Subjective problems with philosophies on Morals and ethic such as Moral Tralism

[shunyadragon]

I have been reading a lot concerning the philosophies on morals and ethics and find their conclusions str difficult if not impossible to objectively confirm. They often have an underlying religious agenda and lack objective evidence ro support them. This example of thr definition the justification of the philosophy is often circular justifying itself by comparing philosophies. Interesting it follows with a poll of philosophers that agree and disagree with the philosophy.

As an example lets start with Moral Realism: Moral realism - Wikipedia. Im another forum these philosophies are variably used to question science concerning what is objective or subjective.

Moral realism (also ethical realism) is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately. This makes moral realism a non-nihilist form of ethical cognitivism (which accepts that ethical sentences express propositions and can therefore be evaluated as true or false) with an ontological orientation, standing in opposition to all forms of moral anti-realism[1] and moral skepticism, including ethical subjectivism (which denies that moral propositions refer to objective facts), error theory (which denies that any moral propositions are true); and non-cognitivism (which denies that moral sentences express propositions at all). Within moral realism, the two main subdivisions are ethical naturalism and ethical non-naturalism.[2]

Many philosophers claim that moral realism may be dated back at least to Plato as a philosophical doctrine,[3] and that it is a fully defensible form of moral doctrine.[4] A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents[5] found that 56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism (28%: anti-realism; 16%: other).[6] Another study in 2020 found 62.1% accept or lean towards realism.[7] Some notable examples of robust moral realists include David Brink,[8] John McDowell, Peter Railton,[9] Geoffrey Sayre-McCord,[10] Michael Smith, Terence Cuneo,[11] Russ Shafer-Landau,[12] G. E. Moore,[13] John Finnis, Richard Boyd, Nicholas Sturgeon,[14] Thomas Nagel, Derek Parfit and Peter Singer. Norman Geras has argued that Karl Marx was a moral realist.[15] Moral realism has been studied in the various philosophical and practical applications.[16]

 

[MikeF]

I have been reading a lot concerning the philosophies on morals and ethics and find their conclusions str difficult if not impossible to objectively confirm. They often have an underlying religious agenda and lack objective evidence ro support them. This example of thr definition the justification of the philosophy is often circular justifying itself by comparing philosophies. Interesting it follows with a poll of philosophers that agree and disagree with the philosophy.

As an example lets start with Moral Realism: Moral realism - Wikipedia. Im another forum these philosophies are variably used to question science concerning what is objective or subjective.

Moral realism (also ethical realism) is the position that ethical sentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately. This makes moral realism a non-nihilist form of ethical cognitivism (which accepts that ethical sentences express propositions and can therefore be evaluated as true or false) with an ontological orientation, standing in opposition to all forms of moral anti-realism[1] and moral skepticism, including ethical subjectivism (which denies that moral propositions refer to objective facts), error theory (which denies that any moral propositions are true); and non-cognitivism (which denies that moral sentences express propositions at all). Within moral realism, the two main subdivisions are ethical naturalism and ethical non-naturalism.[2]

Many philosophers claim that moral realism may be dated back at least to Plato as a philosophical doctrine,[3] and that it is a fully defensible form of moral doctrine.[4] A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents[5] found that 56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism (28%: anti-realism; 16%: other).[6] Another study in 2020 found 62.1% accept or lean towards realism.[7] Some notable examples of robust moral realists include David Brink,[8] John McDowell, Peter Railton,[9] Geoffrey Sayre-McCord,[10] Michael Smith, Terence Cuneo,[11] Russ Shafer-Landau,[12] G. E. Moore,[13] John Finnis, Richard Boyd, Nicholas Sturgeon,[14] Thomas Nagel, Derek Parfit and Peter Singer. Norman Geras has argued that Karl Marx was a moral realist.[15] Moral realism has been studied in the various philosophical and practical applications.[16]

I find it interesting that over 50% of self-identified philosophers (whatever may have qualified them for the poll) accept Moral Realism seemingly consistently since 2009.

I am curious as to whether it reflects a personality type that, in general, is attracted to the boundless abstraction afforded in Philosophy in creating answers to general and fundamental questions, as opposed to the bounded scientific approach to addressing such questions.

I, personally, view moral and ethical systems as completely subjective, and as such, would agree with your conclusion.

 

[shunyadragon]

Interesting. I want to give your post some thought. I do object to polls to justify the subjectivity moral and ethical philosophies.

It is difficult to develop a meeting of minds bringing the knowledge of science concerning our behavior, evolution, consciousness, and research on the physical function of our brain and nervous system to moral and ethical philosophies that do not consider the science first.

 

[Ella S.]

I think the first question we should ask before engaging in ethical philosophy is why we want to discuss ethics. What is our purpose for investigating ethics? What do we want to gain from it? Do we have an end goal?

For some people, their sole concern in studying ethics is to live more consistently with their religious scriptures. For others, it's to maximize human welfare. Others wish to constrain their behavior according to principles, drawing a clear distinction firmly between what is and is not appropriate. For me, it is about cultivating a character in-line with my rational impulse.

