually the ability to care for one another and legislate for it too. See my former input as quote from I. Kant and his Kantian Ethics, The 2nd Critique.

So why is it wrong to destroy personal freedom? A Because sanity commands us to care for one another so that we can live as healthy and able people, thereby respecting the sanity or intelligence in other people as in one self. There is no problem of regression to bother with here!

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jul 27, 2018 2:43 pm Belinda

But since a moral assertion has no truth value, theory of truth is irrelevant. Unless I'm missing something.

What I had in mind, Peter, is consensus theory of truth (no objective morality)as opposed to correspondence theory of truth (possible objective morality).

However I am not an expert and would like the opportunity to discuss theories of truth.

Necromancer.

Your 'potent' answer fits the pattern I've pointed out precisely. Ask the question: why is X [this reason] morally good?

Belinda

I don't subscribe to any of the theories of truth I've come across - and certainly not the correspondence theory. I think all such theories (explanations) assume there's something that needs explaining - which is where metaphysical delusion begins.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 26, 2018 4:33 pm RCSaunders wrote:

It is not possible to know what is good for society until one knows what is good for the individuals that make up that society.

Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jul 26, 2018 4:33 pm Do you consider it possible that a human might be an individual without a society(read family, tribe, associates, colleagues, and so on) for any appreciable time and survive?

It has been done but I do not think most would choose to live an isolated life. I certainly wouldn't. I enjoy all the advantages of living within a society. But my principles are not determined by the fact I live in a society, but by the facts of reality of which a society is a very small part.

I enjoy society, but I don't need a society. A society is only a collection of individuals and what any society is, is determined by the individuals that make up that society. A society comprised primarily of immoral individuals will be an immoral society, but no individual within that society must support such a society, nor have his values determined by it.

Randy

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jul 27, 2018 3:11 pm Necromancer.

Your 'potent' answer fits the pattern I've pointed out precisely. Ask the question: why is X [this reason] morally good?

Why is X [this reason] morally good? ((Kantian) Ethical and Moral foundation by) Because it supports all people in terms of sanity, intelligence, health and ability! No infinite regression problem here as you should understand.

The template as answer sits below every discussion of "what is the right thing to do" to agree on. It is the foundation for the right thing to do.

Necromancer

Why is it morally good to 'support all people in terms of sanity, intelligence, health and ability'? As I said - begging the question.

Aristotle and Kant made the same mistake: failing to distinguish between a moral judgement and the reason(s) for making it.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jul 27, 2018 3:58 pm Necromancer

Why is it morally good to 'support all people in terms of sanity, intelligence, health and ability'? As I said - begging the question.

Aristotle and Kant made the same mistake: failing to distinguish between a moral judgement and the reason(s) for making it.

You seem to forget what ethics is all about: to describe what is good for people and what isn't. Morality is opposed to immorality.

If you can't accept what is to 'support all people in terms of sanity, intelligence, health and ability' and what isn't' then I'm afraid you're missing the entire picture of what ethics is about.

Necromancer

You seem not to understand what 'begging the question' means.

RCSaunders wrote:

A society is only a collection of individuals

It's not. A society is a collection of individuals organised so as to live cooperatively together.

You could not live without a society to supply each of your needs. True, you could be a hermit for a long time maybe years. However hermits depend on other to supply at the very least an environment in which the hermit can live without being eaten by wild beasts, killed by hostile men, or deprived of water.

Belinda

I didn't write 'a society is only a collection of individuals'. Please can you amend your post.