Morality without Absolute Morality

[Fervent]

I'm well aware of the dictum that says the more we know the more that we realise that we don't know. But what we have learned in the first place should still be available. It's not like you're Homer and have to forget a bunch of stuff to learn something new. So what good is all that book learnin' if it means that you don't generate some opinions on matters such as objective morality?

Seems to me that you don't understand that dictum, because it's function certainly does call into question "past" knowledge...because what leads to the realization is just how tenuous even our most trustworthy sources of information are. So everything we think to be true at present is questionable whether we can call it knowledge, with ordinary skeptical challenges like Munchaussen's trilemma only being compounded by more recent skeptical insights like the existence of Gettier problems. The more we learn and challenge what we know, the more we realize that there isn't a single unimpeachable source to draw any knowledge from. Of course, I am not talking about ordinary truths like things that are immediately present to our perceptions but any attempt to make sense of such things. This goes doubly for moral questions, but its a challenge even for less judgment-laden issues.

Book learning, if we're reading books that challenge our perspective rather than simply shoring up our personal convictions, drives home the dependence we have on sources that can never be vetted to the point where we are fully informed without some questionable elements being adopted unknowingly. Especially when we come to appreciate just how deep deception and bias runs in the human psyche.

 

[Bradskii]

Seems to me that you don't understand that dictum, because it's function certainly does call into question "past" knowledge...because what leads to the realization is just how tenuous even our most trustworthy sources of information are. So everything we think to be true at present is questionable whether we can call it knowledge, with ordinary skeptical challenges like Munchaussen's trilemma only being compounded by more recent skeptical insights like the existence of Gettier problems. The more we learn and challenge what we know, the more we realize that there isn't a single unimpeachable source to draw any knowledge from. Of course, I am not talking about ordinary truths like things that are immediately present to our perceptions but any attempt to make sense of such things. This goes doubly for moral questions, but its a challenge even for less judgment-laden issues.

Book learning, if we're reading books that challenge our perspective rather than simply shoring up our personal convictions, drives home the dependence we have on sources that can never be vetted to the point where we are fully informed without some questionable elements being adopted unknowingly. Especially when we come to appreciate just how deep deception and bias runs in the human psyche.

I was paraphrasing Plato when he said "the more we know, the more we know we know nothing". I'd suggest that it means the more we know the greater the realisation of how little we know. And I agree that there isn't one source that we should use to find 'the truth'. Like, I dunno, religion for example...

As far as moral matters go there's an infinite amount of information to absorb and an infinite variety of moral conundrums to examine (surprised that the trolley problem hasn't raised it's head again). But...there's only one person who is going to disseminate all that existing knowledge and filter it and fine tune it and...reach a conclusion. It'll be us, individually. It'll be right or wrong as far as we are concerned at that time. I added that rider because it's implicit in almost everything I'd say: 'As far as I know at this point...'

That said, if you keep examining the same problem, such as morality, and you listen to umpteen arguments, then over time (and I'm talking decades) then if you keep heading in roughly the same direction approaching what appears to be the truth of the matter then at some point you have to say 'Well, I guess I have to make a stand on this now and commit to a position'.

 

[Fervent]

I was paraphrasing Plato when he said "the more we know, the more we know we know nothing". I'd suggest that it means the more we know the greater the realisation of how little we know. And I agree that there isn't one source that we should use to find 'the truth'. Like, I dunno, religion for example...

I'm aware of the source, but there's more to it than just realizing that what we know is but a drop in an ocean of ignorance. And its not just being focused on one source, though if there is a single trustworthy source it would be an omniscient God. But my point is that within our sources there are nested sources we haven't vetted, any of which may contain misinformation either by design or simply through proliferation of errors. We don't know where such errors may exist, and the lack of trustworthiness only gets compounded as we increase how many layers removed we are from the information. Maybe an expert we trusted trusted an expert they shouldn't have, maybe someone we think is an expert is really being deceptive in matters that we don't have the mastery to examine. We simply do not have the resources to vet information sufficiently on our own, and are at the mercy of others far more often than we tend to realize. We don't collect our own data, and self-reports from scientists about how often either they or one of their colleagues has fudged data should at the very least raise some eyebrows especially when we start getting into experiments that are far too costly to repeat with any kind of regularity. The more one engages in source criticism, the more the tenuous nature of collaborative knowledge becomes in every form. And only someone especially arrogant would believe they themselves have had the sheer luck to not be plagued with a host of erroneous beliefs to the point where they can claim to know anything with relative certainty.