The next question could be whether our goals are compatible with the goals of other philosophies. Where there is conflict, what is our basis for preferring one to the other? How do we describe that basis?

Interestingly, moral realists can be moral sentimentalists, just as non-cognitivists can be emotivists. This means that even those who believe in an objective morality might assert that we ought to follow our moral intuition and that we can refine our intuitions to be more self-coherent. This means that it is not a blow to moral realists that there is so much disagreement; it's just a sign that people haven't refined their moral intuitions.

Those discussions are only really possible once we answer that first question about why we're interested in ethics, though. It doesn't make sense to use the word "good" unless we put it into a context in which we give that word meaning, which is the same for all words. We have to figure out the context in which we're asking about goodness before we can determine what is good.

 

[MikeF]

I think the first question we should ask before engaging in ethical philosophy is why we want to discuss ethics. What is our purpose for investigating ethics? What do we want to gain from it? Do we have an end goal?

For some people, their sole concern in studying ethics is to live more consistently with their religious scriptures. For others, it's to maximize human welfare. Others wish to constrain their behavior according to principles, drawing a clear distinction firmly between what is and is not appropriate. For me, it is about cultivating a character in-line with my rational impulse.

The next question could be whether our goals are compatible with the goals of other philosophies. Where there is conflict, what is our basis for preferring one to the other? How do we describe that basis?

Interestingly, moral realists can be moral sentimentalists, just as non-cognitivists can be emotivists. This means that even those who believe in an objective morality might assert that we ought to follow our moral intuition and that we can refine our intuitions to be more self-coherent. This means that it is not a blow to moral realists that there is so much disagreement; it's just a sign that people haven't refined their moral intuitions.

Those discussions are only really possible once we answer that first question about why we're interested in ethics, though. It doesn't make sense to use the word "good" unless we put it into a context in which we give that word meaning, which is the same for all words. We have to figure out the context in which we're asking about goodness before we can determine what is good.

In my view, morals and ethics are simply the labels we assign to that category of ideas and rules that govern the interactions of more than one person. If one is a hermit alone on an island and never interacts with anyone else, is there a requirement for a moral or ethical system for the hermit? I would suggest there isn't, however, you may disagree.

So, in answering your main question, the reason for discussing ethics and creating ethical systems is to create the rules, customs, and morays as well as procedures and institutions for creating such, be it through dictate, negotiation, compromise, and consensus, all to allow multiple individuals with unique and potentially conflicting needs, wants, and desires to function and live in groups.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I have been reading a lot concerning the philosophies on morals and ethics and find their conclusions str difficult if not impossible to objectively confirm.

Ethics is intensely dissatisfying.

Ethicists try to propose answers to the questions they ask. But ethics is difficult to settle in a satisfying, objective manner. The questions ethicists ask are almost more valuable than the solutions they propose. I'd advise not reading ethical theorists as dogmatists. Most ethicists are the complete opposite of dogmatists.

Arguing for objective ethics is an uphill battle. There are quite a few good arguments against it. Sound arguments. But none of these arguments successfully refute realism or even call it into serious question. Competing theories with moral realism have serious problems of their own.

As I said before: ethics is dissatisfying.

They often have an underlying religious agenda and lack objective evidence ro support them.

But even if the realists claims are true, science is not in a position to confirm or deny the matter of moral facts. Science studies physical things. Ethics deals with values and logic.

Economics is another objective field that deals with values and logic. They are able to formulate "economic laws such as "supply and demand." As long as economics remains honest it can be, it can predict a value for x (given y). Ethicists do the same

I am curious as to whether it reflects a personality type that, in general, is attracted to the boundless abstraction afforded in Philosophy in creating answers to general and fundamental questions, as opposed to the bounded scientific approach to addressing such questions.

Philosophy is more interested in asking the right questions more than "creating" answers. The reason philosophers are more apt to consider moral objectivity than scientists is that they consider things that are not necessarily empirically verifiable. The truth of normative claims, which is what ethics mainly deals with, is never something you can decipher through empirical observation.

Also, the best objections to moral realism come from philosophy. Only 61% of philosophers are moral realists. That means the rest of them (nearly 40%) are skeptics, just like you. These philosophers have a voice in academia, and plenty of their work is published and responded to.

You make it sound like abstract thinking leads to moral realism. But it also can lead you to moral relativism or moral nihilism.

For the record, I think moral nihilism is very plausible. I think it's just as strong a theory as moral realism. The only metaethical theory I think has serious problems is moral relativism. We can discuss that if you'd like. The only reason I like to speak up for moral realism is that vast numbers of people underestimate it's strength as a theory. It's stronger than people take it to be. I am not a staunch moral realist or anything. I'm agnostic about morality. But I'll never stand by while a strong theory is called weak because of errors in reasoning/understanding of it.

