Objective morals are authoritarian

[techboy]

I will admit to a need for a bit of authoritarianism in setting up assumptions upon which our democratic system is based, aka truths which we hold to be self evident.

You do realize that self-evident truths are objective, right? That's the foundation of the Natural Law the founding fathers were influenced by. For example, check this article by Dane Scott, Director of The Center for Ethics at the University of Montana-Missoula:

Natural law theory holds that there are moral laws somehow written into the fabric of existence. Humans do not create what is ultimately right or wrong, good or evil. Rather, we discover right or wrong, good or evil as objective Truths. Moral laws are different than physical laws. Physical laws cannot be disobeyed; they are simply general rules describing the way things behave based on our observations. Moral laws can be disobeyed; we do not discover them by observing the way things behave, as people frequently act contrary to moral law. The question, then, is how do we know or discover the moral law? Thomas Jefferson thought that the basic principles of moral law were self-evident. For example, he writes in the Declaration of Independence that “we hold these Truths to be self-evident….” In other words, we immediately recognize as objectively true “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” According to natural law theory, this is true for all people at all times in all places. The fact that people more often than not fail to pursue these truths, makes them no less true.

On this framework, objective moral values and duties exist, and it is up to us to do the "exploration" to find out what they are. Jefferson suggested that we know, because they are self-evident.

[alexey]

If it unchanging even in parts then it is at least in part an objective morality. i.e. pedophilia is wrong no matter what, that is objective, if there is no room for even a discussion or possibility of certain things becoming ,oral then you are dealing with an objective morality.

You are also employing authoritarian objectism in the rejection of certain behaviors as being even possibly moral even if consensus of a democratic process would say otherwise. Our point is that mob rule is a bad way to determine morality.

I think you are just using the term "objective" to describe things for which you want to have no room for discussion. That mechanism can be misused. Some people may say that gay marriage is wrong no matter what, part of objective morality, no room for discussion.

I would approach it this way. We make fundamental self-evident assumptions (e.g. life, liberty, pursuit of happiness), and so we can simply say that sexual exploitation of minors is an obvious and direct violation of these assumptions.

---------- Post added September-22nd-2012 at 09:26 PM ----------

You do realize that self-evident truths are objective, right?

...

All we know is that we decided to hold them.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I think you are just using the term "objective" to describe things for which you want to have no room for discussion. That mechanism can be misused. Some people may say that gay marriage is wrong no matter what, part of objective morality, no room for discussion.

I would approach it this way. We make fundamental self-evident assumptions (e.g. life, liberty, pursuit of happiness), and so we can simply say that sexual exploitation of minors is an obvious and direct violation of these assumptions.

But, in making those assumptions you are promoting authoritarianism and objective morality....the very things you say you're rejecting. There are certain things which are non-negotiable.

[techboy]

All we know is that we hold them.

The point is that if you appeal to self-evident truths, you are appealing to objective moral values and duties.

It's what has been pointed out to you over and over. You want the benefits of objective moral values and duties, but you don't want to bite the bullet and accept the implications that go with it, so you play games with language.

If anything's misleading...

[alexey]

But, in making those assumptions you are promoting authoritarianism and objective morality....the very things you say you're rejecting. There are certain things which are non-negotiable.

Authoritarianism, in a way, sure. People who disagree are out of luck.

Effectively non-negotiable, yes, but there are tons of good reasons for them and these reasons can be discussed.

I would not call it that objective or objective morality.

---------- Post added September-22nd-2012 at 09:31 PM ----------

The point is that if you appeal to self-evident truths, you are appealing to objective moral values and duties.

My answer is NO. This is not the case.

They could have written: "after doing some research we decided that these are pretty darn good principles to build a society around", and that would work just as well.

[techboy]

My answer is NO. This is not the case.

Then you are misusing "self-evident", and again trying to smuggle the force of objective moral values and duties into your position without accepting the price of admission, so to speak.

They could have written: "after doing some research we decided that these are pretty darn good principles to build a society around", and that would work just as well.

