Ana the Ist
Aggressively serene!
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
In the video below Peter Singer equates morality/ethics with mathematics, which is a concept that I'd never considered before. Most people probably agree that mathematics is objective.
Objective how?
Mathematics is a language.
It's true independent of our opinions about it.
Difficult to know what you mean by true here.
And I can see how it could be argued that morality is exactly the same.
I can see the argument as well.
In math the understanding that 1+1=2 doesn't instantaneously lead to an understanding of Pi, because although the latter is equally true, coming to understand that it's true is a complicated process.
Ok.
Perhaps the same is true with morality.
Or perhaps not.
As with mathematics, morality may be objectively true, but understanding why it's true may be just as complicated as understanding why Pi is true.
Argument of complexity.
I like to call these esoteric knowledge gambits.
You don't instantly go from understanding that math exists, to understanding trigonometry, and you don't instantly go from understanding that morality exists, to understanding that slavery is immoral.
Is there a proof that can in any way demonstrate slavery is indeed immoral?
Because the underlying logic of Mathematics is demonstrated through mathematical proofs.
Thus there may be an objective morality, but as with math we're still in the process of understanding it, and the fact that we may disagree about what's moral doesn't by necessity mean that morality is subjective.
Would that be a problem?
And in my opinion, having some God attempting to dictate to me what is and isn't moral will never be as gratifying as actually understanding why things are immoral without a need for that God.
I think that it’s difficult for most people to both understand and accept that truth may be entirely unsatisfactory to them. It exists independently of them, and as such, has absolutely no regard for their emotional satisfaction.
With that in mind, we can describe certain truths as "ugly" or "unsatisfactory" truths.....and other truths may be considered even dangerous to know.
It's entirely possible (since we aren't proving anything) that the truth of morality is in fact a dangerous one....so the satisfying lie that it is objectively true is a far more preferable lie in general.
Few things more pretentious than a philosopher of morality.
Upvote
0