Morality: A treatise.
0
So every once in awhile I like to make a long ass post about my current view of morality and meta ethics in response to how I've been vetting myself in the public forum(youtube, school, etc.). My last post about this particular topic appears to be...extremely old, and I can't seem to find it. But I know my original script and I'll add a spoiler containing my last post about morality(Which concerns why I feel theistic morality is dead, and why I feel morality itself has become a bit of a science).
Now then. An issue that seems to repeatedly come up when it comes to MY version of morality, that a subjective value and definition of morality can result in objectivity concerning 'oughtness' seems to be a point of contention among people that I present this with, and I'd like to address it.
This grows from an extreme loyalty to a misconception about David Hume.
Anyone who's been engaged in the conversation about morality has heard David Hume's Is/Ought gap. That methodological naturalism when applied to investigating the universe can tell us what IS the case about the universe, but it cannot tell us what ought be the case. A prescriptive normative fact cannot come from a descriptive fact, in essence.
However, while this is true, It should never be misconstrued that Hume was a complete subjectivist concerning morality. This gap was simply an observation on his part. There's nothing to indicate(and indeed his literature seems to indicate the opposite) that he didn't believe that normative facts can be derived from presumed moral value X.
This is where the point of contention generally stems. I'll address the main concerns here, and see if I can't satisfyingly address the problems people bring up.
1. "Presuming moral value X is still only your subjective preference and opinion."
My response to this is...so what?
Presuming a subjective value X does not negate the proposition that an objective ought Y can be derived from it. To say that the subjective value renders the entirety of any moral statement or action I can say or do subjective, is a fallacy of composition.
To illustrate this problem I'd like to draw an analogy to a jet and a jet engine.
For the purposes of this analogy the Jet will be the entirety of a philosophical meta ethic, and the jet engine will be the values that drive it, and the characteristic of 'flight' is objectivity. Now, a jet engine cannot fly, on its own. The fallacy being made, however, is extending this lack of ability to fly to the entirety of the jet.
To make the illustration a little more clear, I'll break down the structure of a moral statement, and explain where subjectivity and objectivity come into play:
If I value human life, I ought not murder.
^ subjective value ^ objective logical conclusion.
This brings me to the second contention with my view on morality.
2. "Well, why ought we value X? You can't objectively say what we ought value."
Certainly I can't tell you what you objectively ought to value. But I CAN make an appeal to a common need for society in creating at the very least, a basis for moral values. All societies require certain things to survive, for instance, so then these would be some things to value, in order to continue society, and the only people that would reject these values would be people who do not find survival, valuable.
You might then make the argument: "Then why should I value survival?" Well, I would argue that survival is objectively valuABLE, and that's all that's necessary to concede that you should value it. Because it's capable of being valued, and there's no valid reason to NOT value it. There are a million reasons to make concerns and values for yourself reflecting survival, biological or social. Take your pick: Familial, societal, emotional, desirable, ALL of the preceding contain a vast array of reasons to value survival. And there isn't a reason to NOT value it. And if one can find a reason, I would contend that they would need to explain why it is their reason for devaluing survival supersedes that of the reasons to value it.
TL;DR version
Moral values are subjective by definition, but this doesn't undermine the concept of objective morality in the slightest.
While I can't tell you why you objectively ought to value anything, I can give you a vast array of reasons why you should value some basic things societies need to value in order to survive, and if you're going to say that it's not enough, I would submit you'd be required to submit a valid and sound reason that supersedes all of mine to devalue survival if you're going to argue this point, otherwise it's moot.
Spoiler:
Now then. An issue that seems to repeatedly come up when it comes to MY version of morality, that a subjective value and definition of morality can result in objectivity concerning 'oughtness' seems to be a point of contention among people that I present this with, and I'd like to address it.
This grows from an extreme loyalty to a misconception about David Hume.
Anyone who's been engaged in the conversation about morality has heard David Hume's Is/Ought gap. That methodological naturalism when applied to investigating the universe can tell us what IS the case about the universe, but it cannot tell us what ought be the case. A prescriptive normative fact cannot come from a descriptive fact, in essence.
However, while this is true, It should never be misconstrued that Hume was a complete subjectivist concerning morality. This gap was simply an observation on his part. There's nothing to indicate(and indeed his literature seems to indicate the opposite) that he didn't believe that normative facts can be derived from presumed moral value X.
This is where the point of contention generally stems. I'll address the main concerns here, and see if I can't satisfyingly address the problems people bring up.
1. "Presuming moral value X is still only your subjective preference and opinion."
My response to this is...so what?
Presuming a subjective value X does not negate the proposition that an objective ought Y can be derived from it. To say that the subjective value renders the entirety of any moral statement or action I can say or do subjective, is a fallacy of composition.
To illustrate this problem I'd like to draw an analogy to a jet and a jet engine.
For the purposes of this analogy the Jet will be the entirety of a philosophical meta ethic, and the jet engine will be the values that drive it, and the characteristic of 'flight' is objectivity. Now, a jet engine cannot fly, on its own. The fallacy being made, however, is extending this lack of ability to fly to the entirety of the jet.
