Seasons

That it's not true that it's wrong to torture babies for fun, but that we have found it convenient to believe such things

Something to note is that throughout most of human history, it was perfectably acceptable to torture/kill/mutilate babies, children and anyone else not in your own social group. Sure, you weren't supposed to do that to children in your own group, but the "others" were different. They weren't part of your group. They probably weren't even human (according to the thinking at the time). From an absolute moral standpoint, this doesn't make sense. It makes perfect sense from an evolutionary standpoint, where ensuring that your own group survives to pass on its genes is paramount.

It was only much later, when people started realizing that other groups of people were, in fact, human, that we started thinking in "universal" terms, where the entire human race is the community where the standards apply. Yet there are still some who take the "us" and "them" approach. "Killing a [insert group here] isn't really murder; they're not human anyway."

Morals are certainly human constructs. For them to be objective, you would need a way to sit down and derive them from first principles, and a way to justify those first principles. There are people who try to use the bible as their first principle, and yet every group comes up with entirely different sets of morals, despite starting from the supposedly same "first principle". If morals were objective, they should all come up with similar, if not identical, moral systems.

Ulrike:

For them to be objective, you would need a way to sit down and derive them from first principles, and a way to justify those first principles.

And of course, that is impossible, for if you had a way to justify your 'first principles', they wouldn't be first principles any more. Hence a vicious infinite regress.

Two points abut this:

A. This would be an objection not only to moral knowledge, but to any kind of knowledge whatever. You could just as well challenge a physicist or a mathematician to justify their beliefs in terms of first principles, and then point out that the first principles couldn't be justified. Which leads to the secnd point:

B. The whole argument is based on an epistemological claim, which I will call the Foundation Principle: The only way we can know something is to justify it in terms of something else we already know.

The "already" rules out circular justifications. If the Foundation Principle is true, then, we can know nothing, for it clearly leads to an infinite regress, and we are finite beings.

So: we can conclude that we know nothing, but it would then follow that we don't know that the the Foundation Principle is true; and that sort of cuts out the ground from under the feet of any plausibility it might have.

Fortunately, we have another option: we can reject the Foundation Principle. That is what I would recommend, not only in Ethics but in other branches of knowledge as well.

I think everyone agrees that morality is a human construct. The issue is whether moral 'truths' are merely subjective.

Not all human constructs are alike. Physics is a construct which we have good reason to believe has discovered many objective truths about the world, or at least approximations thereto. A work of 'lite' escapist fantastic fiction is a construct is also a human construction, but one which we are entitled to believe contains far fewer objective truths about the world. The question is not whether Ethics is a human construct but whether it is more like fantastic fiction or more like Physics, or perhaps something else altogether.

If Ethics is merely subjective, then the process Ulrike describes, in message 4399, according to which people take a more universalist attitude, is not progress, but only change. Each person's Ethical beliefs are 'true for them,' and that is all you can say. For the same reason, individual changes in Ethical outlook are only change, not progress.

To me, however, the change Ulrike describes constitutes progress. And I don't see why any true Relativist would argue with me, since although it might be 'true for them' that it doesn't, it is evidently 'true for me' that it does. And since, according to the Relativist, there is no higher authority than the individual ego, there is nothing further to be said. The fact that Bev and Ulrike argue with me suggests that they are not really relativists at all.

Objectivity does not mean that everyone agrees; it means that there is a truth to the matter. It means that if two people disagree, at most one of them can be completely right.