As far as moral matters go there's an infinite amount of information to absorb and an infinite variety of moral conundrums to examine (surprised that the trolley problem hasn't raised it's head again). But...there's only one person who is going to disseminate all that existing knowledge and filter it and fine tune it and...reach a conclusion. It'll be us, individually. It'll be right or wrong as far as we are concerned at that time. I added that rider because it's implicit in almost everything I'd say: 'As far as I know at this point...'

May as well try to identify a specific grain of sand on the beach as the perfect grain of sand.

That said, if you keep examining the same problem, such as morality, and you listen to umpteen arguments, then over time (and I'm talking decades) then if you keep heading in roughly the same direction approaching what appears to be the truth of the matter then at some point you have to say 'Well, I guess I have to make a stand on this now and commit to a position'.

The issue with moral questions is they are not really a matter of knowledge at all, they're a value judgement. The only way it becomes subject to questions of knowledge is if we have an evaluator that is objective, and the question then becomes how well we know their values. If only human evaluators exist, then morals are more or less arbitrary.

 

[Hans Blaster]

His preferred pronoun is "He"; not "it".

I thought everyone was against "preferred pronouns". Did this spirit ever state a gender identity?

The Holy Spirit's gifts are given but one must accept the gift to actuate its effects.

Other gifts include knowledge, wisdom and understanding. The fruit of "joy" follows. The pagan Aristotle knew as much, "Now what is characteristic of any nature is that which is best for it and gives most joy. Such to man is the life according to reason, since it is that which makes him man."

Those aren't gifts. They are things that are earned with experience and effort.

For the Christian, nothing gives more joy than to use the Holy Spirit's gifts to defend our beliefs against the worldly non-believers. John 15:18.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm aware of the source, but there's more to it than just realizing that what we know is but a drop in an ocean of ignorance. And its not just being focused on one source, though if there is a single trustworthy source it would be an omniscient God.

My experience is that there are no gods. Let alone a God. I'm probably as certain about that as I am of anything.

But my point is that within our sources there are nested sources we haven't vetted, any of which may contain misinformation etc etc

There is no absolute certainty. I'm not absolutely certain that the earth is not flat. But keep adding 9's to my 99.9% certainty that it isn't and at some point you have to say: 'Well, there's no sensible way to argue that it is flat'. And you are as certain as I am. So I call bulldust on any claim that certainty must evaid us.

May as well try to identify a specific grain of sand on the beach as the perfect grain of sand.

Who is looking for perfection? It doesn't exist.

The issue with moral questions is they are not really a matter of knowledge at all, they're a value judgement.

It's a value judgement, yes. But based on knowledge. A moral decision is our personal position on an act that is defined by the facts pertaining to that act. You can say 'Well, defined on the assumption that the facts are correct' and I'll agree with you every time. We can agree on the facts but our personal decisions based on them may differ. It's always been thus.

The only way it becomes subject to questions of knowledge is if we have an evaluator that is objective, and the question then becomes how well we know their values. If only human evaluators exist, then morals are more or less arbitrary.

If there is an objective valuer then who decides whether the interpretation of that valuer's decision on a moral matter is the correct one? Should I spend my money tonight on a good meal for my wife and myself or should I raid the fridge for whatever is in there and send the money I saved to a charity? It's a moral decision. What does 'The Valuer' say? It's either yes or no. Objective morality is either right or wrong. There's no determination dependent on context.

Can you let me know? Else I'll be making the decision myself soon. My wife is keen to know if it's bread and cheese or the local Italian.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

The issue with moral questions is they are not really a matter of knowledge at all, they're a value judgement. The only way it becomes subject to questions of knowledge is if we have an evaluator that is objective, and the question then becomes how well we know their values. If only human evaluators exist, then morals are more or less arbitrary.

