Q&A: A Question About Morality
A Question About Morality
Question
Hello, I wanted to ask: on the one hand, people tend to claim that the moral object, or God's command in matters of morality, is real and reflects something genuinely real "out there." And yet humanity does not manage to grasp that object in its entirety, but rather learns it slowly and gradually through the shared contemplation of society as a whole, which is made up of many individuals. In this way, it is relatively understandable why we see morality improving throughout the generations and not merely changing. And likewise why simpler cultures usually adopt the advanced Western cultures. (Of course, if morality were not objective, it would be unclear what is meant by the words "improving" or "advancing.".)
But at the same time, on the other hand, we encounter something similar with aesthetics and beauty, which are also determined collectively and influence every individual, yet behind them there does not stand something real. Rather, this is only subjective, relativistic beauty. Regarding beauty too, we think that it improves over time, and the influence of advanced Western cultures affects primitive cultures greatly. (Here, by contrast, the words "advanced" and "improved" are being used subjectively, which is puzzling.)
But if my distinction is correct, then it seems that there is a serious problem with assuming that morality is objective. Because here we encounter precisely society's influence on individuals regarding their worldviews, in line with the social-contract thesis. And so it seems that morality too is relativistic.
Moreover, one cannot downplay the importance of the fields of aesthetics and beauty for society; it seems so great that we can hardly find a single object detached from such considerations, aside from all the cultural influences that these things create on entire societies.
If so, is it reasonable to assume that morality is not objective? And that the good and the beautiful are only a product of the society from which we came?
Answer
First, perhaps there is objective progress in beauty as well. Second, I do not see primitive cultures imitating the West in matters of art and aesthetics.
Discussion on Answer
In my humble opinion, the distinguished rabbi's suggestion that there may also be progress in beauty sounds a bit strange at first glance, because it is indeed commonly accepted that this is subjective, and as far as I recall that is also what Maimonides says about conventionally accepted truths, and I also remember it being written explicitly here in the responsa that this is subjective, or at least mostly so.
By the way,
isn't there proof from the question itself here that this is something objective?
Because if in fact we interpret the model of beauty as subjective despite social influence, but on the other hand remain with the understanding that morality is objective despite its also depending on social influences,
that only shows that we really are capable of making the distinction, of distinguishing between beauty and morality, or between the subjective and the objective.
What do you think?
P.S.
Benjamin, where exactly are Western cultures imitating primitive cultures?
Are gray buildings and products, and tall blonde women, found somewhere in Africa or in the failing regions of Asia?
If we say something, is that proof that it is correct? Maybe we're mistaken?
I didn't understand—how is this different from ordinary skepticism?
Here itself, the very fact that you claim to have a capacity to distinguish only strengthens the argument, as opposed to a case where everything we feel we assume is objective…
This discussion is bizarre. On the one hand, people ask me how I know that morality is objective. The fact that I feel that way does not mean it is true. Now the claim being raised is that because we all feel there is a difference between morality and aesthetics, there must necessarily be a difference. So make up your mind: do you accept our feelings or not?
My position is that our intuitions are acceptable as long as they are reasonable and do not run into a contradiction.
On the contrary, quite the contrary—Western cultures imitate primitive cultures!