What is the basis for ethical realism and why is it important?

[superwolf]

Ethics are our theories on morals, and morals are what we should do. But why do we need ethics? The human being is a living organism, and we have to choose between life and death. Maintaining life depends on certain actions. It is the existence of life that gives rise to values, because it is only for living entities that things can be good or evil.

Values express our relationship to things that benefit or hurt a living organism. To say that something is of value for an organism, is to say that it maintains the life of an organism. For instance, when we say that water is valuable for a plant, we are saying that water supports the life of the plant, which is an undisputable fact.

Ethics therefore have a fundament in empiri. The sphere of values is therefore not separated logically from the sphere of facts. Normative considerations can therefore be derived from facts. Several specific sciences care about normative considerations. In medicine, for instance, prescribes those actions that should be carried out to maintain health. But for the decisions of the doctor to be vaild, they must be bassed on objective knowledge, facts about human nature though physiology, anatomi, etc. Ethics is therefore a normative science.

A normatiive consideration is to say that we must act in a certain way to obtain a given target. A doctor should do X if he wants to cure his patient. In the same way, ethics are theories about what we should do to obtain Y. We therefore have to find what this target is that we want to obtain. What should we value more than anything? If we don't know this, we get a problemm motivating actions, solving conflicts, something Immanuel Kant knew perfectly well.

Happiness is the ultimate goal. I have therefore proven that those actions that lead to less suffering and more happiness, relative to other choices, are the moral ones. Utilitarianism is true.

It is important to note that this is not only about the consequence of the action for the external environment, but also for the very person that acts. Ethical theories are therefore objective.

 

[Moridin]

Described above is a classic objectivist defense of ethical realism.

A nice, short article that describes this position is Sally and Cy: Morality in Action!. According to the definitions provided in that article, fact is something we know, value something we want to keep (and from the objectivist perspective, the functional equivalent to biological needs) and morality is simply that which we use to figure out how to fulfill our values using facts. Further details can be found in http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=4316 , for instance.

A free online book that presents a similar, and compatible perspective, is Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics by Stefan Molyneux.

 

[superwolf]

Morality exists and is unique, because those who would argue otherwise would either have to reject logic itself or to agree that they are ok with murder or theft.

 

[superwolf]

morality is simply that which we use to figure out how to fulfill our values using facts.

So if I value health, It's immoral to eat chocolate?

 

[DaveC426913]

So if I value health, It's immoral to eat chocolate?

If you value only health, at the exclusion of joy (or some similar quality of life that makes it worth being healthy).

 

[superwolf]

Isn't this rather a defence of moral relativism?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Morality exists and is unique, because those who would argue otherwise would either have to reject logic itself or to agree that they are ok with murder or theft.

I can say that I do not like murder and theft but at the same time reject that there is any universally intrinsic or empirically verifiable reason. I may simply say that it is through my subjective experience and perspective that I do not wish to see these things occur.

 

[superwolf]

How can you disagree after reading my post where I proved that moral realism is true?

 

[sylas]

How can you disagree after reading my post where I proved that moral realism is true?

I'm not totally sure whether you are being serious or not...

... but there's no proof in your post at all. It's a couple of assertions and some implicit assumptions.

For example. You assert: "Happiness is the ultimate goal." There's no argument given for this. You apparently take it as axiomatic.

There are also a whole pile of hidden assumptions in there as well, which make foolish the claim for "objectivity". Happiness for whom? Do you include animals in this? How is happiness defined? What is the happiness of a group? Do you maximize mean happiness? Or maximize the minimum level? What about transient happiness? Can happiness be negative, and if so, where's the zero point? For instance, is it good to kill someone who is alone and friendless and unhappy?

Many of these are good questions worth examining... but in my opinion the simplistic assumption that there's some objective measure (which is never EVER defined in a way that allows objective comparison of the happiness metric for different circumstances in general) is a sure fire way to go off the rails from the start.

Looking at the post just made me think of a recent article that some folks have been laughing about, in which someone tried to sounds all scientific and objective about prayer, with calculation of the optimal position and quantified claims for the percentage of "divine consciousness" that is absorbed or transmitted. See How Does Prayer Work. Your post strikes me as similarly futile in a claim for objectivity.