Abstraction isn't some distorting force on our thinking. It's clarifying. Abstraction removes the emotionally charged things, as well as "common opinion" about x or y phenomenon. Not that I think concrete thinking is inferior or anything. It's just that abstract thinking is just as necessary and useful as concrete thinking. Scientists do plenty of abstraction. As do mathematicians. It ain't some "vice of the philosophers" or anything.

Nice to see you, man. Hopefully I didn't come on too strong. You know I like impassioned debate.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ethics is intensely dissatisfying.

Ethicists try to propose answers to the questions they ask. But ethics is difficult to settle in a satisfying, objective manner. The questions ethicists ask are almost more valuable than the solutions they propose. I'd advise not reading ethical theorists as dogmatists. Most ethicists are the complete opposite of dogmatists.

Arguing for objective ethics is an uphill battle. There are quite a few good arguments against it. Sound arguments. But none of these arguments successfully refute realism or even call it into serious question. Competing theories with moral realism have serious problems of their own.

As I said before: ethics is dissatisfying.



But even if the realists claims are true, science is not in a position to confirm or deny the matter of moral facts. Science studies physical things. Ethics deals with values and logic.

Economics is another objective field that deals with values and logic. They are able to formulate "economic laws such as "supply and demand." As long as economics remains honest it can be, it can predict a value for x (given y). Ethicists do the same



Philosophy is more interested in asking the right questions more than "creating" answers. The reason philosophers are more apt to consider moral objectivity than scientists is that they consider things that are not necessarily empirically verifiable. The truth of normative claims, which is what ethics mainly deals with, is never something you can decipher through empirical observation.

Also, the best objections to moral realism come from philosophy. Only 61% of philosophers are moral realists. That means the rest of them (nearly 40%) are skeptics, just like you. These philosophers have a voice in academia, and plenty of their work is published and responded to.

You make it sound like abstract thinking leads to moral realism. But it also can lead you to moral relativism or moral nihilism.

For the record, I think moral nihilism is very plausible. I think it's just as strong a theory as moral realism. The only metaethical theory I think has serious problems is moral relativism. We can discuss that if you'd like. The only reason I like to speak up for moral realism is that vast numbers of people underestimate it's strength as a theory. It's stronger than people take it to be. I am not a staunch moral realist or anything. I'm agnostic about morality. But I'll never stand by while a strong theory is called weak because of errors in reasoning/understanding of it.

Abstraction isn't some distorting force on our thinking. It's clarifying. Abstraction removes the emotionally charged things, as well as "common opinion" about x or y phenomenon. Not that I think concrete thinking is inferior or anything. It's just that abstract thinking is just as necessary and useful as concrete thinking. Scientists do plenty of abstraction. As do mathematicians. It ain't some "vice of the philosophers" or anything.

Nice to see you, man. Hopefully I didn't come on too strong. You know I like impassioned debate.

I appreciate your post very much. We have more in common than you may think.

Though your statement: 'You make it sound like abstract thinking leads to moral realism.' It does not reflect my view. Abstract thinking can be creative, but it can also be a boat without a rudder.

Yes, 'it also can lead you to moral relativism or moral nihilism.'

There is a lot in your post. I may comment more later.

 

[shunyadragon]

Apologize for an error in the title;shouldRead:

Subjective problems with philosophies on Morals and ethics such as Moral Realism​

 

[MikeF]

Nice to see you, man. Hopefully I didn't come on too strong. You know I like impassioned debate.

Great to see you as well. As to coming on strong, you have nothing to fear. You are always quite diplomatic in countering my criticisms of philosophy.

I must start out by admitting that I had not heard of Moral Realism, Moral Nihilism etc, until this OP. Much of my comments will be based mainly on the first paragraph of related Wikipedia pages. If I misrepresent a philosophical position, I rely on you to set me straight.

Now on to your comments…

But even if the realists claims are true, science is not in a position to confirm or deny the matter of moral facts. Science studies physical things. Ethics deals with values and logic.

Economics is another objective field that deals with values and logic. They are able to formulate "economic laws such as "supply and demand." As long as economics remains honest it can be, it can predict a value for x (given y). Ethicists do the same

All I will say here is that, as we have discussed before, I have a different notion on the scope or domain of science. For other readers, my view is that science, scientific inquiry, or the scientific approach is one that acknowledges the imperfections and fallibilities of the human investigator and takes active steps to mitigate those imperfections and fallibilities during the investigative process. As such, any line of inquiry can only be enhanced by such an approach, whatever the subject.

To my mind, ethics deals with regulating human behavior and I'm sure many would agree that understanding human behavior falls under the purview of science. If ethical statements or propositions are subjective value choices, those choices are made by people, people with imperfections and fallibilities, and I would think understanding how varied imperfections and fallibilities inform or impact subjective ethical value choices would be essential in evaluating them, again favoring a scientific approach to investigating ethical questions and concepts.

The reason philosophers are more apt to consider moral objectivity than scientists is that they consider things that are not necessarily empirically verifiable. The truth of normative claims, which is what ethics mainly deals with, is never something you can decipher through empirical observation.

