A Critique on Objective Morality

[uwot]

He wouldn't get away with it in my country, mate.

He'd have to be careful here.

When we insult somebody downunder we do so openly and stand ready to cop whatever comes back at us as a consequence. If you fart in the elevator you should have the balls to brag about it.

Splendid people the Australians, but still enough fruitloops to let Tony Abbott run the ship for two years.

[Obvious Leo]

Splendid people the Australians, but still enough fruitloops to let Tony Abbott run the ship for two years.

Sad but true. I'm a widely travelled man, uwot, and alas I've discovered that fruitloops are generally quite evenly distributed across the human population. Luckily the god-folk here are such a vanishingly small minority that they can easily be laughed off indulgently as a quaint relic of a bygone era but we nevertheless still have plenty of cretins of the secular stripe.

[uwot]

I'm a widely travelled man, uwot, and alas I've discovered that fruitloops are generally quite evenly distributed across the human population.

It brings to mind Descartes' genius opening to the Discourse:
"Good sense is the most evenly shared thing in the world, for each of us thinks he is so well endowed with it that even those who are the hardest to please in all other respects are not in the habit of wanting more than they have."
Say what you like about his metaphysics; he nailed that one.

[Obvious Leo]

Say what you like about his metaphysics; he nailed that one.

As you know I lack a generosity of spirit when it comes to the metaphysics of Descarte but I agree with you in your assessment of this rather elegant comment. It even shows a degree of literary flair which is conspicuous by its absence in most of his other banal utterances.

[henry quirk]

Morality: the application of the big(ger) stick, or, the wise application of the small(er) stick.

Only real question in this thread: who holds the big(gest) stick?

[Gary Childress]

Morality: the application of the big(ger) stick, or, the wise application of the small(er) stick.

Only real question in this thread: who holds the big(gest) stick?

I would think that is the exact opposite of the definition of morality. But to each their own I suppose.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Morality: the application of the big(ger) stick, or, the wise application of the small(er) stick.

Only real question in this thread: who holds the big(gest) stick?

I would think that is the exact opposite of the definition of morality. But to each their own I suppose.

surely it's both. Just depends on whether or not you feel you are on the side of the powerful be they the majority or the minority.

[henry quirk]

Gary,

Seems to me the right and wrong of things is always determined by the holder of the big(ger) stick, or the wise or crafty holder of the small(er) stick.

Let's take God...

Let's say He exists and has definite ideas on how humans ought to live. Let's also say He shot His wad creating the universe, that is: He's powerless to enforce His notions, He can't punish me when I do wrong, not in the moment or down the road in an afterlife.

If God bears no stick, is impotent, then all His notions are just notions I can take or leave.

Even if God is perfect in understanding, and His assessments of what constitutes right and wrong are spot on, if He has no way to enforce those assessments, then any one can waggle the middle finger at Him and go about his or her immoral business.

Such folks only have to contend with other folks who, believing differently, may stand as obstacles.

This, then, is morality: conflict...winner take all.

[prof]

the prof seems more human-centric

Trixie
I need to correct an impression you have: my Ethics applies to all sentient beings. By "sentient" I mean "conscious."

All sentient animals have moral status, for they can suffer pain; and they may enjoy pleasure (for all I know.) A teacher at the online Khan Academy argues for this convincingly. See this video by Dr. Jeff Sebo of New York University:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smuhAjyRbw0

I have been a vegetarian (partly for the reason that I do not want any sentient animal to suffer) since I was 18 .... namely, for 68 years now. [To me, you are just a kid.] {I say that to make you feel young.}

[Dalek Prime]

the prof seems more human-centric

Trixie
I need to correct an impression you have: my Ethics applies to all sentient beings. By "sentient" I mean "conscious."

All sentient animals have moral status, for they can suffer pain; and they may enjoy pleasure (for all I know.) A teacher at the online Khan Academy argues for this convincingly. See this video by Dr. Jeff Sebo of New York University:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smuhAjyRbw0

I have been a vegetarian (partly for the reason that I do not want any sentient animal to suffer) since I was 18 .... namely, for 68 years now. [To me, you are just a kid.] {I say that to make you feel young.}

FYI, Trixie hasn't been here in over a year. And another FYI, people usually mention age differentials to belittle, and assert unwarranted authority, not to make people feel good.

[Immanuel Can]

Gary,

Seems to me the right and wrong of things is always determined by the holder of the big(ger) stick, or the wise or crafty holder of the small(er) stick.

Let's take God...

Let's say He exists and has definite ideas on how humans ought to live. Let's also say He shot His wad creating the universe, that is: He's powerless to enforce His notions, He can't punish me when I do wrong, not in the moment or down the road in an afterlife.

If God bears no stick, is impotent, then all His notions are just notions I can take or leave.

Even if God is perfect in understanding, and His assessments of what constitutes right and wrong are spot on, if He has no way to enforce those assessments, then any one can waggle the middle finger at Him and go about his or her immoral business.

