Q&A: Moral Fact
Moral Fact
Question
You sometimes mention the term “moral fact,” the kind of thing we know through our intuition. But what is the conceptual definition of a “moral fact”? What exactly exists in reality?
Answer
I don’t know how to put it clearly. But the moral sense feels like observing some idea, the Idea of the Good. This is meant to exclude the view that the good exists only within us and has no root in the objective world. That is the essence of moral realism.
Discussion on Answer
With all due respect, Rabbi, even if this really is something we observe, how do we know we have correctly interpreted that observation of the idea? That is, if we simply assume that this moral sense sorts things into good, bad, and neutral, how do we know the sorting mechanism is completely reliable? You can prove optimism too, yet it is sometimes refuted by reality. And that optimism is also an observation of a certain idea—the idea of “what the future holds,” negative or positive. If the feeling involved is what leads us to assume the existence of the idea of morality, then a feeling of optimism should lead us to assume the existence of an idea of optimism. My point is that even if the subjective feeling is indeed valid for that subject and proves the existence of the idea, there is still an essential distinction. The other senses are easygoing enough; at worst they make mistakes. But here the binding force is far too great, and so the need for reliability rises accordingly.
Thanks, and have a good day!
These questions keep coming up again and again. We have several kinds of feelings, and not all of them are acts of cognition. When I am sad, I have no assumption that it reflects something in the world. That is a feeling inside me. Cognition is not a feeling and not an emotion. Moral cognition is cognition, not feeling.
We have no independent way to know that it is reliable and that there is really something there. Nor do we have such a way regarding the principle of causality or regarding our trust in sight. Because of a mirage, should we give up trusting our eyes?
Beyond that, you write that these are important questions and therefore one must be careful not to make a mistake. But we have no other tool for moral cognition, so what is the alternative?
“But we have no other tool for moral cognition, so what is the alternative?”
So maybe we should give up moral cognition?
This also relates to your answer at the beginning of the thread. If we cannot manage to define what a moral fact is, then who says it really exists? How can we rely on intuition when it is not even clear what it produces?
And another question: if we manage to understand how moral intuition was formed in the course of evolution, it is clear that this will make us stop believing in morality as something real. So are we not obligated to investigate the question of whether morality was formed in the course of evolution?
Maybe yes and maybe no. Decide what you think. If you think that a definition is a condition for a thing’s existence, you live in la-la land (define la-la land).
As for investigating how and whether morality arose through evolution—good luck.
I didn’t understand the answer, neither about la-la land nor about evolution. Could you explain?
I explained what I had to explain. You make the existence of something depend on the possibility of defining it. That is complete nonsense. You cannot define any basic concept. And regarding evolution, I only wished you good luck. If there is a project that seems important to you, then go ahead and succeed. That’s all.
Why does it not seem important to you?
Do you not agree with the assumption that if morality was created by evolution, then it does not bind us?
And do you not agree that it is important to know whether morality binds us?
I didn’t say it isn’t important, only that in my view it cannot be examined scientifically and empirically. Therefore the move should be the other way around: if morality has validity, then it was probably not created by evolution. Rather, evolution may have created tools for moral cognition, but once they were created, we discern the valid moral rules through them. Exactly as after evolution created the faculty of sight, we see reality—and that does not mean there is no real reality.
Why do you think that cannot be examined scientifically and empirically?
It seems to me that whoever claims it can be examined bears the burden of proof. Propose an experiment or a study that would test it.
Are you addressing the factual question—why we think something is good; whether it is seeing an idea or just a feeling from within us—or the normative question, whether morality has binding force even without realism?