I'm not meaning to be offensive. Just explaining why, in my view, you don't have anything even remotely like a proof in this thread.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[superwolf]

I like honest replies, so don't worry, you didn't offend me.

Happiness is the ultimate goal. And happiness for everybody of course, not only one person. Which person should that be? Me? You? There's no reason to differentiate, therefore animals the happiness of animals counts as well.

And yes, it may be right to kill someone who is unhappy and friendless, if there's no hope that he will become happy.

If your opinion is that suffering is better than happiness for a living being (in essence all that I asserted), all I can say is "that's unbelievable". Happiness is better than suffering, and therefore it's wrong to expose ourselves and other beings to unnecessary suffering. Objectively.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

How can you disagree after reading my post where I proved that moral realism is true?

Because I disagree with that post aswell. There are no universal values. Values are subjective. One man may value a life over freedom while another may see no value in life without freedom. Different people possesses differing moral standards because they have differing values. Or would you presume to tell others what value they should place on things such as their own life and freedom?

 

[superwolf]

Universal values exist: happiness. Happiess is better than suffering for everyone.

If a man values freedom, it is because freedom it makes him happy. Therefore, it does not matter if people value different things, because it all boils down to happiness.

 

[JoeDawg]

Morality exists and is unique, because those who would argue otherwise would either have to reject logic itself or to agree that they are ok with murder or theft.

First, murder and theft are crimes by definition, while most people would agree murder and theft are wrong, they would not agree on what constitutes murder or theft.

Second, there is nothing logical about morality. Morality is simply a set of rules, or premises, and in human beings they are largely a result of emotion and instinct.

Defining a morality is good for social cohesion, but ideas about morality are just that, ideas. They have no more reality than a dream. You can't derive an ought from an is. No logic there at all, no matter how many logical back flips you do to try and justify... YOUR morality.

 

[JoeDawg]

Universal values exist: happiness.

Happiness is an empty word, it means something different to everyone.
Happiness is subjective and does not necessarily mean 'no pain'.
And freedom? Not everyone wants that either.
Universals are fantasies.

 

[OB 50]

Universal values exist: happiness. Happiess is better than suffering for everyone.

If a man values freedom, it is because freedom it makes him happy. Therefore, it does not matter if people value different things, because it all boils down to happiness.

Happiness is just the carrot on the stick. The things that make one person happy could spell horror and tragedy for everyone else. I'm sure Osama Bin Laden feels perfectly justified in carrying out his plans to make the world a better place in his eyes, and it makes him happy to see his plans carried out. The pursuit of happiness is not intrinsically a moral or ethical activity.

The key is whether one's personal approach to pursuing happiness aligns with and benefits the rest of society. If it doesn't then it's immoral.

 

[superwolf]

First, murder and theft are crimes by definition

You can't derive an ought from an is.

Crimes, so what? They are not wrong because they are crimes, they are wrong because they cause suffering.

Yes you can. If happiness is good, then we ought to strive to obtain it.

 

[superwolf]

Happiness is just the carrot on the stick. The things that make one person happy could spell horror and tragedy for everyone else. I'm sure Osama Bin Laden feels perfectly justified in carrying out his plans to make the world a better place in his eyes, and it makes him happy to see his plans carried out. The pursuit of happiness is not intrinsically a moral or ethical activity.

The key is whether one's personal approach to pursuing happiness aligns with and benefits the rest of society. If it doesn't then it's immoral.

So you agree that moral realism is true?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Universal values exist: happiness. Happiess is better than suffering for everyone.

If a man values freedom, it is because freedom it makes him happy. Therefore, it does not matter if people value different things, because it all boils down to happiness.

As already pointed out there are many versions of happiness and what makes one person happy may make another suffer. Discussing hapiness and suffering are a bit distracting though since it simplifies too much. It's rather easy to say that people value life over death or happiness over suffering. We can come up with either-ors all day. The real issue is just what value each person places on these individual things. What value does one ascribe to life, happiness, freedom, ect? Its different for everyone. Moral realism says that you can produce emperical objective analysis of any moral statement. This is true so long as all people hold the same value of life, the same value of freedom, the same value of happiness, the same value of science, the same value of art, the same value of everything. But they do not. So one must either ascribe universal values oneself, robbing people of the ability to determine their own freedom and happiness, or admit that moral realism breaks down.