Such folks only have to contend with other folks who, believing differently, may stand as obstacles.

This, then, is morality: conflict...winner take all.

That's the view taken by Nietzsche, Foucault, Lyotard and their sort. For them, "morality" actually conceals a "will to power," and so has its source in oppression, not in truthfulness. Against them are people like Kant, Rawls and Habermas, who think we need to ground morality in some universal principle -- but in the case of the latter two especially, in a secular universal principle like ""fairness" (Rawls) or "dynamics of communication" (Habermas). Over and against all those would be various "traditional" moralities, in which morality is seen as a product of universal truth expressed as divine revelation.

So that's the whole field. But if the "will to power" view is right, then Gary's rejoinder is right: there would then really no such thing as "morality." For "morality" is always about "oughts," that is, about what we "should" do. It's not a sociological description of merely what we are likely to do or inclined to do -- for if we are already inclined, then morality is not even being invoked. All we would need is a decision about what the individual wants, and that could be absolutely anything...even murder and mayhem.

Morality becomes contested only because what we want to do is often different from what we sense we should do.

[henry quirk]

Morality is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Morality is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell BAD.

No, wait, that's logic that tweets and smells bad.

Here ya go...

It is sayd there be a raunge of mountaynes in the Easte,
on one syde of the which certayn conducts are immorall, yet
on the other syde they are holden in good esteeme; wherebye
the mountayneer is much conveenyenced, for it is given to him
to goe downe eyther way and act as it shall suite his moode,
withouten offence. Gooke’s Meditations

[Hobbes' Choice]

Gary,

Seems to me the right and wrong of things is always determined by the holder of the big(ger) stick, or the wise or crafty holder of the small(er) stick.

Let's take God...

Let's say He exists and has definite ideas on how humans ought to live. Let's also say He shot His wad creating the universe, that is: He's powerless to enforce His notions, He can't punish me when I do wrong, not in the moment or down the road in an afterlife.

If God bears no stick, is impotent, then all His notions are just notions I can take or leave.

Even if God is perfect in understanding, and His assessments of what constitutes right and wrong are spot on, if He has no way to enforce those assessments, then any one can waggle the middle finger at Him and go about his or her immoral business.

Such folks only have to contend with other folks who, believing differently, may stand as obstacles.

This, then, is morality: conflict...winner take all.

That's the view taken by Nietzsche, Foucault, Lyotard and their sort. For them, "morality" actually conceals a "will to power," and so has its source in oppression, not in truthfulness. Against them are people like Kant, Rawls and Habermas, who think we need to ground morality in some universal principle.

There is an important distinction you miss. And that is that there is a difference between seeking a moral principle and thinking that one pre-exists human thought.
You are also in self contradiction in thinking that a concept such as "will to power' is not already a notion taken as a natural universal.
You really need to step outside your own prejudice for a few seconds because you are totally confused on this issue.

[Immanuel Can]

There is an important distinction you miss. And that is that there is a difference between seeking a moral principle and thinking that one pre-exists human thought.

Hi, Hobbes.

No, I didn't take a position on that. Please do not misunderstand. I was just summarizing the philosophical field, not trying to prove a view. The existence/non-existence of a truth to ground a view is an additional question, not part of the survey.

But as you raise the question yourself, maybe I can ask you how you settle it to your own satisfaction. In other words, if you know that your skepticism on that point is warranted, then how do you know that there is not a "moral principle that pre-exists human thought?" For I assume you would never make any such claim without reasons or evidence, correct?

You are also in self contradiction in thinking that a concept such as "will to power' is not already a notion taken as a natural universal.

I wasn't making that assumption, actually. But Nietzsche certainly was, as did Foucault and Lyotard; and I was merely repeating what they said -- not expressing belief in it myself.

However, you're quite right to point out that in so saying they were indulging in their own interpretation of facts, not responding to some well-grounded or necessary universal conclusion. Thus, contrary to Lyotard, they were not practicing "incredulity toward metanarratives" in respect to their own metanarrative.

Well spotted.

[Hobbes' Choice]

There is an important distinction you miss. And that is that there is a difference between seeking a moral principle and thinking that one pre-exists human thought.

Hi, Hobbes.

No, I didn't take a position on that. Please do not misunderstand. I was just summarizing the philosophical field, not trying to prove a view. The existence/non-existence of a truth to ground a view is an additional question, not part of the survey.

But as you raise the question yourself, maybe I can ask you how you settle it to your own satisfaction. In other words, if you know that your skepticism on that point is warranted, then how do you know that there is not a "moral principle that pre-exists human thought?" For I assume you would never make any such claim without reasons or evidence, correct?

.

That burden of proof is on those making the claim. Suffice it to say that without the human to note the moral law, what could possibly establish it? What could sustain it? And where would it come from? If it pre-existed us, then why can no one agree about what it might be?