I must disagree. What are normative claims other than expressions of human behavior. Human behavior can certainly be observed empirically, comparatively between individuals, [ETA: between cultures], and between species. We can explore how genetic makeup informs the physical structures that in turn inform expressed behaviors. All of this is well within the realm of science and, frankly, best addressed in a scientific manner, IMO.

You make it sound like abstract thinking leads to moral realism.
…
Abstraction isn't some distorting force on our thinking. It's clarifying. Abstraction removes the emotionally charged things, as well as "common opinion" about x or y phenomenon. Not that I think concrete thinking is inferior or anything. It's just that abstract thinking is just as necessary and useful as concrete thinking. Scientists do plenty of abstraction. As do mathematicians. It ain't some "vice of the philosophers" or anything.

Here I must apologize for my limitations in communicating thoughts clearly and concisely. I fully appreciate the value of abstraction, abstract constructs and systems, and that abstraction is fundamental to the modern humans ability to even think and communicate as we do.

I also appreciate your comment that even if 50% of philosophers are Moral Realists, that leaves 50% that are not.

I suppose, through my presumption and prejudice, I am suggesting that there are some personalities that want there to be objective morals ( for various reasons), and where a scientific approach may make that impossible, philosophy does not, and hence are drawn to philosophy. You seem to admit as much above when you said, “The reason philosophers are more apt to consider moral objectivity than scientists is that they consider things that are not necessarily empirically verifiable.” Perhaps it is ignorant prejudice on my part, but it seems philosophy is quite comfortable with non-verifiability. The freedom to declare foundational premises or axioms with corresponding justifications, all out of the reach of verifiability. This in turn provides the freedom to use logic to prove whatever your heart desires, in this case, objective morals. Fifty percent in favor of moral realism seemed high to me in this day and age, and I guess this is my speculation as to why that is.

To explore your comment above a little further, if moral objectivity is not empirically verifiable, can we call it objective? Perhaps you could illustrate non-verifiable objectivity.

I would also like to explore a little more your comment that no other philosophical moral theory has been able to “successfully refute [moral] realism or even call it into serious question”, and you characterize it as a strong theory, a strength that is often underestimated. What are its strengths? What makes moral realism plausible in you view?

 

[shunyadragon]

But even if the realists claims are true, science is not in a position to confirm or deny the matter of moral facts. Science studies physical things. Ethics deals with values and logic.

Economics is another objective field that deals with values and logic. They are able to formulate "economic laws such as "supply and demand." As long as economics remains honest it can be, it can predict a value for x (given y). Ethicists do the same

I am primarily coming from a science perspective in the history of my education and work, but over the years I have studied philosophy and logic. From the science perspective at best I can only give Moral Realism a Huh?!?!?

From the science perspective I find little in common with Moral Realism. Science provides an objective foundation for the evolution and nature of human behavior including morals, ethics and rule of law. There are indeed subjective aspects of morals, ethics and rule of law in the real world. It is true that ethics is kind of a messy topic, so is the issues of 'Free Will' when the scientific perspective is ignored. All cultures in the history of humanity and our primate ancestors have a system of morals and ethics that have been a consistent part of human nature and evolved, because of the necessity of a social tribal structure for the survival of the species. Nonetheless science cannot fully explain morals and laws, nor does it claim to.

For example: When considering the morality, ethics and rule of law concerning abortion, homosexuality, and LGBT issues it is best to begin with a more objective scientific perspective.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think the first question we should ask before engaging in ethical philosophy is why we want to discuss ethics. What is our purpose for investigating ethics? What do we want to gain from it? Do we have an end goal?

My goal is to provide a more real foundation for morals and ethics. The present view of the diverse and conflicting philosophies lack this. They are rife with religious agendas, You cannot justify philosophies with polls of philosophers,

 

[wellwisher]

Apologize for an error in the title;shouldRead:

Subjective problems with philosophies on Morals and ethics such as Moral Realism​

The fundamental error in philosophy is basing philosophy on the subjective nature of individual choice, instead of the more objective criteria of how actions impact the group. Morality was originally designed for the team and not the individual. The team can become more than the sum of its parts. If you look at the Ten Commandments, the ten rules controls the ego for the team. Crooks would love to steal; thou shall not steal. Philosophy tries to interpret morality with the individual in mind, which makes it subjective, since you have a much thinner criteria, when it only has to apply to individual players, but not a team.

For example, say we have many sport teams and all the players; league. Morality, as a team sport, is about results for the teams, which can be measured objectively, such as who wins the championship. These record are not subjective. Teams that are more individual based, cannot get their players to make the needed sacrifices for top notch teams. They will not be as good at the objective measure of championships, but may be better as the subjective measure such as more fun or less stressful.

The worse possible teams will have no rules or no scheduled training. They may be the most fun for individuals off and on the field, but this is a recipe for team failure. There is no objective standards for all to reach the same objective goal. The team is there to win, not to lounge in indulgence. Philosophy should have been able to do the math, in a hour, but it took the wrong path toward the subjectivity of individuals, and formed a bunch of lousy teams, with all the coaches of philosophy forever tinkering. Philosophy is too much hot air and not enough team championships.