How does invoking a objective evaluator change anything? What is this characteristic of wrongness/rightness that they can help evaluate in a objective way? Even if non-human evaluators exist, morals seems to me to be subjective.

 

[Bradskii]

How does invoking a objective evaluator change anything? What is this characteristic of wrongness/rightness that they can help evaluate in a objective way?

They don't evaluate it. They declare it as it stands. 'X is wrong'. 'As it stands' is because objective morality cannot be relative to any context. The context is irrelevant by definition.

But even if the context was required, then:

a) the Objective Valuer would find it impossible to nominate all the infinite variations of circumstances relevant to any incident of X. And...

b) if the Objective Valuer does indeed include a circumstance then the morality of X becomes relative to that circumstance. Hence...not objective.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

They don't evaluate it. They declare it as it stands. 'X is wrong'. 'As it stands' is because objective morality cannot be relative to any context. The context is irrelevant by definition.

But even if the context was required, then:

a) the Objective Valuer would find it impossible to nominate all the infinite variations of circumstances relevant to any incident of X. And...

b) if the Objective Valuer does indeed include a circumstance then the morality of X becomes relative to that circumstance. Hence...not objective.

If they just declare it, the presumed objective evaluator just becomes another subjective evaluator. Which is how I view all those declaring moral objective truths/statements anyway. Let's see if they present an interesting argument for what difference a objective evaluator makes.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

@Bradskii I realise after reading @2PhiloVoid s direct assumption of Normative relative morality that we might have some different thinking about moral statements. I'm more of a non-cognitivist in that I don't feel that moral statements are truth-apt in any objective sense. I have more like moral feelings, when I see someone staeling candy from a kid I get irritated and if I'm close enough I get involved but I don't think it says much (if anything) about the act itself but rather about me. Perhaps it's most like an aesthetic judgement.

The moral relativists would say that the act is wrong given enough context. If I understand the difference well enough.

 

[o_mlly]

I thought everyone was against "preferred pronouns". Did this spirit ever state a gender identity?

Those aren't gifts. They are things that are earned with experience and effort.

You were given the seeds but they did not take. The only question to be answered is: When did you stop praying? Mat 13:3-9.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm more of a non-cognitivist in that I don't feel that moral statements are truth-apt in any objective sense.

I agree. But the argument against that is that surely some acts are so heinous that they must be objectively bad whatever the circumstances. My response is always to point out that the act must be defined by the circumstances. And is therefore relative to those specific circumstances. For example...

I have more like moral feelings, when I see someone staeling candy from a kid I get irritated...

So, is stealing morally wrong? Well, what are the circumstances? If someone is stealing candy from a kid, then those circumstances dictate that it is. It is morally wrong relative to those circumstances. If someone is stealing a gun from a man intent on shooting his wife then relative to those circumstances it would be morally correct.

The question might then be on what basis we make those decisions. Emotively? I'd say yes. But the emotions are hard wired into us. And we can rationalise why that is the case if you dig around into evolutionary psychology. In short, feeling that it's wrong when someone does something wrong is natural for almost all people because those that didn't think it was wrong were (mostly) excluded from society. Leaving us.

Put ridiculously simply, morality is a system that (generally) works. And that sounds too cold blooded for a lot of people to accept. But it's like me explaining the evolutionary, biological, sociological reasons why I happen to love my wife. It doesn't make it any less real.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

I agree. But the argument against that is that surely some acts are so heinous that they must be objectively bad whatever the circumstances. My response is always to point out that the act must be defined by the circumstances. And is therefore relative to those specific circumstances. For example...

So, is stealing morally wrong? Well, what are the circumstances? If someone is stealing candy from a kid, then those circumstances dictate that it is. It is morally wrong relative to those circumstances. If someone is stealing a gun from a man intent on shooting his wife then relative to those circumstances it would be morally correct.

The question might then be on what basis we make those decisions. Emotively? I'd say yes. But the emotions are hard wired into us. And we can rationalise why that is the case if you dig around into evolutionary psychology. In short, feeling that it's wrong when someone does something wrong is natural for almost all people because those that didn't think it was wrong were (mostly) excluded from society. Leaving us.

