Q&A: Moral Realism
Moral Realism
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I had a few questions about moral realism.
You explained the argument for moral realism by analogy to slavery: that it’s a good thing I didn’t live in the 18th century, because then I would have thought slavery was moral. We relate to morality as though it has objective truth: in the past we were mistaken, and today we are right. And if it were subjective, like taste and smell, we wouldn’t see a difference between the moral views of the past and those of today. From the fact that we do see a difference—that in the past we were mistaken in our moral approaches—it follows that morality is objective.
As I understand it, that’s the argument; I hope I didn’t distort it or leave anything out.
My question is: just because we think this way, what is that supposed to tell us as a factual claim about the world? The world was here before us; it doesn’t owe us anything. It seems more plausible to say that the concept of morality is a product of evolution, that there is survival value in not killing and not harming anyone. And the proof of that is that only Homo sapiens in the developed world behave in a relatively moral way, while all other animals do not. Why, if morality is objective, should it apply to us but not to them?
And another epistemic question: how are we supposed to arrive at knowledge of what is moral and what is not? If it comes through intuition, people have different intuitions; and if it is through logical argument, people start from different premises.
And I also think moral realism needs to explain why, for example, after billions of years of development of biological creatures, we did not behave morally and had no way to arrive at what is right and what is not.
To conclude, I wanted to say that I greatly appreciate the Rabbi’s thought, and I think your teachings are foundational assets of modern Judaism.
Answer
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument. This argument is “theological” (that is, revelatory), not “philosophical” (that is, demonstrative). The claim is meant to show a person where he himself stands, not to show what the truth is. Exactly like miggo does not prove that this is the truth, but only that I am not lying about it (and there is a practical difference regarding “perhaps he estimated it”). What this says about the truth—whether morality is a product of evolution—is a completely different question. When I reach a conclusion, I tend to accept it as true until proven otherwise. If you are a skeptic who doubts your own conclusions, then I have nothing to say to you.
Contrary to your claim, morality is fairly widely agreed upon among people. The arguments are at the margins. But even if not, a judge has only what his eyes can see.
I did not understand what moral realism is supposed to explain regarding evolution. In my opinion, nothing at all.