But in order for something to be objective, it must be based on an external truth or an accepted set of assumptions, definitions and principles. As Urlike pointed out about math, it's only true if you accept the first principals, or givens, and deduct everything else from there. Math can be absolutely true and complete given and acceptance of this primitives and postulates because there is no external reality to test it against. You must accept the rules to play the game. It is logic: when you have these assumptions and definitions you get these results. If you change a definition or a rule, you get different answer. Why? Because it exists as an idea and we can control every rule and every assumption. Nothing in math is created or invented (except perhaps the original assumptions)it can only be derived. This is probably why Einstein said, "s far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Science tries to gather new information about the world, and therefore, unlike math, is constantly testing and changing. Science can never prove something is absolutely rue or false; it can only say that given these circumstances, and under these conditions, we can expect these results. Science does organize information and through induction form hypothesis and theories, but those theories are not absolute and unchangeable. They have certain characteristics that make them more solid than a guess or a hunch, and they are useful for generating more hypotheses and for helping to make predictions. Theories can even give engineers a fairly good idea of how to apply certain principles and make things in the real world. Remember, one purpose of these constructs is to transcend our human limitations and try to connect to the real world.

Morality is a mental construct. It is based on subjective internal values, emotions, and beliefs. You can try to investigate an individuals morality as you would any extenral phenomena and gain some level of limited understanidng of that personal moral values. You could investigate groups of people and try to gain an even more limited understanding of that groups morals. Unlike in math, it is doubtful that you would ever get a group of people to agree on a full set of assumptions, definitions and rules so that an absolute morality could be derived. Even if you did, it wold become ethics, and not be something that existed as morality before you created it.

You can create a system of ethics or laws. You can say, if you accept these laws, we can expect these actions or see these consequences. As long as everyone agrees to abide by the rules you made up, you will get the desired results. All it takes for your certainty to shatter is for people to (a)stop following the rules or (b) hit a new situation where the rules simply do not apply. Any system of laws or ethics is a work in progress or it is a bad tool.

On the other hand, just because people create laws and they are a human concept does not mean they have no value. Just because we make something doesn't mean it's no good simply because it didn't exist before we made it or it may not exist when we leave. It's a tool, and should be judged on it's usefulness. There is no reason for laws to be uniform in every state or country, and the fact that they very, while indicating they are created and not based on one "universal law" external to human experience, does not mean we should not try to create laws we think are best or that laws have no meaning.

Irina,

I think we may not even agree on the definition of "ethics" and "morals" . To me, they are two different things. I have thought morals are personal beliefs and values that the person may or may not have given much thought to or may or may not fully articulate, but which color that person's judgments and actions. I have been thinking of morals as an individual's sense of "right" and "wrong". I think ethics are a system of rules or code of conduct based on certain shared moral principles, but they are usually articulated, debated, and expressed somehow in a way that others may examine them. A quick google search has shown me that there are many, like you, who used ethics and morals interchangeably and I must have created this distinction in my own head.

I will give you this then: internal values and personal sense of "right" and "wrong" are subjective. If ethics are systematic ad articulated, it is possible to create a set of "moral rules" which, if accepted, can have some level of external manifestation which you may see as objective. This objective existence is created and limited, and depends on human expression to exist. (unlike, say, the moon, which is there where we look at it or not).

I think you keep trying to label me (Marxist, relativist, a subscriber to the foundation principle) and then argue against the assumptions you see as inherent in the arguments associated in that label. You can try to categorizes my thoughts if you must, but I do not subscribe to all the additional arguments you say go with the ones I have made.

Here is a working summary of my thoughts on morality:

1) Although there is an objective reality (probably) human limitations make it impossible to fully know everything, and human physiology and psychology filters and interpret all stimulus received so that all I can ever know has some level of subjectiveness. It is not that all things are relative, so to speak, but that my understanding is limited, and the human experience is, by and large, subjective. Anything a human creates will have some level of subjectivity, though we may strive to be more objective.

2) People create things to help them explore, understand and make predictions about the outside world. Some of these tools are physical, like a hammer, and others are mental constructs, like math or language. The level of objectivity and relationship to certainty of any of these given tools is a matter of degree. We can only be sure of tools in so far as we can test them and use them. The tools exist because we made them.

3) Morality is a mental construct. Morals, defined as an individuals values and sense of right and wrong, are subjective. Ethics, a systematic code or morals, and rules may be derived by examining ones values and sense of what "should be". These are useful tools, but not universal and they are created rather than discovered.

4) In order for rules to be useful tools, they need to be able to be challenged, changed and improved. Rules exist for people and people do not exist for rules.