As an example, allowing criminals to get away with crime may be useful for a certain class of individuals. If I am lazy and do not wish to work, but I want all the things that work can provide, but for free, I will steal. Philosophy can come up with a subjective opinion to make this good for some. But the team called humanity and economy, will have a harder time being successful. There is too much waste in terms of time, resources and worry about the parasites being happy parasites.

The team would be better off if the crooks got with the productive program; work hard and enjoy your spoils. This can social reduce costs by many objective measures. The worlds see the decline in the USA team. This decline is objective, which is preferred by science. Decline appears to be justified by Philosophy. It is good to learn about philosophy, but also think about the team affect, when stumping the professors. Help them go from their subjective confusion, into objective clarity.

 

[Ella S.]

My goal is to provide a more real foundation for morals and ethics. The present view of the diverse and conflicting philosophies lack this. They are rife with religious agendas, You cannot justify philosophies with polls of philosophers,

I think that's more due to your misunderstanding of what ethics is than an issue with ethics itself. Ethical philosophies, for the most part, aren't supposed to have their axioms justified by empirical data. That's just not what they deal with.

Math also doesn't justify its axioms from empirical data.

So that's a quest that has to fail.

 

[osgart]

Morals and ethics are for introspection and governing one's self and judging other people's motivations. The moral stands as true or false by the effects it has on both others and self non exclusively over the long and short term.

Concepts such as trustworthiness and deserve, as well as good and bad, can have consistent, and accurate definition and delineation. These words take on real meaning. We have words such as innocence and guilt that again take on real meaning.

Can a person have an innocent nature? Can a person take on a guilty nature? What's it all about to operate in good faith?

Behaviours and actions result from motivations and intentions.

Are people valued for their intrinsic worth based on qualities of being or potential for such qualities, or are people valued solely on their productive output, or both?

People have to recognize that qualities of being are a reality. Solely judging morals and ethics on behaviour, actions and outcomes is only half right. What qualities do people desire to foster?

Parents try to instill values in their children, hopefully not through too much coercion. Hopefully they can effectually produce the qualities by willful convincement and allowing their children to explore their own lives responsibly. Ultimately it's up to the children to decide over time towards adulthood.

Morals and ethics are not just for negating undue damaging harm. They are for producing the qualities that bring a lasting, joy, peace, and well being to society. Some joys are harder than others.

Morals and ethics are more about finding the right meanings for one's self through introspection and action, and what that brings to society. They are less about telling others how to live their lives because x produces y benefits, and z should never be done. Morals and ethics have an added dimension; more than just a physical outcome or result.

 

[shunyadragon]

I think that's more due to your misunderstanding of what ethics is than an issue with ethics itself. Ethical philosophies, for the most part, aren't supposed to have their axioms justified by empirical data. That's just not what they deal with.

Math also doesn't justify its axioms from empirical data.

So that's a quest that has to fail.

I understand full well what ethics are. Morals and ethics cannot be easily separated that is the reason I refer to them together as morals and ethics.

This is basically the problem with the different conflicting philosophies concerning morals and ethics is that there is the expectation that the philosophies justify themselves and used polls of philosophers to justify one or the other philosophy,.

Ethics vs. Morals: What's The Difference?

What guides our actions: morals, ethics, or both? While many get these terms confused, they have clear differences. Learn about the two words here.

www.dictionary.com

Ethics vs. Morals: What’s The Difference?​

Published August 18, 2022
Maybe you’ve heard the terms ethics and morals and wondered what the difference is. Is a moral precept the same as an ethical code? A lot of people think of them as being the same thing.

While they’re closely related concepts, morals refer mainly to guiding principles, and ethics refer to specific rules and actions, or behaviors.
In this article, we’ll explain the subtle differences between morals and ethics, how they overlap, and whether something can be moral but not ethical, and vice versa.

What is the difference between morals and ethics?​

A person’s idea of morals tends to be shaped by their surrounding environment (and sometimes their belief system). Moral values shape a person’s ideas about right and wrong.
They often provide the guiding ideas behind ethical systems. That’s where it gets tricky … morals are the basis for ethics.
A moral person wants to do the right thing, and a moral impulse usually means best intentions.
Go Behind The Words!

Ethics are distinct from morals in that they’re much more practical.

A moral precept is an idea or opinion that’s driven by a desire to be good. An ethical code is a set of rules that defines allowable actions or correct behavior.

An ethical code doesn’t have to be moral. It’s just a set of rules for people to follow. Several professional organizations (like the American Bar Association and the American Medical Association) have created specific ethical codes for their respective fields.
In other words, an ethical code has nothing to do with cosmic righteousness or a set of beliefs. It’s a set of rules that are drafted by trade groups to ensure members stay out of trouble and act in a way that brings credit to the profession.