Put ridiculously simply, morality is a system that (generally) works. And that sounds too cold blooded for a lot of people to accept. But it's like me explaining the evolutionary, biological, sociological reasons why I happen to love my wife. It doesn't make it any less real.

Yes, there are probably some mirror neurons and some societal descriptions of the golden and silver rule influencing us. That seems to be enough to describe the moral sentiments of most.

 

[Fervent]

How does invoking a objective evaluator change anything? What is this characteristic of wrongness/rightness that they can help evaluate in a objective way? Even if non-human evaluators exist, morals seems to me to be subjective.

The objective evaluator knows the true telos of man, what his purpose is, and what the purpose of the cosmos is. It remains a value judgment, but it is not subjective because of the character of the evaluator and the knowledge that such an evaluator possesses that human beings have no way to access or deliberate.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

The objective evaluator knows the true telos of man, what his purpose is, and what the purpose of the cosmos is. It remains a value judgment, but it is not subjective because of the character of the evaluator and the knowledge that such an evaluator possesses that human beings have no way to access or deliberate.

Even if there is a true telos of man and the cosmos have a purpose (telos again?) why does it influence whether or not a something is moral?

Im' paraphrasing (to see if I understand you correctly) that to mean - acting in accordance with the true telos of man and the cosmos is a moral good, and the objective evaluator are able to identify when acts are in accordance with the true telos of man and the cosmos without fail -

To which the obvious question is why, it's not self-evident to me that telos and morality is connected at all.

 

[Fervent]

My experience is that there are no gods. Let alone a God. I'm probably as certain about that as I am of anything.

I'd love to see you demonstrate that. And by demonstrate I mean actually present an argument and not try to smuggle the assumption in to the default and demand to be proven wrong.

There is no absolute certainty. I'm not absolutely certain that the earth is not flat. But keep adding 9's to my 99.9% certainty that it isn't and at some point you have to say: 'Well, there's no sensible way to argue that it is flat'. And you are as certain as I am. So I call bulldust on any claim that certainty must evaid us.

Sure, but the issue isn't with any particular belief but all beliefs in the aggregate. There is no question about whether or not you hold high confidence beliefs that are flat out wrong, the only question is which ones those are. And we don't really have a good way of identifying them until we discover that they've been wrong the whole time.

Who is looking for perfection? It doesn't exist.

It's not a matter of perfection, it's any sense of real confidence in any particular belief. You have, without a doubt, believed misinformation on a variety of topics. What that misinformation is, what topics it applies to, and how it changes them is anyones guess. But what you believe you know is almost certainly riddled with false information.

It's a value judgement, yes. But based on knowledge. A moral decision is our personal position on an act that is defined by the facts pertaining to that act. You can say 'Well, defined on the assumption that the facts are correct' and I'll agree with you every time. We can agree on the facts but our personal decisions based on them may differ. It's always been thus.

Based on what knowledge? How do you get from statements about what is to statements about what ought to be?

If there is an objective valuer then who decides whether the interpretation of that valuer's decision on a moral matter is the correct one? Should I spend my money tonight on a good meal for my wife and myself or should I raid the fridge for whatever is in there and send the money I saved to a charity? It's a moral decision. What does 'The Valuer' say? It's either yes or no. Objective morality is either right or wrong. There's no determination dependent on context.

There may not be a shift in context, but objective morals don't have to be deontological in nature. It doesn't have to be an absolute unbendable rule, it very well can and does depend on factors like motives, current knowledge of the individual, and ultimate consequences. We, as human beings, are more often than not unable to determine the full scope of these things which is what makes morality such a swamp.

Can you let me know? Else I'll be making the decision myself soon. My wife is keen to know if it's bread and cheese or the local Italian.

If you had just purchased new shoes and clothes and came across a drowning child, would you keep walking to keep your shoes clean or jump in and save the child?

