Metaethics and Moral epistemology

Faith & Science Conversation
1

Hi Vinnie. I’m sorry of my comments are unclear and for not making a connection to my early notes in other threads. I appreciate the time you’ve taken to discuss your concerns. Thank you.

So,… years ago I had questions about morality which lead me to reading about metaethics (wikipedia) (philosophy encyclopedia) and other areas like moral epistemology, i.e. sources & derivation of morals). I can say that I was confused and ignorant about the topics and status of the many debates at the start. Now after dabbling in the area, reading synopsis and general works, I understand that my ignorance was fully justified and that there is even more stuff to not understand. The only advancement I think I accomplished is that I’m a little better versed on what I don’t know and where uncertainty remains. My general conclusion about the field(s) is that there is a lot of work to do. Particularly, I do not believe the problems of ‘grounding’ in moral systems or moral foundationalism, have achieved general consensus. For beliefs that we would hope should be a priori and demonstrably objective, I see shortcomings, as do many, many moral theorists. And I’m not at all comparing my amateur assessment to those who’ve spent years in the field: It’s just that it seems the professional field generally recognizes that success remains elusive.

This lack of success over many years (centuries?) does not mean that an a priori system that grounds moral beliefs will not be found or that this means that none exists. It just means there is work to do.

Anyway, do I condemn Hitler’s for his atrocities? Heck yes.
Do I believe I believe his acts were morally wrong? Yep.
Am I moral relativist? Nope.

I accept/own/abide by moral principles that I believe are universal, objective and pertain across the ages. There is just one issue: Acceptance of uncertainty. I cannot prove my principles are universal, objective and pertain across the ages. I will certainly apply them as if they are universal and apply across the ages but, using analytic tools, established philosophical reasoning, and facts about how the world is, I can’t articulate or demonstrate they are objective. And I think we’re all in the same boat, epistemologically speaking. There is a lot of work and many propositions or schools of thought directed at this problem. I do not think anyone has ‘stuck the landing’.

Aside: I have doubts that Nazis and the people who enabled genocide in WWII thought of themselves as moral subjectivists. I would bet many believed they had objectively solid reasons for doing what they did. The same for Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia and the crimes under Slobodan Milosevic in the Yugoslav wars. These don’t strike me as the sorts of things relativists would support. A take-home lesson is that beliefs in one’s objective truth can simply be wrong. The strength of belief is immaterial to the question. This should probably surprise no one.

Likewise for atrocities described in the Old Testament. And slavery. Now, I’ve heard a Rabbi say those events and policies were “indefensible and not something the God, I know in my heart, would ever sanction” (might not have been the exact words but the gist is the same). Instead, he said that he believed the people of that time and those who recorded those stories may have thought these acts were something God would accept, applying the local ‘standards’ among peoples of the time, but that they were, in fact, not something God would approve anytime or anywhere. He maintains they were incorrectly attributed to God’s will. To me, that is a logical and consistent application of a moral standard: Though these things are described in the Bible, ascribing those as sanctioned by God would have to have been an error. Contrast his position to the work of numerous others, a subset of theologians and apologists in the past and today, attempting to justify the genocide and slavery described in the Bible as being objectively moral at the time. I believe the Rabbi has it right.

So where does this leave us ignorant humans? Until we can proceed under the assurance of a rock-solid, first-principled, self-evident, moral calculus, I am hopeful that we can reach agreement on the basis of largely shared notions. Murder is wrong is a pretty good conclusion. The are areas like ‘personal freedom of action or thought’, and harm minimization, that we can likely work with. I don’t suspect we’ll be able to make a solid case based on first principles for outlawing liquor sales on Sundays, but we probably can muddle through on super-critical ones.

Basically, I believe there can be objective moral ‘truths’ but I’m agnostic on whether we’ll demonstrate them. Am I surprised at this? Not really. It is a tough nut to crack.

3 Likes
2

Fascinating thread, Argon. The topic comes up often enough. But I don’t remember a formal discussion of it before.

I like your point that what you have read has helped you grasp your lack of understanding. What a blessing to oneself - and the rest of the world - when one recognizes one’s limitations.

I particularly like your summary of your thoughts. This is something I have been thinking about for quite some time. I wonder if there are (any) objective moral truths, and if so on what basis are they objective. If there are such, I think then that there are at least two categories of moral truths, which include objective as well as culturally established ones.

This isn’t so easy to determine, though. The moral compass demonstrated in the OT, for example, is vastly different from ours. Even in the OT Law, given by God. Time and place make a huge difference in “moral codes.”

I hope that this will be a good discussion full of intelligence and insight. Rather than devolving into another session of mud slinging.