Moral vs. ethical actions ​

It’s important to know that what’s ethical isn’t always what’s moral, and vice versa. Omerta, for example, is a code of silence that developed among members of the Mafia. It was used to protect criminals from the police. This follows the rules of ethically-correct behavior for the organization, but it can also be viewed as wrong from a moral standpoint.

A moral action can also be unethical. A lawyer who tells the court that his client is guilty may be acting out of a moral desire to see justice done, but this is deeply unethical because it violates the attorney-client privilege.

 

[shunyadragon]

An example from the previous reference where science cannot fully explain moral and ethical actions is the following: Science can offer a partial explanafion that the decisions here are based tribal allegiances and group ethics..

Moral vs. ethical actions ​

It’s important to know that what’s ethical isn’t always what’s moral, and vice versa. Omerta, for example, is a code of silence that developed among members of the Mafia. It was used to protect criminals from the police. This follows the rules of ethically-correct behavior for the organization, but it can also be viewed as wrong from a moral standpoint.

A moral action can also be unethical. A lawyer who tells the court that his client is guilty may be acting out of a moral desire to see justice done, but this is deeply unethical because it violates the attorney-client privilege. I wanted to add that the hypothetical decisions of above actions are not predicable from the scientific perspective, because they reflect personal choices.

 

[vulcanlogician]

It’s important to know that what’s ethical isn’t always what’s moral, and vice versa. Omerta, for example, is a code of silence that developed among members of the Mafia. It was used to protect criminals from the police.

Philosophers often use the term interchangeably because such a distinction seldom matters to the questions they are asking. As your example shows, lawyers often deal with the distinction, as do some social sciences I think.

I am primarily coming from a science perspective in the history of my education and work, but over the years I have studied philosophy and logic. From the science perspective at best I can only give Moral Realism a Huh?!?!?

My approach to ethics has never involved needing help or confirmation from the sciences. Ethics concerns normative or "ought" questions. It typically uses one or more basic and uncontroversial claims (axioms) as a foundation and from there formulates support for a theory using logic alone. Nothing that science has discovered about human nature impacts the question of whether morality is an objective or subjective affair.

The moral naturalists are an exception. They like to say that scientific information is moral information. They say that science can tell us what is "good for" or bad for" a given organism (like a human being) and so lacks the normative/descriptive problem that haunts the rest of moral realism. There are plenty of objections to this theory. I'm not too fond of it personally.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Philosophers often use the term interchangeably because such a distinction seldom matters to the questions they are asking. As your example shows, lawyers often deal with the distinction, as do some social sciences I think.



My approach to ethics has never involved needing help or confirmation from the sciences. Ethics concerns normative or "ought" questions. It typically uses one or more basic and uncontroversial claims (axioms) as a foundation and from there formulates support for a theory using logic alone. Nothing that science has discovered about human nature impacts the question of whether morality is an objective or subjective affair.

The moral naturalists are an exception. They like to say that scientific information is moral information. They say that science can tell us what is "good for" or bad for" a given organism (like a human being) and so lacks the normative/descriptive problem that haunts the rest of moral realism. There are plenty of objections to this theory. I'm not too fond of it personally.

The short brutal fact, is that subjective is natural and in its most basic form it is a cause that runs through the process of the replication of the fittest gene.

 

[vulcanlogician]

All I will say here is that, as we have discussed before, I have a different notion on the scope or domain of science.

I like the idea of science and other fields having a particular "domain" containing within it the matters important to that field. I believe science is equipped to handle most of the questions humans have to ask about reality. But I stop just shy of claiming that science can (or does) answer all of the questions that are important to us. Questions about morality are a fine example of questions about which science cannot furnish us with a final answer. (Of course, philosophy hasn't been able to furnish us with a satisfying answer, either. But that's fine. Philosophers aren't there to answer these questions, but rather to clarify the issue so that you are better able to formulate an answer yourself.)

I must disagree. What are normative claims other than expressions of human behavior. Human behavior can certainly be observed empirically, comparatively between individuals, [ETA: between cultures], and between species. We can explore how genetic makeup informs the physical structures that in turn inform expressed behaviors. All of this is well within the realm of science and, frankly, best addressed in a scientific manner, IMO.

That's an important issue, and one that deserves careful consideration. "The brute facts" about the impact of normative ideas and their impact on our social and natural world are best left to the sciences (ie. anthropology, biology etc.) When examining the practices of a cannibalistic tribe, the rightness or wrongness of cannibalism won't tell you anything about why this tribe has a tradition of cannibalism or how such a practice has survived over the years. The fact that this tribe practices cannibalism is simply a matter of accurate description of what they do.

It's tempting to carry this view into ethics, but it's a problematic view to have in ethics, as I am happy to show. I think that between the three main theories: 1) Moral Realism (aka. ethical objectivism) 2) Moral Relativism (aka. ethical subjectivism) and 3) Moral Nihilism.... I think that #2 (relativism) has the least support, logically speaking.