 

[Fervent]

Even if there is a true telos of man and the cosmos have a purpose (telos again?) why does it influence whether or not a something is moral+

Im' paraphrasing (to see if I understand you correctly) that to mean - acting in accordance with the true telos of man and the cosmos is a moral good, and the objective evaluator are able to identify when acts are in accordance with the true telos of man and the cosmos without fail -

To which the obvious question is why, it's not self-evident to me that telos and morality is connected at all.

The good of an object is in meeting its purpose. A hammer is a good hammer if it accomplishes the purpose of accurately driving nails. The good of man is in meeting his purpose, as is the good of the universe. If we could determine the purpose of these things, we could determine the good. But purpose depends on intent, which might only be known to a Creator.

 

[Bradskii]

The objective evaluator knows the true telos of man, what his purpose is, and what the purpose of the cosmos is. It remains a value judgment, but it is not subjective because of the character of the evaluator and the knowledge that such an evaluator possesses that human beings have no way to access or deliberate.

So if this 'evaluator' gives you information about the morality of an act and gives someone else contradictory information then how do I know who is correct?

 

[Fervent]

So if this 'evaluator' gives you information about the morality of an act and gives someone else contradictory information then how do I know who is correct?

Again, you seem to be conflating objective morality with deontological ethics. They are not the same thing, so the rightness or wrongness is not necessarily a matter of particular act. As for how we identify whose claimed revelation to trust, that's a tricky question but I'm going with the guy that I believe backed His claims of authority up by coming back from the dead.

 

[Bradskii]

I'd love to see you demonstrate that.

I don't need to. I just need to be convinced myself. Your beliefs are a matter for you. I'm not interested in questioning them.

Sure, but the issue isn't with any particular belief but all beliefs in the aggregate. There is no question about whether or not you hold high confidence beliefs that are flat out wrong, the only question is which ones those are. And we don't really have a good way of identifying them until we discover that they've been wrong the whole time.

That will apply to your beliefs as well. Whether you have high confidence in them is again up to you.

It's not a matter of perfection, it's any sense of real confidence in any particular belief. You have, without a doubt, believed misinformation on a variety of topics. What that misinformation is, what topics it applies to, and how it changes them is anyones guess. But what you believe you know is almost certainly riddled with false information.

Lots of things that I believed were wrong. But if you spend a lifetime checking the validity of your beliefs then you gain confidence in a lot of them.

Based on what knowledge? How do you get from statements about what is to statements about what ought to be?

I don't know why this is a problem. 'This act IS going to cause someone pain, therefore I OUGHT not to do it'.

There may not be a shift in context, but objective morals don't have to be deontological in nature. It doesn't have to be an absolute unbendable rule, it very well can and does depend on factors like motives, current knowledge of the individual, and ultimate consequences.

Then they are not objective. They are relative to the conditions you listed.

We, as human beings, are more often than not unable to determine the full scope of these things which is what makes morality such a swamp.

Indeed. Yet you want to declare morality to be objectively right or wrong even when we can't determine whether they are either.

You are making my case for me...

If you had just purchased new shoes and clothes and came across a drowning child, would you keep walking to keep your shoes clean or jump in and save the child?

No. But that wasn't the question was it. Should I stay in and donate or go out and spend my hard earned on myself? Which is the morally correct answer?

 

[Stopped_lurking]

The good of an object is in meeting its purpose.

No, the usefulness of an object is in meeting a purpose. I think you're using good differently when talking about moral good(s), and a good hammer (are bad hammers then immoral?) or this pasta is good (bad tasting pasta should be an objective moral failing though, jk).

A hammer is a good hammer if it accomplishes the purpose of accurately driving nails.

An object that can accurately drive nails is a useful hammer.

The good of man is in meeting his purpose, as is the good of the universe.

Someone that is promoting, acting or otherwise making some of kind goal more probable is a useful man in the working toward that goal. But even then I still don't feel like that makes that person more or less moral.

If we could determine the purpose of these things, we could determine the good. But purpose depends on intent, which might only be known to a Creator.

Why, even if there are a Creator there is no logical necessity for any purpose. And why couldn't the Creator not know the purpose a priori, even if there was one, maybe it is created in some process? Or why couldn't it be known to all if the Creator wills it and has the ability to make its will known? Basically, invoking a Creator does what for the argument?