Where is the Objective Morality?

[zippy2006]

Are you saying the people in these "objective morality" threads who cling to certain things being just-wrong are dumb? Thats what it sounds like.

As far as I can tell, what you are saying is, "But I don't want to talk about the positions of Kant or Anscombe. I would rather talk about the positions of people who give their opinion about what is right or wrong but then refuse to give any reason for that opinion." Yeah, people who don't give any reasons for their opinions--or at the very least those who are incapable of doing so and refuse upon request--are dumb. So if you want to look at the assertions of people without reasons then you want to talk to dumb people. And yeah, there are lots of dumb people on the internet.

That said, not all unlearned people are dumb. Some may give reasons that are not persuasive or communicable. "Because God told me that this is the proper rule of action." "Because this is the way I was raised and I trust my parents." Nevertheless, if you want to study ethics you should not seek out dumb or unlearned people. They will not further the conversation by way of communicable arguments.

 

[durangodawood]

....if you want to study ethics you should not seek out dumb or unlearned people. They will not further the conversation by way of communicable arguments.

But I am unlearned in these matters. I'm simply thinking this through as I go. Its nothing to be proud of. Its just where Im at. I do hope that I further the conversation by thoughtful - if unlearned - arguments.

I certainly welcome the thinking of the "elders", but all I really want is the thinking of discussion partners here. I agree we dont always get that.

 

[zippy2006]

I certainly welcome the thinking of the "elders", but all I really want is the thinking of discussion partners here. I agree we dont always get that.

True.

But I am unlearned in these matters. I'm simply thinking this through as I go. Its nothing to be proud of. Its just where Im at. I do hope that I further the conversation by thoughtful - if unlearned - arguments.

Okay, but I don't really understand your question in #457. I will look at it again:

There's still something missing. We've found an instrumental "ought" based on reasoning about what works to promote this or that goal. We've also found an imperative ought that reinforces a sense of duty.

What's missing is the ought that emerges from an action being wrong in itself. Where is "its just wrong" in this picture? People are very attached to it, but I cant find it. Can you?

"It's just wrong" as a way to avoid giving further explanation strikes me as a failure to provide a communicable reason for one's position. Nevertheless, most moral realists believe in per se malum acts (acts which are wrong in themselves). But there are usually still grounding reasons in duty, or natural law, or rational uprightness, or revelation, or empathy, or something else.

An example of an intrinsically evil act would be murder (or reneging on a promise, for that matter). An example of an act which is not intrinsically evil would be harming someone, which can be justly carried out for the sake of self defense, or punishment, etc.

 

[durangodawood]

...Nevertheless, most moral realists believe in per se malum acts (acts which are wrong in themselves)....

Thats what I'm hoping to get explained. I cant even get my head around the idea of "wrong" apart from an evaluating conscience. Wrong-in-itself? What?

 

[zippy2006]

Thats what I'm hoping to get explained. I cant even get my head around the idea of "wrong" apart from an evaluating conscience. Wrong-in-itself? What?

Something that is intrinsically evil is not something that is evil apart from evaluation consciences or moral agents. That would make no sense. The predication of "intrinsic evil" is the predication of an evaluating moral agent.

Generally speaking, something which is intrinsically evil is an act which is wrong in itself as opposed to an act which is wrong in light of it's end or circumstance. Above I gave the example of murder vs. harm. Here are some more examples:

1. Shooting a gun
2. Target practice at the shooting range
3. Target practice at the school playground
4. Murder with a gun

(1) is not intrinsically evil. It can be good or evil depending on the end or circumstances. (2) is not intrinsically evil or evil in any way. (3) is evil due to the circumstance of place, although neither shooting a gun nor target practice are intrinsically evil. (4) is intrinsically evil, for the act of murder is always evil regardless of ends or circumstances. Again, in (4) it is not the shooting of the gun, per se, that is evil. It is the shooting of a gun with the purpose of murder that is evil. The shooting of the gun is directed to an intrinsically evil end (murder), therefore the shooting of the gun becomes evil in this case.

 

[VirOptimus]

Something that is intrinsically evil is not something that is evil apart from evaluation consciences or moral agents. That would make no sense. The predication of "intrinsic evil" is the predication of an evaluating moral agent.

Generally speaking, something which is intrinsically evil is an act which is wrong in itself as opposed to an act which is wrong in light of it's end or circumstance. Above I gave the example of murder vs. harm. Here are some more examples:

1. Shooting a gun
2. Target practice at the shooting range
3. Target practice at the school playground
4. Murder with a gun

(1) is not intrinsically evil. It can be good or evil depending on the end or circumstances. (2) is not intrinsically evil or evil in any way. (3) is evil due to the circumstance of place, although neither shooting a gun nor target practice are intrinsically evil. (4) is intrinsically evil, for the act of murder is always evil regardless of ends or circumstances. Again, in (4) it is not the shooting of the gun, per se, that is evil. It is the shooting of a gun with the purpose of murder that is evil. The shooting of the gun is directed to an intrinsically evil end (murder), therefore the shooting of the gun becomes evil in this case.

”Evil” is a religious concept.

 

[zippy2006]

”Evil” is a religious concept.

Then all of the secular countries that will throw you in prison for murder must be covertly religious.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then all of the secular countries that will throw you in prison for murder must be covertly religious.

No, you may ”throw people in prison” without beliving in good/evil.

Every moral agent has a moral stance.

