MMX2010 Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 Why does universality apply to morality? This seems like a completely unrelated question, but I swear I'll tie it together after you answer: Do you think the color red is objectively real or subjectively experienced?
labmath2 Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 I was actually just talking to my friend about this and we came to a road block about the NAP. As WasatchMan said, I don't see ethics as being demonstrable. It is a purely logical argument. Gravity, for example, can be tested (see if rocks fall down or up). General relativity can be tested (put atomic clock in space). The NAP can't be physically demonstrated. The problem my friend and I encountered was that of whether universality applied. He came up with the following syllogism: 1. All dogs are red. 2. Muffin is a dog 3. Muffin is red It is internally consistent, but the assumption given as 1. All dogs are red, is false. Similarly, 1. Universality applies to morality 2. Initiation of force cannot be universalized 3. Initiation of force is immoral Why does universality apply to morality? Number 1 is an axiom. The problem is that Stefan does not clearly state all the axioms in the book. You have to assume what the arguments are and what the axioms are. P.S there are lots of axioms in UPB.
RuralRon Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 This seems like a completely unrelated question, but I swear I'll tie it together after you answer: Do you think the color red is objectively real or subjectively experienced? It's both. What color is (i.e. it's wavelength) can be objectively measured with a spectrum analyzer. Yet each person can interpret the wavelength of light they see differently, such as a person who is color blind.
luxfelix Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 It's both. What color is (i.e. it's wavelength) can be objectively measured with a spectrum analyzer. Yet each person can interpret the wavelength of light they see differently, such as a person who is color blind. Nice one! On a similar note, happiness can be both subjective and objective: Brain scans of an individual experiencing joy and happiness light up, yet a person can try to replicate the phenomenon with substances and then interpret that as happiness.
bugzysegal Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 I was actually just talking to my friend about this and we came to a road block about the NAP. As WasatchMan said, I don't see ethics as being demonstrable. It is a purely logical argument. Gravity, for example, can be tested (see if rocks fall down or up). General relativity can be tested (put atomic clock in space). The NAP can't be physically demonstrated. The problem my friend and I encountered was that of whether universality applied. He came up with the following syllogism: 1. All dogs are red. 2. Muffin is a dog 3. Muffin is red It is internally consistent, but the assumption given as 1. All dogs are red, is false. Similarly, 1. Universality applies to morality 2. Initiation of force cannot be universalized 3. Initiation of force is immoral Why does universality apply to morality? We would fall into ethical subjectivity without universality or delimited universality. I think the distinction is one made by definition of objective morality. Trying to put bounds on definitions while it seems like the right idea, has lead philosophers like Bertrand Russel and Moore to the ends of their rope. The amount of restrictions and asterisks you can put on a definition are limitless. The physical sciences do not wait for absolute universal proofs, or a complete understanding of every single mechanism, of their scientific models/theories before they are functional for practical applications. They simply detail out the precision of the model/theory, the assumptions that were made in the derivation, and boundary conditions indicating any and all known limiting factors. Trying to reduce grammatical statements to their logical counterparts and form rigid complete definitions of language drove philosophers like Bertrand Russel to the edge. The number of asterisks and footnotes you would need to have a "complete" definition of ethical bounds is as infinite as it is impossible. Certain ones may be more useful, but don't think it will ever be "complete." For more, read Wittgenstein's complete body of work, though you could save time and skip to "Philosophical Investigations" but you would be without some context(<haha).
Alice Amell Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 We would fall into ethical subjectivity without universality or delimited universality. I think the distinction is one made by definition of objective morality. Trying to put bounds on definitions while it seems like the right idea, has lead philosophers like Bertrand Russel and Moore to the ends of their rope. The amount of restrictions and asterisks you can put on a definition are limitless. I agree that it would be subjective if we did not use universality. But that doesn't mean universality is valid. Is there a way to show that it is or that morality is objective and therefore would have to use universality?
bugzysegal Posted September 16, 2014 Posted September 16, 2014 I agree that it would be subjective if we did not use universality. But that doesn't mean universality is valid. Is there a way to show that it is or that morality is objective and therefore would have to use universality? LOL are there arguments to show that morality is objective? Yes and they are all still hotly contested by subjectivists and skeptics. Seriously though, every argument for any objective set of ethics is itself an argument for the objective nature of ethics.
Alice Amell Posted September 22, 2014 Posted September 22, 2014 LOL are there arguments to show that morality is objective? Yes and they are all still hotly contested by subjectivists and skeptics. Seriously though, every argument for any objective set of ethics is itself an argument for the objective nature of ethics. Sorry for taking so long to reply. If you mean to say that UPB is an argument for objective ethics I don't see how that follows. Doesn't it assumes that morality is objective to begin with? Or does it explain why morality has to be objective? I should go rewatch the UPB video again once I have time since I still don't completely understand it
bugzysegal Posted September 22, 2014 Posted September 22, 2014 Sorry for taking so long to reply. If you mean to say that UPB is an argument for objective ethics I don't see how that follows. Doesn't it assumes that morality is objective to begin with? Or does it explain why morality has to be objective? I should go rewatch the UPB video again once I have time since I still don't completely understand it Well from what I remember (that's always a bad start) Stefan gives at least some argument for why we should reject moral relativism. He then goes on to give an argument why we should reject moral skepticism (no is from ought Humean problem). These being the only two brands of subjectivism I'm familiar with, this deductively is an argument for objective ethics.
HordOfTheFlies Posted October 13, 2014 Posted October 13, 2014 Why does universality apply to morality? I would actually say it the other way around. Why is it important that morals be universalized? I think everyone has different moral machinery that processes the world's inputs in vastly different ways. The point of universality is such that the outputs of this machinery produce results that anyone, anywhere at any time would understand and desire within the greater context that we live in a connected society. This is the cognizance that we are rational beings and have the full understanding that our actions have consequences. We know that different actions cause different results and can then measure and change our behavior to optimize for win-win scenarios. This, of course, requires that an entity be able to recognize that this is desirable as well as be able to act in a way that promotes the same win-win mechanics in others. If you need a boundary, I think that's it. Morality only exists within the set of beings that can act morally. If this common basis is not present, the question is not one of morals. The universality is then applied within this set since as a function its value would be undefined outside the domain of rational entities. Those are my thoughts, anyway.
Recommended Posts