To make the illustration a little more clear, I'll break down the structure of a moral statement, and explain where subjectivity and objectivity come into play:
If I value human life, I ought not murder.
^ subjective value ^ objective logical conclusion.
This brings me to the second contention with my view on morality.
2. "Well, why ought we value X? You can't objectively say what we ought value."
Certainly I can't tell you what you objectively ought to value. But I CAN make an appeal to a common need for society in creating at the very least, a basis for moral values. All societies require certain things to survive, for instance, so then these would be some things to value, in order to continue society, and the only people that would reject these values would be people who do not find survival, valuable.
You might then make the argument: "Then why should I value survival?" Well, I would argue that survival is objectively valuABLE, and that's all that's necessary to concede that you should value it. Because it's capable of being valued, and there's no valid reason to NOT value it. There are a million reasons to make concerns and values for yourself reflecting survival, biological or social. Take your pick: Familial, societal, emotional, desirable, ALL of the preceding contain a vast array of reasons to value survival. And there isn't a reason to NOT value it. And if one can find a reason, I would contend that they would need to explain why it is their reason for devaluing survival supersedes that of the reasons to value it.
TL;DR version
Moral values are subjective by definition, but this doesn't undermine the concept of objective morality in the slightest.
While I can't tell you why you objectively ought to value anything, I can give you a vast array of reasons why you should value some basic things societies need to value in order to survive, and if you're going to say that it's not enough, I would submit you'd be required to submit a valid and sound reason that supersedes all of mine to devalue survival if you're going to argue this point, otherwise it's moot.
0
guammastermind671
Da RL Lurker at FAKKU
Anesthetize wrote...
Jesus fuck man, how many SD threads do you need.As much as he can type on his keyboard... x_x
But to get back to the matter at topic, I read most of what you said and you said about for "Well, why ought we value X? You can't objectively say what we ought value." I completely agree with what you said, but with one exception. When you said "NOT value it" I believe that you wrong on that part. My uncle who was living a pretty good life in Philippines, committed suicide. The police and my family wanted to know why he killed himself.They ruled everything from losing his wife to having no type of financial problems(guy knew how to run a business :P). My uncle stood for his values in life, which made me curious on why he killed himself. Between a week or two after he died, we found his journal in his house and found out his reason for suicide. He killed himself because he didn't care anymore. He said it in his journal, that he "doesn't value life anymore" and gives less of a "rat's ass" about it. So that lead me to my reason why I don't agree with that part of your discussion. People can choose if they want to kill themselves because they don't care anymore.
0
guammastermind671 wrote...
Anesthetize wrote...
Jesus fuck man, how many SD threads do you need.As much as he can type on his keyboard... x_x
But to get back to the matter at topic, I read most of what you said and you said about for "Well, why ought we value X? You can't objectively say what we ought value." I completely agree with what you said, but with one exception. When you said "NOT value it" I believe that you wrong on that part. My uncle who was living a pretty good life in Philippines, committed suicide. The police and my family wanted to know why he killed himself.They ruled everything from losing his wife to having no type of financial problems(guy knew how to run a business :P). My uncle stood for his values in life, which made me curious on why he killed himself. Between a week or two after he died, we found his journal in his house and found out his reason for suicide. He killed himself because he didn't care anymore. He said it in his journal, that he "doesn't value life anymore" and gives less of a "rat's ass" about it. So that lead me to my reason why I don't agree with that part of your discussion. People can choose if they want to kill themselves because they don't care anymore.
True they can. And there's one right that nobody can take away from you, the right to do with your own body what you wish(provided it doesn't hurt other people, like suicide bombers). However I'd like to say that usually, from my experience, those that all of a sudden stop caring about life, stop valuing life, or survival, tend to have some sort of chemical imbalance, or problem with their brain. Before allowing anyone to take their own lives(I would prefer they have a doctor do it, euthanasia is far more humane in my opinion) There should be a brain scan, a psychoanalysis, a prescription to some antidepressants for a short while, to make sure that this decision is made only after all alternatives are exhausted.
Years back there was a guy who, out of the blue, started molesting his 8 year old daughter. Not only that but he started stockpiling child porn and when he was arrested and taken to trial, EVERY Time a woman walked by his desk, he found himself uncontrollably wanting to have sex with them, and needing to be restrained. A CAT scan was run and they found that he had a tumor in his brain directly over the part of his brain that's responsible for controlling sexual urges. After removing the tumor, guess what happened? He stopped having these urges. Weeks later he informed the person responsible for keeping watch over him that he was beginning to feel the urges again. They performed a scan, sure enough ,the tumor wasn't completely gone, and it had grown back. They removed it again, and yet again, his urges miraculously disappeared.
This tells me that when someone all of a sudden changes their personality in a way that doesn't seem to make any sense, I think it's not unlikely that something MIGHT be physically wrong with their brain, or the chemicals controlling their emotions. These should be investigated.
Luke Piewalker wrote...
Lundi what school do you go to that evokes such thought in you?Penn State. They run a pretty good philosophy program.
