Objective morality
I understood from your words that you claim that morality is objective, that there is right and wrong, and that it is independent of culture.
Is this also the case in your opinion in matters of taste debates? And beauty debates? And what is the difference?
That is, why when two people argue about whether chocolate is delicious do we dismiss it as everyone has their own taste, while in morality it is different. What is the root of the division here? Is it just because chocolate is not an important thing, but there is one truth in it too? Or is there really a plurality of truths in matters of taste, and so why is it so different from morality? What is the basis for the division?
Why don’t you ask about scientific truth? There are arguments there too. I assume the basis of the question is that these are non-factual areas (in the conventional sense). But I disagree with that, and in my opinion, these are facts (though not physical). In the field of morality, there is right and wrong because that is our clear feeling. Just as we have a clear feeling that there is a wall or a table in front of us and we will not accept skeptical appeals (which exist here as well).
Regarding taste (literally, chocolate) and smell, I agree that there is no arguing.
Regarding aesthetic and artistic taste, I’m a bit undecided. My tendency is that there’s truth and falsehood there, but it’s more flexible and allows for more legitimate positions within the framework.
The question of what is the basis for the division is not clear to me. It is simply different because that is how you see it. What is the basis for the division between a cloud and a table? You simply see that these are two different things.
I didn't understand, Your Honor, there are moral questions about which there is no consensus and a clear collective feeling, so how can one talk about right and wrong? Unlike a wall that everyone knows is a wall.
First of all, you need to distinguish between saying that there are no feelings and saying that different people have different feelings. They are not the same thing. Second, I did not say that every moral question has one right answer. There may certainly be questions that have several right answers. And there is still a right and a wrong in morality (because all questions also have wrong answers, and there are questions that have only one right answer).
Thank you very much!
I will ask the second question a little differently: Where does the indication come from that this area is objective (and there is room for debate – morality) and another area is not (the taste of chocolate)? Is it only because we argue about this and dismiss the debate casually? (I do not disparage this argument that reveals that this is how we really think, but is it only that?)
Everything begins and ends with a feeling. Even the perception that when I see a wall, there is indeed a wall there is a feeling.
We need to distinguish between two levels: 1. I see a wall. 2. I have a feeling that in this vision I encounter something outside of me.
2 also exists in morality, and less in aesthetics. But in the taste of chocolate it does not exist at all. Hence the hierarchy I made.
When we make claims about the physical world, we are making claims about things that we believe exist outside of humans and are not context-dependent. When we make moral claims, do they have meaning outside of us (humans)? Can anyone argue that the fact that murder is immoral exists in the world like the fact that the law of attraction exists?
Moreover, can something be moral or immoral without necessarily having mental properties? Murder becomes immoral solely because of the intention to murder. If a stone fell and killed someone, it does not become immoral. In other words, mental properties (empathy, love, hatred, etc., which are inherently non-objective) must be involved in order to talk about morality. In my opinion, this is a crucial difference, and it reinforces the view that morality is not objective.
Regarding the debates - people argue and mix rationality even in issues that are fundamentally irrational - if I'm debating whether to ask someone I like out on a date, and maybe even consulting someone about it, I don't make the love for her or the fear of rejection rational or objective. I agree that in most cases, if people are honest, they will agree about what is moral and what is not, because we share similar basic traits. Similar but not the same!
Well, we have a deep disagreement. See the fourth notebook, Ch.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
