Q&A: Binding Moral Ideas
Binding Moral Ideas
Question
Can the Rabbi try to convince me that binding moral ideas really do exist? That there is, for example, a binding idea that says murder is wrong? In my view morality is subjective, and I don’t know of any convincing argument that morality is objective, so I’d be glad if you could expose me to one, if you have one.
Answer
Can you convince me that the color red is objective? Do you have any proof that I, or the wall next to you, exists? Do you have any proof that objective evidence is in fact objective?
Discussion on Answer
P wrote:
For some reason I can’t manage to comment there, so here.
Rabbi, I don’t think the color red itself is objective; I think it exists only in my subjective sensation. The objective thing in the story is the photons with the right wavelength to represent something red.
I have proof that the wall next to me exists in the most direct sense: I see it. I see no reason to doubt my sight (or the intuition that tells me I can rely on my sight). The same goes for the intuition that tells me that usually the people I’m discussing things with exist.
I’m not sure I understood what it means to ask, “is objective evidence objective”… Isn’t that like asking, “is a chick a chick”? It’s a chick by definition.
Yishai, who said subjective feelings have no meaning? In my view, all meaning in the world comes from subjective feelings (this is connected to the is-ought problem). In my subjective opinion, it is wrong to cheat on my wife, and therefore I won’t cheat on her.
Obviously, but what is the proof that the photons exist?
Why believe the intuition that your eyes show you the truth, but not believe the intuition that your moral perception tells you the truth?
What I meant to ask was: when you think some piece of evidence is objective, who says you’re right? Skepticism has no limit.
Because I don’t believe there is some “truth” that moral intuition can “show” me. It only tells me how I feel about things, not what really exists. It isn’t like sight. With sight, I can understand that there are objects external to me. That fits with my intuitions. As for morality, I can’t manage to imagine how an idea of value could exist. I can’t understand how such a thing comes into being or in what sense it is binding. If my subjective moral perception does not fit with objective morality, am I still obligated by it? It just seems impossible to me.
Skepticism has no limit unless we set one, and inspired by you, I set it at intuitions. As I said, intuitively I can’t see how the existence of a value idea is possible.
I believe the first intuition and not the second because regarding the second I have other intuitions, stronger ones, that contradict it. Intuitively, I can’t imagine how an idea of objective value exists. I can’t imagine how such a thing could come into being. I can’t imagine in what sense it is binding. If my subjective view of morality differs from objective morality, am I still obligated by it? It simply seems impossible to me, something that can’t be imagined. It’s not like believing that the wall next to me exists
That’s an individual matter. If you don’t believe, then no. I didn’t understand what the question to me is. To me it is intuitively clear that there are binding moral rules.
I hope Rabbi Michi will forgive me for being a layman jumping in headfirst, but I feel like answering:
P,
Try thinking about the following case:
You are a married man, and you committed yourself to remain faithful to your wife.
You have a desire to cheat on your wife, she will never know about it, and you want to go to a prostitute every evening to satisfy your sexual desires.
Do you feel “I am doing a good act,” “I am doing a bad act,” “I am doing something improper,” or do those feelings have no meaning at all, because everything is subjective.