0
guammastermind671
Da RL Lurker at FAKKU
[size=10]
As much as he can type on his keyboard... x_x
But to get back to the matter at topic, I read most of what you said and you said about for "Well, why ought we value X? You can't objectively say what we ought value." I completely agree with what you said, but with one exception. When you said "NOT value it" I believe that you wrong on that part. My uncle who was living a pretty good life in Philippines, committed suicide. The police and my family wanted to know why he killed himself.They ruled everything from losing his wife to having no type of financial problems(guy knew how to run a business :P). My uncle stood for his values in life, which made me curious on why he killed himself. Between a week or two after he died, we found his journal in his house and found out his reason for suicide. He killed himself because he didn't care anymore. He said it in his journal, that he "doesn't value life anymore" and gives less of a "rat's ass" about it. So that lead me to my reason why I don't agree with that part of your discussion. People can choose if they want to kill themselves because they don't care anymore.
True they can. And there's one right that nobody can take away from you, the right to do with your own body what you wish(provided it doesn't hurt other people, like suicide bombers). However I'd like to say that usually, from my experience, those that all of a sudden stop caring about life, stop valuing life, or survival, tend to have some sort of chemical imbalance, or problem with their brain. Before allowing anyone to take their own lives(I would prefer they have a doctor do it, euthanasia is far more humane in my opinion) There should be a brain scan, a psychoanalysis, a prescription to some antidepressants for a short while, to make sure that this decision is made only after all alternatives are exhausted.
Years back there was a guy who, out of the blue, started molesting his 8 year old daughter. Not only that but he started stockpiling child porn and when he was arrested and taken to trial, EVERY Time a woman walked by his desk, he found himself uncontrollably wanting to have sex with them, and needing to be restrained. A CAT scan was run and they found that he had a tumor in his brain directly over the part of his brain that's responsible for controlling sexual urges. After removing the tumor, guess what happened? He stopped having these urges. Weeks later he informed the person responsible for keeping watch over him that he was beginning to feel the urges again. They performed a scan, sure enough ,the tumor wasn't completely gone, and it had grown back. They removed it again, and yet again, his urges miraculously disappeared.
This tells me that when someone all of a sudden changes their personality in a way that doesn't seem to make any sense, I think it's not unlikely that something MIGHT be physically wrong with their brain, or the chemicals controlling their emotions. These should be investigated.
[/h]
Penn State. They run a pretty good philosophy program.
Ah I see what you getting at :)
BigLundi wrote...
guammastermind671 wrote...
Anesthetize wrote...
Jesus fuck man, how many SD threads do you need.As much as he can type on his keyboard... x_x
But to get back to the matter at topic, I read most of what you said and you said about for "Well, why ought we value X? You can't objectively say what we ought value." I completely agree with what you said, but with one exception. When you said "NOT value it" I believe that you wrong on that part. My uncle who was living a pretty good life in Philippines, committed suicide. The police and my family wanted to know why he killed himself.They ruled everything from losing his wife to having no type of financial problems(guy knew how to run a business :P). My uncle stood for his values in life, which made me curious on why he killed himself. Between a week or two after he died, we found his journal in his house and found out his reason for suicide. He killed himself because he didn't care anymore. He said it in his journal, that he "doesn't value life anymore" and gives less of a "rat's ass" about it. So that lead me to my reason why I don't agree with that part of your discussion. People can choose if they want to kill themselves because they don't care anymore.
True they can. And there's one right that nobody can take away from you, the right to do with your own body what you wish(provided it doesn't hurt other people, like suicide bombers). However I'd like to say that usually, from my experience, those that all of a sudden stop caring about life, stop valuing life, or survival, tend to have some sort of chemical imbalance, or problem with their brain. Before allowing anyone to take their own lives(I would prefer they have a doctor do it, euthanasia is far more humane in my opinion) There should be a brain scan, a psychoanalysis, a prescription to some antidepressants for a short while, to make sure that this decision is made only after all alternatives are exhausted.
Years back there was a guy who, out of the blue, started molesting his 8 year old daughter. Not only that but he started stockpiling child porn and when he was arrested and taken to trial, EVERY Time a woman walked by his desk, he found himself uncontrollably wanting to have sex with them, and needing to be restrained. A CAT scan was run and they found that he had a tumor in his brain directly over the part of his brain that's responsible for controlling sexual urges. After removing the tumor, guess what happened? He stopped having these urges. Weeks later he informed the person responsible for keeping watch over him that he was beginning to feel the urges again. They performed a scan, sure enough ,the tumor wasn't completely gone, and it had grown back. They removed it again, and yet again, his urges miraculously disappeared.
This tells me that when someone all of a sudden changes their personality in a way that doesn't seem to make any sense, I think it's not unlikely that something MIGHT be physically wrong with their brain, or the chemicals controlling their emotions. These should be investigated.
Luke Piewalker wrote...
Lundi what school do you go to that evokes such thought in you?Penn State. They run a pretty good philosophy program.
Ah I see what you getting at :)