I would also like to explore a little more your comment that no other philosophical moral theory has been able to “successfully refute [moral] realism or even call it into serious question”, and you characterize it as a strong theory, a strength that is often underestimated. What are its strengths? What makes moral realism plausible in you view?

I think moral realism AND moral nihilism are strong theories. (Even though they are mutually exclusive and one of them must be false.) And I think relativism is weak: here's why.

Moral realism makes a definite claim about the status of moral statements. "Moral statements are beliefs, and it is possible for some of those beliefs to be true or false." Likewise, moral nihilism makes a definite claim about the status of moral statements: according to one's particular nihilistic theory, "no moral statement can be true." Moral nihilists are best described as "atheists" about morality. They say it is a fairy tale... a product of the human imagination... or the result of human emotional dispositions.

But moral relativism wants to say, "a moral statement is only true or false in relation to some cultural or personal code." That makes sense at first. It seems to easily solve the whole puzzle... and if that is the central claim of relativism, then relativism has a fairly indisputable central claim. That's good.

The issue is: all three metaethical theories acknowledge this. A moral realist can look at a cannibalistic tribe and say "according to the moral code of that tribe, cannibalism is permissible." A moral nihilist can do the same. One thing that makes relativism weak is that it says nothing that the other theories don't acknowledge.

Furthermore, the reason most people find relativism attractive is "the cultural differences argument." The cultural differences argument fails because it is based on fallacious logic.

I'll reprint what I've said elsewhere in order to reiterate this point:

Spoiler

When people want to argue for moral relativism (cultural relativism being the most popular kind), they often cite the fact that different cultures believe different things as far as morality goes.

Well, anyone who pays any attention to things can see that that is true. Some cultures practice the death penalty, others consider it immoral. In some places in the world FGM is practiced, while westerners tend to view it with disdain. The philosopher James Rachels began his essay, "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism" by citing King Darius who taught the Greeks about the Callatians. When the Callatians' fathers died, their children would eat his dead body as part of the funeral ceremony. The Greeks were shocked and revolted by this. After all, the Greeks burned their dead. When King Darius shared the Greek practice of burning their dead with the Callatians, they were similarly horrified at how the Greeks carried on their funerary practices. Rachels goes on to describe the Eskimo peoples (we'd say Inuit or Yuit these days) who practiced infanticide... leaving their newborns in the snow to die.

Then Rachels explores several syllogisms:

(1) The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead.
(2) Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture.

(1) The Eskimos saw nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas Americans believe that infanticide is immoral.
(2) Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture.

Rachels goes on to say:

"Clearly, these arguments are variations of one fundamental idea. They are both examples of a more general argument, which says:

(1) Different cultures have different moral codes.
(2) Therefore, there is no objective truth in morality.

Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture. Let’s call this the Cultural Differences Argument. To many people, it is persuasive. But is it a good argument—is it sound? It is not. For an argument to be sound, its premises must all be true, and its conclusion must logically follow from them. Here, the problem is that the conclusion does not follow from the premise—that is, even if the premise is true, the conclusion might still be false. The premise concerns what people believe—in some societies, people believe one thing; in other societies, people believe something else. The conclusion, however, concerns what really is the case. This sort of conclusion does not follow logically from that sort of premise. In philosophical terminology, this means that the argument is invalid."

https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1100/Rachels1.pdf

The tl;dr is that relativism has a sketchy logical foundation AND it doesn't explain anything about morality that the other theories can't explain. Therefore, it is weak.

Think of it this way, on the topic of God's existence, we can have a debate about whether the Christian God does or doesn't exist. On the one side we have the Christians who say, "Yes, God does exist" and the atheists who say, "No he doesn't". Both Christians and atheists have little subgroups that affect their answers (like agnosticism) but let's ignore that for a second. In some way or another both Christians and atheists weigh in on the question of God's existence and whether it is reasonable to believe one way or the other.

Now let's imagine a third theory: "theological relativism." This theory comes along and points out that the background cultural properties of each party has determined what each party believes. Then the relativist points out that "according to the Christians' belief system, God exists. But according to the atheists belief system (or lack thereof) God's existence is dubious.

Well, who cares? Anyone can tell you that! The debate is about whether God really exists or not. The fact that people disagree tells us NOTHING one way or the other. That's why I think relativism is the weakest of the three. If someone wants to deny the existence of objective morality, I say moral nihilism is the better way to go.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I like the idea of science and other fields having a particular "domain" containing within it the matters important to that field. I believe science is equipped to handle most of the questions humans have to ask about reality. But I stop just shy of claiming that science can (or does) answer all of the questions that are important to us. Questions about morality are a fine example of questions about which science cannot furnish us with a final answer. (Of course, philosophy hasn't been able to furnish us with a satisfying answer, either. But that's fine. Philosophers aren't there to answer these questions, but rather to clarify the issue so that you are better able to formulate an answer yourself.)