 

[OB 50]

So you agree that moral realism is true?

Well, that depends on how you frame the question.

If you're asking whether there is some underlying intrinsic morality ingrained in the structure of the universe, then no.

Atoms don't possesses morality. Ants don't possesses morality. Only when you approach the level of human consciousness and social constructs does the question even begin to have meaning.

One person who is completely isolated from any other human contact is incapable of acting in a moral or immoral way. When one's actions have no effect outside one's own well-being, how can they be assigned a moral value? It is only through interpersonal relationships that morality comes into play.

Society defines morality. It takes at least two to tango. Within such a framework, morality is a very real thing.

 

[superwolf]

As already pointed out there are many versions of happiness and what makes one person happy may make another suffer.

one must either ascribe universal values oneself, robbing people of the ability to determine their own freedom and happiness, or admit that moral realism breaks down.

That each case must be treated differently doesn't make moral realism untrue. If x makes X happy and y makes Y happy, it is moral to give x to X and to give y to Y.

All I want to rob poeple of, is the ability to determine that they don't value happiness. Even if different things make people happy, everyone must value happiess. Happiness is valuable per definition, I dare say. Since happiness is valuable, we should try to obtain as much as possible of it.

 

[superwolf]

Well, that depends on how you frame the question.

If you're asking whether there is some underlying intrinsic morality ingrained in the structure of the universe, then no.

Atoms don't possesses morality. Ants don't possesses morality.

You agree that there exist economic truths? Economy deals with facts. Economy is science. Even if neither atoms nor ants possesses money.

 

[OB 50]

You agree that there exist economic truths? Economy deals with facts. Economy is science. Even if neither atoms nor ants possesses money.

Nope. Money and the economic system are merely agreed-upon human social constructs. No science involved at all. Within those constructs, there are consistent truths.

Sure, we can use the same math system used to describe nature when dealing with economic ideas, but that doesn't make them any more "real". We use math to play Dungeons and Dragons, but that doesn't make it real either.

 

[superwolf]

If moral realism isn't true, how can we convince people like Hitler that they are wrong to do what they do? Then they aren't...

 

[JoeDawg]

Crimes, so what? They are not wrong because they are crimes, they are wrong because they cause suffering.

A crime is something that is agreed, by a group, to be wrong. Pain is part of life. If you want to end suffering, end your life. A bullet to your head would end your pain, and unless you mess it up, it likely wouldn't involve much pain.

Yes you can. If happiness is good,

Feel free to define happiness at any time.
Then I'll tell you if I want it.

 

[OB 50]

If moral realism isn't true, how can we convince people like Hitler that they are wrong to do what they do? Then they aren't...

We do exactly what we did. We eliminate them and everything they stand for.

Society has various mechanisms for dealing with sociopaths. At the local and state level, these mechanisms were not sufficient to prevent someone like Hitler from coming to power and exerting his influence. However, once his actions and policies began to have global consequences, human society as a whole(minus his supporters) was compelled to act.

You can't convince people to be good. The only way is to encourage "good" people (people who's motivations contribute positively toward society), and discourage or eliminate "bad" people. People will either modify their behavior to contribute positively, or society will punish and possibly eliminate them.

That's why when someone like Bernie Madoff comes around, people are shocked. How did this happen? We expect society to weed these types of people out. That's why we always freak out and come up with a bunch of new laws every time something unexpected and tragic happens. It's like developing new antibodies to fight viruses.

 

[superwolf]

A crime is something that is agreed, by a group, to be wrong.

So you will argue that stoning women to death is OK in Iran, but not in America?

 

[superwolf]

Feel free to define happiness at any time.
Then I'll tell you if I want it.

feeling good.

 

[superwolf]

You can't convince people to be good. The only way is to encourage "good" people (people who's motivations contribute positively toward society), and discourage or eliminate "bad" people. People will either modify their behavior to contribute positively, or society will punish and possibly eliminate them.

How can you be good if morals are relative?

 

[WaveJumper]

So you will argue that stoning women to death is OK in Iran, but not in America?

This is a good reminder about our animal origin, though a lot of animals would be ashamed of us humans.