I suppose they could have, but they didn't, and that's not what they meant. Natural Law, the invocation of self-evident truths, is an appeal to objective moral values and duties.

[Destino]

Great points! When the rubber hits the road, we are not democratically determining what is right but what we should do... and I object to authoritarian morality because it is not open to exploration.

Of course it is. What exactly is stealing morally speaking? What kind of lying is acceptable if any and why? What kind of killing is acceptable? Objective morally is explored in practical application all the time. Life is infinitely complicated and given enough time even soe extremely unlikely situations will occur.

I think your issue is more concerned with who does the exploring. It certainly isn't done at the whims of the majority.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I would not call it that objective or objective morality.

I don't care if you call it "a can of buscuits" it is what it is.

[alexey]

Then you are misusing "self-evident", and again trying to smuggle the force of objective moral values and duties into your position without accepting the price of admission, so to speak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence

In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof.

---------- Post added September-22nd-2012 at 09:36 PM ----------

I don't care if you call it "a can of buscuits" it is what it is.

We can agree to disagree on that... and you have no way of knowing whether or not it is what you think it is.

[PeterMP]

All we know is that we decided to hold them.

And everybody that disagrees with you.....

?

---------- Post added September-22nd-2012 at 09:42 PM ----------

Of course it is. What exactly is stealing morally speaking? What kind of lying is acceptable if any and why? What kind of killing is acceptable? Objective morally is explored in practical application all the time. Life is infinitely complicated and given enough time even soe extremely unlikely situations will occur.

I think your issue is more concerned with who does the exploring. It certainly isn't done at the whims of the majority.

I don't know how many times I've seen threads on homosexual marriage go for pages here.

[techboy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence

First, your citation of that definition doesn't support your point. You advocate discussion and reasons, i.e. proof. Self-evidence, as you have helpfully pointed out, doesn't need this. People just know it.

More importantly, though, you are ignoring the historical context. Again,

Natural law theory holds that there are moral laws somehow written into the fabric of existence. Humans do not create what is ultimately right or wrong, good or evil. Rather, we discover right or wrong, good or evil as objective Truths. Moral laws are different than physical laws. Physical laws cannot be disobeyed; they are simply general rules describing the way things behave based on our observations. Moral laws can be disobeyed; we do not discover them by observing the way things behave, as people frequently act contrary to moral law. The question, then, is how do we know or discover the moral law? Thomas Jefferson thought that the basic principles of moral law were self-evident. For example, he writes in the Declaration of Independence that “we hold these Truths to be self-evident….” In other words, we immediately recognize as objectively true “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” According to natural law theory, this is true for all people at all times in all places. The fact that people more often than not fail to pursue these truths, makes them no less true.

I emphasized a few sentences to help.

[AsburySkinsFan]

We can agree to disagree on that... and you have no way of knowing whether or not it is what you think it is.

You want to make an appeal to an unchangeable external standard of morality (life liberty and the pursuit of happiness) and then you want to deny that you're making an argument for objective morality...and then you want to pretend it is a matter of agreeing to disagree?! You are free to disagree all you want, you're also free to be wrong.

[alexey]

...You advocate discussion and reasons, i.e. proof.

...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reason

1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event,

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proof

1.

evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

---------- Post added September-22nd-2012 at 09:49 PM ----------

You want to make an appeal to an unchangeable external standard of morality (life liberty and the pursuit of happiness) and then you want to deny that you're making an argument for objective morality...and then you want to pretend it is a matter of agreeing to disagree?! You are free to disagree all you want, you're also free to be wrong.

Saying that I hold some truths as self-evident is not making an appeal to an unchangeable external standard of morality.

[techboy]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reason

1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event,

Oh, I see. We need to provide reasons for and discuss our proposed morality, even though it's self-evident, and thus needs no discussion?

You're still ignoring the historical context anyway, you know.

I'll admit your approach is relatively novel. Redefine to victory!