If @vulcanlogician , @MarkD, @Randy, @klw , @Paulm12 are available, I think they would be good additions to this discussion. Of course, @Klax would keep it lively, but he was banned. A shame. A great mind. He would have added a good deal about evolutionary psychology.

1 Like
3

Thank you, Argon and Kendel, for your thoughts–I was just thinking of Vinnie’s thoughts, and realizing how little I know about relativity and objectivity of morality. “Thou Shalt Not Kill” does not apply to the means of defending others from murderers–does it?

I think I should have taken some ethics classes in college, not to speak of philosophy!

4

Not in the Torah and not in most laws.

The ‘Thou shalt not kill’ is actually ‘Thou shalt not murder’ - the commandment uses such a word that is only used in contexts of evil-minded killing or the killing of murderers. The word is never (IIRC) used in the context of killing in ‘accepted’ wars.

In some ethical contexts, cost-benefit analyses are used to see what are acceptable behaviours. There are (imaginary) situations where killing a person may prevent the loss of many more lives or greater suffering.

Cost-benefit analyses may be interpreted subjectively, which can widen the scope of situations where killing is interpreted as the least bad option. We tend to give more weight to the lives of our dear ones or relatives, so killing ‘an enemy’ might seem as a smaller loss. That may make the border of (acceptable) killing and murder somewhat subjective.

2 Likes
5

Well, I’m somewhat familiar with Quaker opinions on the permissibility of taking life. Note that Quakerism has a form of anti-violent passivism which leads many to remain consciencious objectors in war. Note, under Quakerism it is for the individual to operate according to their conscience, so some may participate in military fighting. However, many more opt to engage nonviolently, participating in medical support services during the war or on draft boards to ensure other objectors are fairly considered. Many were front-line medics and ambulance drivers

Mennonites and Amish also share similar ideals about passivism and non-violence.

Mennonite and Quaker opposition to slavery was also some of the earliest and most consistent in the original American colonies. I’m fairly certain Quakers do not attempt to justify the genocide and slavery described in the Bible, rather, that these things were something God would condemn. I gather this is because they do not take a literalist and inerrantist view.

2 Likes
6

To muddy the waters further: Capital punishment? As a means of discouraging others, it seems badly cost-efficient. Personally, I think it is repugnant, not because of it’s physical cost but ethically.

1 Like
7

I think the main benefit of the field of philosophy is in clarifying what we don’t know and why we don’t know. For actually resolving many of the tough, perpetual questions it seems less successful. And that’s to be expected in human queries and tough problems. But it can be great at framing the questions and discussion.

2 Likes
8

Thanks, I appreciate this perspective. There is a book by Caryn Reeder, “The Enemy in the Household,” which examines the setting in which gluttony, etc, were considered capital sins back in the Old Testament. For example, because there was such a narrow margin between surviving and starving,those who lived and ate for themselves were considered dangerous to the survival of everyone.

I listened to the podcast with her on Onscript, but I’ve not read the book, thoughI did buy it. It makes me think and question my own moral understanding.

https://www.amazon.com/Enemy-Household-Family-Violence-Deuteronomy/dp/0801048281

1 Like
9

I think this subject has been discussed enough for me. There are dozens and dozens of responses in the other thread and my participation in the issue is at an end as I don’t like to argue in circles for hundreds of pages as some here seem fond of doing. I made my arguments. One last point:

I don’t find much of what you wrote objectionable, but it has nothing to do with my argument that materialism is inconsistent with objective morality. This is the mistake @Roy made in his his latest response in the other thread. He is addressing the wrong issue. But he also finally seemed to agree with my point in an earlier response.

That moral values are real and there are genuine oughts in the world is a separate issue of whether or not any particular person has unfettered access to “objective moral facts.” If there are actual rights and wrongs, whether we can exhaustively determine them or not, materialism which cannot ascribe intrinsic value and meaning to people, does not get us there. That was the only argument being made. Most people live and act as if moral values are real objective parts of the universe and there are actual rights and wrongs. If you want to deny this that is that person’s prerogative. All sorts of irrelevant problems were raised as counter examples to an argument they have nothing to do with. So let me say this plainly one last time, and I refer you and others to the other thread with much more information:

I have not said, I can prove objective morality exists, and that God is required for objective morality and therefore God exists. Nothing of the sort. Nor have I said the Bible or Christian teaching is demonstrably moral in an objective sense. Nor have I said you cannot behave morally if you are a materialist or atheists. I have gone through these red herrings over and over again in the other thread. Rather, I have said that materialism is inconsistent with objective morality. If someone wants to deny objective morality actually exists, as @T_aquaticus does, then that is fine. The argument can go no further. But if we do believe there is a real right and wrong or actual sin or evil, as I think most people do, then my statement applies and that science only materialism is inconsistent with it. As a worldview it can’t get us there. So if you have something to add that is new that seemingly shows this very simple and nuanced statement is wrong, I’ll happily share my thoughts in response or change my opinion. But I don’t think I’ve said anything that actually disagrees with most of what you wrote in here.

