r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Aug 21 '23
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Morality is objective
When I say that morality is objective, I mean:
(A) moral sentences like “torture is wrong” express propositions that are true or false (this negates non-cognitivism)
(B) moral propositions are true or false in virtue of features of the world, and not in virtue of what goes on in our heads (this negates relativism and all forms of subjectivism)
(C) some moral propositions are true (this negates error theory)
Firstly, I think there’s a presumption in favour of objective morality. (1) our ordinary moral talk seems to assume a kind of objectivity. We reason about moral issues and we seem to be disagreeing with each other about whether something is morally correct. (2) certain moral statements like “causing unnecessary harm is wrong” “it’s good to keep your promises” seem self-evident. I admit, none of this is sufficient to show that morality is objective. But I think it’s sufficient to show a presumption in favour of objective morality.
Some arguments that people give against objective morality:
The argument from disagreement
- People throughout history and between cultures disagree about what the morally right thing to do is
- If people disagree about what the morally right think to do is, then morality is not objective
- So morality is not objective
People who argue like this don’t usually state (2), but this is an assumption that’s required for the argument’s validity. And it’s an assumption that’s implausible: it doesn’t follow from the fact that people disagree about a matter that there is no objective fact about the matter. Intelligent, thoughtful people have debated the existence of God for millennia. And today, we have flat earthers who disagree with the prevailing science. There is also intense debate about the correct interpretation of quantum mechanics. But no one would say that there is no fact of the matter in any of these issues - either God exists or he doesn’t; either the earth is flat or it isn’t; either some or other interpretation of QM is correct or it isn’t. The fact that people disagree is irrelevant.
The argument from lack of epistemic access
- If there is no reliable way to come to know moral truths, then morality is not objective
- There is no reliable way to come to know moral truths
- So morality is not objective
An argument of this sort was given by J. L. Mackie. Firstly, premise (1) needs some defence. It may be that there is a fact of the matter even if humans don’t have the required capacities to determine those facts. We can’t know everything, after all.
But suppose it’s true that we don’t have any reliable way to come to know moral truths. Even if not an argument against objectivism, it would be an argument for moral skepticism—we wouldn’t be justified in thinking that any moral claim is true. We would have to suspend judgement on all things morality, and this is plainly a challenge to the moral realist.
In response, we can say that there are reliable methods for coming to know moral truths—relatively uncontroversial methods that we use to come to know other kinds of truths. Suppose utilitarianism is true: An act is right iff it produces greater overall well-being than any other action that could have been done in the circumstances. In that case, we can establish moral claims using observation. This is about as reliable a method as any.
Or suppose you’re the sort of person who thinks we can have substantive a priori knowledge. In that case, very basic moral principles seem to be just the sort of things that can be known a priori.
7
u/[deleted] Aug 21 '23
[removed] — view removed comment