Though I did not say this before, I personally wold rather be guided by goals, principles, and relationships than by any set of rules, though at some point I do have some rules. There are cases where the ends do not justify the means, however, to me it seems more honest for me personally to say I try to cultivate love and the desire to end suffering, than to follow the rules. In the end, my outward actions may look the same as Irina's, but in my mind (where I live) I feel the creation and transformation of self. It's not that I strive to internalize the rules as a higher order. It's that I hope to go beyond them and create something meaningful, even if it is created from my subjective experience. Even if what I create is fragile and can be destroyed, even if it is only "true for me" and relative, the meaning I create and attempt to share is all I have.

It's a tool, and should be judged on it's usefulness.

And is usefulness also something that is merely subjective?

Prob, I apologized to you because you have expressed religios beliefs in earlier posts which lead me to infer you believe in a personal god and I didn't say that people created a personal god to offend you, it just wen along with what I was saying about mental constructs and their uses.

And is usefulness also something that is merely subjective?

Yep. To a degree. Pretty much all human experience is subjective, and all human judgment involves some subjectivity. That doesn't mean there isn't an objective real world out there, it just means we, as humans, are subjective.

And I don't see why any true Relativist would argue with me, since although it might be 'true for them' that it doesn't, it is evidently 'true for me' that it does. And since, according to the Relativist, there is no higher authority than the individual ego, there is nothing further to be said. The fact that Bev and Ulrike argue with me suggests that they are not really relativists at all.

I don't think either Ulrike or I used that term. However, just because one may recognize that things exists on a continuum and are rarely "black and white", or that human experience is by it's nature subjective and may included personal truths does not mean that one has to accept every other personal truths as holding equal weight or will not strive to bring better understanding about what is known and try to push the limits of our knowledge. This may involve subjective judgment. So what?

I have these tools and constructs so that I may attempt to transcend my limitations, even if imperfectly, and connect however imperfectly with the outside world. One of the tools humans have is ethics and morality. "Objectively" which tools humans use has no effect on whether or not the moon is made of cheese or whether or not the Earth is flat. Our tools change only our understanding, and not facts about the outside reality. It is possible to turn around and study the tools themselves, but the mental constructs are such that the exist primary in our minds, and not in the outside reality in the way of the Earth or the Moon.

Our tools have various levels of objectivity depending on how they interact with the outside reality and how much control we have over the subject of the tool. Ironically a mental concept such as math is more objective in the abstract area of pure ideas, because that is where we have complete control and can be certain that these givens will get those results. Perhaps "Objective" and "real" and not always the same thing, unless you mean a virtual reality, and recognize those can be changed too.

I will assert my position, even though I have little hope of convincing you to change your mind about what is "true for you" and you think morality is and should be, because it is (a) what makes sense to me as I understand things and (b) part of my attempt to use the tools I have to connect to a "reality" outside myself. Furthermore, when it comes to morality, I think it is a good creation and I want to promote acceptance of morals I think are "good" even though I know I made up that label and my judgment is subjective. I may never change what is "true for you" but people do influence each other and I'm putting it out there for what it is worth. To be honest, I don't really do it for you. I do it for me. And because I am bored and stuck at home.

Oh and since I'm here...Foundation Principle: The only way we can know something is to justify it in terms of something else we already know.

The foundation principle applies to math, but not to science. They are two different tools. The only way to know something is math is to derive it from what is already known. That's how math works. It needs a priori knowledge, knowledge independent of reality. 2 + 2 = 4 because of how we define numbers, and the operation of addition and what it means to be equal. We do not go out and conduct experiments to see what 2 is and whether or not, in certain conditions, 2 will be more or less. We define 2 and go from there. Our knowledge of math is deductive and dependent on accepting the basic assumptions and definitions of math (the foundation principal, if you must).