 

[JoeDawg]

So you will argue that stoning women to death is OK in Iran, but not in America?

No, I will argue its legal in Iran, and not in America.

What is OK, is completely subjective.
Which is why its legal in Iran and not in America.

 

[JoeDawg]

feeling good.

Junkies say that too.

 

[OB 50]

So you will argue that stoning women to death is OK in Iran, but not in America?

How can you be good if morals are relative?

You seem to use the word "relative" as if it means "arbitrary".

I am defining "good" as that which contributes to the betterment and health of society as a whole. Human society has many different levels, local, regional, global, etc. Within a certain subset of society, certain activities may be deemed acceptable, but it does not make them moral.

As you brought up before, Nazi Germany is a prime example of a case where acceptable behavior within a subgroup of people was deemed unacceptably immoral from the perspective of human society as a whole.

 

[superwolf]

Should we oppose it?

 

[OB 50]

Should we oppose what?

 

[superwolf]

I am defining "good" as that which contributes to the betterment and health of society as a whole.

Betterment is relative.

 

[superwolf]

Should we oppose what?

Stoning in Iran.

 

[JoeDawg]

Should we oppose it?

How do you intend to oppose it?

 

[OB 50]

Betterment is relative.

Not really. Every action taken by an individual either contributes to that society's ability to continue existing, or hampers it. The consequences may not be immediately obvious, but it's one or the other.

Stoning in Iran.

We should oppose it and make an effort to marginalize or eliminate those that endorse such a thing. There is no conceivable societal benefit to stoning or oppressing women. Personally, this is the kind of moral relativism I find disgusting. It is a symptom of an immoral society which will not be able to sustain itself if it continues to allow such things.

 

[JoeDawg]

Personally, this is the kind of moral relativism I find disgusting.

Not standing up for what you believe in is apathy, not relativism.

 

[OB 50]

Not standing up for what you believe in is apathy, not relativism.

Agreed. However, you have to resolve your stance on moral relativism before you can make a moral judgment on what it is you believe. If you think it's okay for women to be stoned in Iran because "that's acceptable in their culture", then you subscribe to moral relativism and it is not a violation of your beliefs.

I do not subscribe to that way of thinking, so I am merely apathetic.

 

[JoeDawg]

Agreed. However, you have to resolve your stance on moral relativism before you can make a moral judgment on what it is you believe.

Moral relativism and cultural relativism are not synonymous.
But both are descriptive, not proscriptive.

Understanding how one's own culture affects one's biases, and judgments helps anthropologists evaluate other cultures with the least amount of bias. Just like with any scientific experiment, outside contamination can ruin the observations we make. Cultural relativism really has nothing to do with whether one country chooses to invade another, except maybe that good reconnaissance also involves blending in and not affecting what you are trying to observe.

Moral relativism is simply an acknowledgment that there is no absolute/objective standard for morality. One must accept that the 'premises' that we rely on for ethical judgments are generally arbitrary. There is no 'right way'.

That said, once we accept certain premises, and decide to put value on consistency in behavior and such, we can certainly make decisions based on logic and/or instincts.

If you think it's okay for women to be stoned in Iran because "that's acceptable in their culture", then you subscribe to moral relativism and it is not a violation of your beliefs.

No. I acknowledge they have a different moral system than I do. I also put more value on mine. I just don't pretend mine is written in stone somewhere. I also put more value on mine, than on those shared by many Americans.

Being apathetic means you don't care what happens. Some moral relativists are apathetic to the plight of women in Iran. But its not a requirement. Some moral relativists put a high value on not interfering with other cultures. But its not a requirement. In fact, THAT'S the whole point. There are no requirements. It doesn't mean you can't build a straitjacket of moral rules to live by. You can do that too.

I value my own judgment on ethical issues, most people do. Right or wrong is little more than opinion. That said, I'm certainly willing to back up the ethical decisions I make, at least until someone convinces me to change my opinion.

 

[OB 50]

I get what you're saying, and I agree with you for the most part.

It's all about context. If we step back far enough, nothing really matters at all. Humans will be extinct one day, and nothing that anybody ever did will mean anything at all. The universe will die a slow heat death, and all is for naught.

However, while we're here and alive, we all have to play along within the context of our individual experience.