[PeterMP]

Saying that I hold some truths as self-evident is not making an appeal to an unchangeable external standard of morality.

Unless you can explain why they are self-evident to you, and why you should be apply those that are self-evident to you onto others, it isn't really any different.

[alexey]

Oh, I see. We need to provide reasons for and discuss our proposed morality, even though it's self-evident, and thus needs no discussion?

You're still ignoring the historical context anyway, you know.

I'll admit your approach is relatively novel. Redefine to victory!

Saying that something is self-evident is providing a reason. There is a good reason why the "self-evident" reason should be used sparingly... once is good enough, actually, just to get things rolling.

Historical context is irrelevant. They could have thought that they were doing God's work by implementing his will. They could have thought that moon is made of cheese. Important part is that they took some principles and decided to hold them.

[brandymac27]

Morality, too, is simply a perspective for Nietzsche, particularly dependent on the person who creates the moral system. Throughout the history of philosophy are examples of philosophers trying to found some sort of objective morality. But, as Nietzsche points out, all these attempts at an objective morality are hopelessly subjective, dependent on the person, the time, and the dominant belief system.

Nietzsche thought that to even begin to approach questions of morality, the moral systems of different peoples in different times should be studied and compared. Moreover, Nietzsche felt that any ethical system could not be universalized, could not be put in laundry-list form. You cannot extract a set of rules from Socrates’ life that anyone can follow. The moral system of Nietzsche’s time sought to curb human emotion, to “fix” some sort of inherent flaw in human nature. But why take the passion out of life? Why see human beings as creatures in need of “fixing”?

http://www.neo-philosophy.com/Phil101Week16.html

[techboy]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reason

1. a basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event,

Oh, and just for fun, since we're quoting dictionary definitions as arguments now...

self-evident

Definition of SELF-EVIDENT

: evident without proof or reasoning

[alexey]

Unless you can explain why they are self-evident to you, and why you should be apply those that are self-evident to you onto others, it isn't really any different.

We do not know whether an unchangeable external standard of morality exist... but know that we can take things and hold them as self-evident.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Unless you can explain why they are self-evident to you, and why you should be apply those that are self-evident to you onto others, it isn't really any different.

Semantics

[alexey]

Oh, and just for fun, since we're quoting dictionary definitions as arguments now...

self-evident

Yeah looks like even though those truths can be discussed and reasoned about, they wanted to hold them above that as self-evident.

[PeterMP]

We know that self-evident things exist but we do not know whether unchangeable external standard of morality exist.

Really?

I missed learning that.

Are the samethings self-evident to everybody?

Or are things that are self-evident to you different than for me?

Because you don't seem to believe the things that are the most (and I wouldn't even say they are completely) self-evident to me.

[alexey]

Really?

I missed learning that.

Are the samethings self-evident to everybody?

Or are things that are self-evident to you different than for me?

Because you don't seem to believe the things that are the most (and I wouldn't even say they are completely) self-evident to me.

That was not very good wording on my part. Please use this one:

We do not know whether an unchangeable external standard of morality exist... but we know that we can take things and hold them as self-evident.

[brandymac27]

I think a more important question all of this is does objective/subjective morality violate human rights?

[JMS]

It may have been co-opted or attempted to have been, but the roots run much deeper than that.

In the classical Greek world, both the historian Herodotus and the sophist Protagoras appeared to endorse some form of relativism (the latter attracted the attention of Plato in the Theaetetus). It should also be noted that the ancient Chinese Daoist philosopher Zhuangzi (formerly spelled Chuang-Tzu) put forward a nonobjectivist view that is sometimes interpreted as a kind of relativism.

In 1947, on the occasion of the United Nations debate about universal human rights, the American Anthropological Association issued a statement declaring that moral values are relative to cultures and that there is no way of showing that the values of one culture are better than those of another. Anthropologists have never been unanimous in asserting this, and more recently human rights advocacy on the part of some anthropologists has mitigated the relativist orientation of the discipline.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

Nice post, nice information.