Vinnie

2 Likes
10

Some claim that these are completely subjective because what we want is definitely part of it. But to some degree I think this is a bit stupid because some of what we want is pretty universal, and there are assumptions in medicine and psychiatry about this as well. No science exists without any assumptions whatsoever. So I think it only reasonable to accept some premises in ethics as well and that makes for an objective component to morality. Completely objective? Absolutely not! The relevance of what we want goes far beyond the universal things. For example, the basic values of free society are essential to me and I will fight for them, but no they are not universal.

1 Like
11

Well, I am sympathetic to the idea that morality is an emergent phenomenon in collective human behavior. I think it can also apply to certain types of sentient beings. We can create hypothetical models that we think a theoretical moral system might adhere to, or one which we would prefer, but it remains possible that is something like a category error to frame it in those ways. (e.g. it could turn out that objective morality is a condition that doesn’t fit in end). But that is different from your discussion and I’m about out of free time as well after this current holiday.

12

I was ‘a consciencious objector’ in the sense that I refused to serve in the army. I struggled with these questions (both obeying God and killing) when I went to army and after a week of internal fighting, I refused to take a weapon. Luckily, the unit considered itself an elite unit of warriors, so after making some physical and mental testing, they helped me to fill all the bureaucracy needed to get rid of me.
[Serving in army was mandatory for Finnish men, being allowed to replace the armed service with a longer period of civil service demanded evaluation of the reasons for refusal and a special permit given after the evaluation committee concluded that the reasons were sufficient.]

Jehova’s Witnesses (JW) have had an even tighter interpretation about serving the country. They have not accepted even civil service as a replacement of military service. Instead, they have gone to jail for the duration of the mandatory service. That has been a problem as sending all male JW’s to jail just because they need to obey their leaders do not seem to be the best strategy. For some years, they were given repeated suspension until they left their organization or became too old for army but that practice was forbidden because it violated equal treatment of all citizens. I do not know if the JW’s have changed their policy so much that civil service would be acceptable.

Although I personally refused to take a weapon in the army, that does not affect my evaluations about what the scriptures teach or how the ethical cost-benefit analyses should be done. I learned later in life that the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ should be translated ‘Thou shalt not murder’, so that is what I tell today to those who ask.

1 Like
13

In EU, there is no capital punishment. The philosophy of punishments is different in EU than in USA, with the underlying hope that the convicted criminals, even killers, should be given an opportunity to be turned to law-abiding citizens. If that does not happen, then the alternative is lifetime prisonment, with a possibility to get an amnesty after the person has served xx years in prison and it is judged that he is not anymore a danger to others.

From the viewpoints of the Torah, capital punishment is an interesting case. There were no long-term prison sentences during those days. Punishments for killing were handled by tribal customs, the relatives of the killed one had a permission, even a social demand, to kill the killer (vendetta). An interesting detail is that the word for killing a killer was the same word that is used in the commandment ‘Thou shalt not murder’ - it was murdering the murderer. Some might even think that a socially accepted killing (capital punishment) was breaking the basic commandment given through Moses.

In Torah, some offenses resulted to being killed. In those cases, the key point was not in revenge or payment, it was in removing the unwanted actions from the congregation formed by the people. As there were no prison sentences, the simplest way to remove the unwanted actions was to set a warning - if you break these commandments, you will be removed from your tribe, permanently.

It should be noted that the rights of individuals were not the focus of these laws, the wellfare and fate of the community (tribe, family, congregation) was what mattered. It may be a bit difficult to understand if you have grown in a culture putting much weight on individual rights and freedom.

2 Likes
14

I’m against it for several reasons:

  • It’s not an effective deterrent, because most criminals who would be subject to it don’t consider or don’t care about the consequences of being caught;
  • it can be more expensive than permanent solitary imprisonment;
  • I don’t trust some politicians and judges not to misuse it;
  • there are a sufficient number of miscarriages of justice to guarantee it would be applied to innocent people;

but mostly because

  • it can’t be reversed and compensation given in such cases
2 Likes
15

This part of @knor’s post is an important example of the contextual nature of morality. The underlying focus of a culture’s decisions greatly affects the “moralness” of behaviors and how the culture deals with them.

2 Likes