 

[JoeDawg]

I get what you're saying, and I agree with you for the most part.

It's all about context. If we step back far enough, nothing really matters at all. Humans will be extinct one day, and nothing that anybody ever did will mean anything at all. The universe will die a slow heat death, and all is for naught.

However, while we're here and alive, we all have to play along within the context of our individual experience.

Sounds about right.

 

[superwolf]

Not really. Every action taken by an individual either contributes to that society's ability to continue existing, or hampers it. The consequences may not be immediately obvious, but it's one or the other.

Why is existence better than non-existence?

 

[superwolf]

Agreed. However, you have to resolve your stance on moral relativism before you can make a moral judgment on what it is you believe.

Why "beliefs"? It's not a religion, is it? I reckon that intrinsic moral realities maybe don't exist, but does that mean that I have to be a moral relativist? Is there nothing in between the two extremes?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

That each case must be treated differently doesn't make moral realism untrue. If x makes X happy and y makes Y happy, it is moral to give x to X and to give y to Y.

All I want to rob poeple of, is the ability to determine that they don't value happiness. Even if different things make people happy, everyone must value happiess. Happiness is valuable per definition, I dare say. Since happiness is valuable, we should try to obtain as much as possible of it.

This is moral relativism. In moral realism, as I understand it, one must be able to make objective and empirically verifiable moral statements absent subjective opinion. If the factors in a proposition change value depending on the subjective opinion of individuals then no proposition will have a consistent moral outcome and is there for non-objective.

 

[JoeDawg]

I reckon that intrinsic moral realities maybe don't exist, but does that mean that I have to be a moral relativist?

Well, there are really two issues here.
First, is there an objective/absolute morality, and second, can I know, figure out, what it is?

If an absolute morality exists, we could simply be ignorant of what it is. In which case a god, with a couple of spare stone tablets, would come in handy.
If an objective morality exists, I need a system that provides some sort of conclusive way of identifying that standard.

I don't think gods exist, and I haven't seen a system able to derive an ought from an is.

Even if one, or the other, does exist though, if we are simply not privy to, or capable of, knowing it, then moral relativism is basically a fall back position, that acknowledges our ignorance.

The more affirmative relativism, denies the existence of any kind of standard. This seems an unreasonable and unnecessary step. If we can't get access to it, it might as well not exist, as far as we are concerned.

Morality seems quite distinctly a human issue, having to do with our ability to create abstractions from observation, nothing more. That's not a bad thing either in my mind. It gives us the freedom to decide how we will live.

 

[Moridin]

This is moral relativism. In moral realism, as I understand it, one must be able to make objective and empirically verifiable moral statements absent subjective opinion. If the factors in a proposition change value depending on the subjective opinion of individuals then no proposition will have a consistent moral outcome and is there for non-objective.

No, it is moral realism. Moral realism means that the validity of moral statements depend on reality, whereas moral relativism says morality is arbitrarily subjective.

 

[Moridin]

For example, theft is the simultaneous assertion and rejection of universal property rights, which cannot stand.

 

[Moridin]

Well, there are really two issues here.
First, is there an objective/absolute morality, and second, can I know, figure out, what it is?

If an absolute morality exists, we could simply be ignorant of what it is. In which case a god, with a couple of spare stone tablets, would come in handy.
If an objective morality exists, I need a system that provides some sort of conclusive way of identifying that standard.

I don't think gods exist, and I haven't seen a system able to derive an ought from an is.

Even if one, or the other, does exist though, if we are simply not privy to, or capable of, knowing it, then moral relativism is basically a fall back position, that acknowledges our ignorance.

The more affirmative relativism, denies the existence of any kind of standard. This seems an unreasonable and unnecessary step. If we can't get access to it, it might as well not exist, as far as we are concerned.

Morality seems quite distinctly a human issue, having to do with our ability to create abstractions from observation, nothing more. That's not a bad thing either in my mind. It gives us the freedom to decide how we will live.

Objective morality / moral realism is not moral absolutism and should not even be used in the same sentence :p. It is like confusing liberal Christianity with a satanic cult that eats babies. Moral realism is incompatible with god(s), since supernatural god(s) can arbitrarily change the facts of reality, thereby nullifying any empirical support.