Science (as used commonly to refer to biological and physical sciences) is a posteriori knowledge. That doesn't mean it pulls things out of it's butt (though that would be funny). It means it is dependent on experience. Anything dependent on experience is, by our nature, to a certain degree uncertain and possibly subject to change. Does this make science useless? Not in the least. It is the most useful tool for dealing with that which is outside ourselves because it gives us the means to understand and predict what will happen, even if we know our understanding is limited and a work in progress. The foundation principal does not apply to science. It is a different type of tool.

The foundation principal may apply to ethics once you get people to accept a certain set of ethical rules (good luck there). You would have to go by those rules and base all further knowledge/actions on those rules. The rules themselves are created, but once they are set, everything is logically derived from them regardless of experience. That's one reason why I dislike rules.

Maybe a smart ethical system is a sort of hybrid, like physics (only, unlike in physics, the assumptions you start out with are purely subjective and created by people in their minds). You start out with some basic knowledge or given rules, derive what you can from it, but also look into the facts and circumstances of each case and investigate new developments and adapt and change the rules as needed. This involves a lot of subjective judgment, but in sacrificing the certainty of a priori rules, you gain more access to reality--not the reality of ethics because we made them up and we can change them as we wish, but the reality of the outside word based on our experience.

Who makes those subjective judgments? I do. And you do. Doe that mean I have to accept that your subjective judgment is just as valid as mine? I think not.

Whether or not I can make you see things my way, I can choose to argue my way is better, for many reasons. For one, I think debate help us each to clarify and develop our ideas, and though we may all end up making subjective judgments, there is value in sharing and debating. Another reason is that eventually your beliefs effect your behavior, which effects others. When that happens, it concerns me.

We still share the same objective reality and effect each other, even if neither of us can truly obtain objectivity or complete understanding of that reality. Remember, I didn't say all truth is relative, just our understanding of it. Morality in particular is relative because each person makes it up and adapts it as the go along. It is not the understanding of morality that changes, it is the morality itself.

If I can convince more people to accept my version of morality, I think that there a will be less suffering, and more understanding, and that will benefit us all. I could be wrong. I do the best I can with what I have, and act even though I have imperfect knowledge and hope it will all work out in the end. I make my human judgments because I am human and try to share them with others because humanity effects me and because I care about humanity. That's why try to cultivate compassion and understanding rather than rules. That's my subjective moral judgment but I think it's a good one (according to my knowledge and experience) and I'm sticking to it.

Out of curiosity, Irina, is your belief in rules that exists outside of human subjectivity based on a religious belief? If you think there is a higher authority than each person's conscious, what would that authority be?

Likewise, if there were a reasonable chance of talking him out of it without killing any of the babies, I would go for that.

And who decides what is a "reasonable chance"?

You don't know he's actually serious unless you wait for him to kill one baby, or at least start torturing it. And until he actually kills it, you still don't know how serious.
Even if he does torture one to death, there is no way of knowing that he'll kill the others. Or that if you do kill one for him, he'll abide by the bargain.
The relative pleasure he would get from torturing babies versus torturing you by offering the bargain is always going to be unknowable. Even if you had his complete case history and a perfect knowledge of all his previous behaviour, he is a free agent, possessed of free will. Only his choice can determine what happense to any or all of the babies - the odds, are entirely unquantifiable (even without reference to the future lives of the babies.)

As I see it, the only choice that you actually have is whether you choose to commit evil yourself. I would certainly plead with him not to do it; I might try to overpower him, even knowing I couldn't stop him; I might pray for a miraculous intervention; I might try to goad him into killing me, or attempt to kill or incapacitate myself, and thus remove a source of pleasure from the equation (with no agonized witness to play mind games with, he might be less likely to bother with the babies.)

But I wouldn't kill a baby, let alone painfully, even if I believed he was going to torture them all to death, because my belief is only ever going to be founded on complete ignorance of the odds governing the relative utility of my actions. The only calculation I can be sure of is that if I commit an evil act, then there will be more evil at that point in time than there was before, and that its consequences will resound into the future. It might forestall a greater evil, or it might be just as likely to contribute to a greater evil - I have absolutely no way of knowing what constitutes a "reasonable chance".