That's an important issue, and one that deserves careful consideration. "The brute facts" about the impact of normative ideas and their impact on our social and natural world are best left to the sciences (ie. anthropology, biology etc.) When examining the practices of a cannibalistic tribe, the rightness or wrongness of cannibalism won't tell you anything about why this tribe has a tradition of cannibalism or how such a practice has survived over the years. The fact that this tribe practices cannibalism is simply a matter of accurate description of what they do.

It's tempting to carry this view into ethics, but it's a problematic view to have in ethics, as I am happy to show. I think that between the three main theories: 1) Moral Realism (aka. ethical objectivism) 2) Moral Relativism (aka. ethical subjectivism) and 3) Moral Nihilism.... I think that #2 (relativism) has the least support, logically speaking.



I think moral realism AND moral nihilism are strong theories. (Even though they are mutually exclusive and one of them must be false.) And I think relativism is weak: here's why.

Moral realism makes a definite claim about the status of moral statements. They are beliefs, and it is possible for some of those beliefs to be true or false. Likewise, moral nihilism makes a definite claim about the status of moral statements: according to one's particular nihilistic theory, no moral statement can be true. (Moral nihilists are best described as "atheists" about morality. They say it is a fairy tale... a product of the human imagination... or the result of human emotional dispositions.

But moral relativism wants to say, "a moral statement is only true or false in relation to some cultural or personal code." That makes sense at first. It seems to easily solve the whole puzzle... and if that is the central claim of relativism, then relativism has a fairly indisputable central claim. That's good.

The issue is: all three metaethical theories acknowledge this. A moral realist can look at a cannibalistic tribe and say "according to the moral code of that tribe, cannibalism is permissible." A moral nihilist can do the same. One thing that makes relativism weak is that it says nothing that the other theories don't acknowledge.

Furthermore, the reason most people find relativism attractive is "the cultural differences argument." The cultural differences argument fails because it is based on fallacious logic.

I'll reprint what I've said elsewhere in order to reiterate this point:

Spoiler

When people want to argue for moral relativism (cultural relativism being the most popular kind), they often cite the fact that different cultures believe different things as far as morality goes.

Well, anyone who pays any attention to things can see that that is true. Some cultures practice the death penalty, others consider it immoral. In some places in the world FGM is practiced, while westerners tend to view it with disdain. The philosopher James Rachels began his essay, "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism" by citing King Darius who taught the Greeks about the Callatians. When the Callatians' fathers died, their children would eat his dead body as part of the funeral ceremony. The Greeks were shocked and revolted by this. After all, the Greeks burned their dead. When King Darius shared the Greek practice of burning their dead with the Callatians, they were similarly horrified at how the Greeks carried on their funerary practices. Rachels goes on to describe the Eskimo peoples (we'd say Inuit or Yuit these days) who practiced infanticide... leaving their newborns in the snow to die.

Then Rachels explores several syllogisms:

(1) The Greeks believed it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead.
(2) Therefore, eating the dead is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture.

(1) The Eskimos saw nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas Americans believe that infanticide is immoral.
(2) Therefore, infanticide is neither objectively right nor objectively wrong. It is merely a matter of opinion, which varies from culture to culture.

Rachels goes on to say:

"Clearly, these arguments are variations of one fundamental idea. They are both examples of a more general argument, which says:

(1) Different cultures have different moral codes.
(2) Therefore, there is no objective truth in morality.

Right and wrong are only matters of opinion, and opinions vary from culture to culture. Let’s call this the Cultural Differences Argument. To many people, it is persuasive. But is it a good argument—is it sound? It is not. For an argument to be sound, its premises must all be true, and its conclusion must logically follow from them. Here, the problem is that the conclusion does not follow from the premise—that is, even if the premise is true, the conclusion might still be false. The premise concerns what people believe—in some societies, people believe one thing; in other societies, people believe something else. The conclusion, however, concerns what really is the case. This sort of conclusion does not follow logically from that sort of premise. In philosophical terminology, this means that the argument is invalid."

https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1100/Rachels1.pdf

The tl;dr is that relativism has a sketchy logical foundation AND it doesn't explain anything about morality that the other theories can't explain. Therefore, it is weak.

Think of it this way, on the topic of God's existence, we can have a debate about whether the Christian God does or doesn't exist. On the one side we have the Christians who say, "Yes, God does exists" and the atheists who say, "No he doesn't". Both Christians and atheists have little subgroups that affect their answers (like agnosticism) but let's ignore that for a second. In some way or another both Christians and atheists weigh in on the question of God's existence and whether it is reasonable to believe one way or the other.

Now let's imagine a third theory: "theological relativism." This theory comes along and points out that the background cultural properties of each party has determined what each party believes. Then the relativist points out that "according to the Christians' belief system, God exists. But according to the atheists belief system (or lack thereof) God's existence is dubious.

Well, who cares? Anyone can tell you that! The debate is about whether God really exists or not. The fact that people disagree tells us NOTHING one way or the other. That's why I think relativism is the weakest of the three. If someone wants to deny the existence of objective morality, I say moral nihilism is the better way to go.

Thank you. I learned something new and now I have to stop using moral relativism as true.