 

[durangodawood]

Then all of the secular countries that will throw you in prison for murder must be covertly religious.

"Evil" is a loaded word. If you just mean "considered morally wrong", then no need to bring in all the other baggage.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Of course murder is "intrinsically" evil, but that because we've defined murder as killing of which we don't approve. When you call something murder, you've told us something about yourself--what your judgement of the act is.

The act of killing isn't intrinsically evil; we've got to know the circumstances.

 

[zippy2006]

Of course murder is "intrinsically" evil, but that because we've defined murder as killing of which we don't approve. When you call something murder, you've told us something about yourself--what your judgement of the act is.

The act of killing isn't intrinsically evil; we've got to know the circumstances.

Sure, but murder is still intrinsically evil. Once you've determined that a murder has occurred, you simultaneously know that a wrong has been committed.

Murder is of course the sort of killing that we don't approve of, but that's because we don't approve of intrinsically evil acts. This is not circular. Murder has shop-worn definitions, legal and philosophical, which do not reduce to a fact of disapproval. Further, there are plenty of killings we might disapprove of that we would not call murder.

 

[VirOptimus]

Sure, but murder is still intrinsically evil. Once you've determined that a murder has occurred, you simultaneously know that a wrong has been committed.

Murder is of course the sort of killing that we don't approve of, but that's because we don't approve of intrinsically evil acts. This is not circular. Murder has shop-worn definitions, legal and philosophical, which do not reduce to a fact of disapproval.

Define ”evil”.

 

[durangodawood]

Something that is intrinsically evil is not something that is evil apart from evaluation consciences or moral agents. That would make no sense. The predication of "intrinsic evil" is the predication of an evaluating moral agent.

Generally speaking, something which is intrinsically evil is an act which is wrong in itself as opposed to an act which is wrong in light of it's end or circumstance. Above I gave the example of murder vs. harm. Here are some more examples:

1. Shooting a gun
2. Target practice at the shooting range
3. Target practice at the school playground
4. Murder with a gun

(1) is not intrinsically evil. It can be good or evil depending on the end or circumstances. (2) is not intrinsically evil or evil in any way. (3) is evil due to the circumstance of place, although neither shooting a gun nor target practice are intrinsically evil. (4) is intrinsically evil, for the act of murder is always evil regardless of ends or circumstances. Again, in (4) it is not the shooting of the gun, per se, that is evil. It is the shooting of a gun with the purpose of murder that is evil. The shooting of the gun is directed to an intrinsically evil end (murder), therefore the shooting of the gun becomes evil in this case.

Ok I see where you are coming from a bit more.

But then "wrong in itself" or "intrinsically wrong" seem like incorrect turns of phrase because they can exclude an evaluating conscience from the picture. Phrases like that seem to invoke an objectivity thats not there. But really, the scenario must run through a judging mind to give us the output: "wrong".

The action of a person shooting another is objective. The label "wrong" is a judgement.

 

[zippy2006]

Define ”evil”.

"1. Morally bad" (Merriam-Webster - Essential Meaning)

 

[zippy2006]

But then "wrong in itself" or "intrinsically wrong" seem like incorrect turns of phrase because they can exclude an evaluating conscience from the picture. Phrases like that seem to invoke an objectivity thats not there.

How so? I am altogether unaware of such a usage, nor do I really understand your argument here.

The action of a person shooting another is objective. The label "wrong" is a judgement.

Concepts such as wrong and evil always involve rational judgment.

 

[durangodawood]

How so? I am altogether unaware of such a usage, nor do I really understand your argument here.

Concepts such as wrong and evil always involve rational judgment.

"Intrinsic" means belonging to the essential nature of a thing : occurring as a natural part of something. If that is so, then being "intrinsically wrong" requires no judging consciousness external to the act. But judgements require a judge. They dont exist in the thing or event itself.

 

[zippy2006]

"Intrinsic" means belonging to the essential nature of a thing : occurring as a natural part of something. If that is so, then being "intrinsically wrong" requires no judging consciousness external to the act. But judgements require a judge. They dont exist in the thing or event itself.

Okay, thank you for that.

I don't see why if something "belongs to the essential nature" of an act, then that belonging "requires no judging consciousness."

The idea is that the essence of the act is evil. The evaluative judgment is coming, proximately, from me. I am the one judging the act to be intrinsically evil. I am making a judgment that all acts of such-and-such a type are intrinsically evil. So there is a judge, namely me.

I think we've had a few different conversations about the possibility of an objective morality which does not require the existence of God, and I think we agreed that such a thing is possible. I gave an example of that here, but whatever particular moral system you wish to employ, "evil/wrong" can be assessed on the basis of moral norms rather than a per se judgment of an agent.

As an analogy in the sphere of artifice, plastic nails are an intrinsically bad means with which to join the frame of a house. Or, HTML is an intrinsically bad solution for elaborate web styles (which require, say, CSS). Would you say that these judgments also require a judge and yet claim not to?

 

[Astrid]

”Evil” is a religious concept.

Maybe we need a " secular" word. Ive had evil look in my eyes, and do,far worse.
What word do you propose.

 

[Astrid]

The act of killing isn't intrinsically evil; we've got to know the circumstances.

Theres someone I would have killed as many times as there were bullets.

If I had been able to.

 

[VirOptimus]

"1. Morally bad" (Merriam-Webster - Essential Meaning)

And who gets to define this "moraly bad"? Bad for whom? By what criteria?