Can There Be Objectively "Correct" Morals?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
User avatar
Mgrinder
Premium Member
Posts: 904
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Re: Can There Be Objectively "Correct" Morals?

Post by Mgrinder »

Spectrum wrote:
Mgrinder wrote:If you take a simple definition of morality, such as
"a moral act is one that contributes to the good/best state of being for all beings involved in the act"
then it seems you can find objective moral truths, since you can find objective facts about whether or not things are good or bad for people (as long as the situation is known), and you can then figure out if certain acts contribute to good or bad states of being.
I agree with your point in principle. What is needed is to further polished the above 'simple' definition to make it as tight as possible and foolproof so that it is 'objective' from every possible perspective.

The above approach is what Kant did with his Categorical Imperative (with different perspectives).
One perspective of the objective Categorical Imperative, i.e.- the [FUL]
Act only in accordance with that Maxim
through which you at the same time
can Will that it become a Universal Law

- the [FUL]

Once we have the above as a moral Policy, a maxim like 'Murder is permissible' would not fit in.
If 'murder is permissible' is made universal (applicable to all humans), then the extinction of the human specie by humans itself is a possibility.
From the above we can establish an objective moral rule or maxim, i.e. 'Murder is NOT permissible' within the objective Moral Principle the FUL.
It's hard to accept FUL as sound as it is rather vague and does not seem to include special cases. It's easy to come up with extreme examples where murder would be, regrettably, the best thing to do. Suppose 25 people are spelunking in a cave and the cave starts to fill up with water. Soon they will be trapped in the cave and drown to death. Everyone tries to get out, but the person closest to the exit gets stuck (as he is quite fat). He can't be moved, and if he doesn't move everyone will drown. In order to save the 24 other people, this unfortunate man must be killed and pieces cut off him so that the rest of the party can get through.

In such a horrible case, it seems murder is the right thing to do, regrettable and grotesque as it is. Notice that this seems an objective truth, though it is relative to this particular situation. Where does this leave Kant's categorical imperative? Defeated, far as I can see.

The problem is that Kant's imperative is that it assumes that all situations are "normal" ones. Normally, killing someone is a terrible thing to do, and should not be done. However, there are lots of situations that are not "normal". So you have to first define the situation, then everyone can see what to do. Kant must first define what "normal" is, which doesn't seem fruitful , as he must go through an infinite list of situations.

Morality is relative to the situation, yet it is still objective, once the situation is defined.
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: Can There Be Objectively "Correct" Morals?

Post by Wilson »

Spectrum wrote:The above approach is what Kant did with his Categorical Imperative (with different perspectives).
One perspective of the objective Categorical Imperative, i.e.- the [FUL]
Act only in accordance with that Maxim
through which you at the same time
can Will that it become a Universal Law

- the [FUL]
Spectrum, the problem with Kant's categorical imperative is that it is not provable as a universal, valid moral law. First of all, he assumes that there ARE universal moral laws, without proof that that's the case. The Categorical Imperative is his starting point, and I disagree with it. It's fine if you want to begin with that assumption, and if you do, you can build a consistent moral structure upon it. You could just as easily say that the basic rule is that is moral which does the most good for the most people, and the least harm. Begin with that, and then you can build a consistent moral structure upon that. Or treat other people as you want to be treated, and build a moral structure upon that.

The point is, in math as in philosophy, you can start with certain postulates which for the purpose of the exercise are assumed to be true, and from that point you can prove things, based on those postulates. Kant's Categorical Imperative is such a postulate, but it's not the only one possible, and personally I don't buy it as a basis for my own morality - though I assume that mine and your ideas as to right and wrong are probably fairly similar, just arrived at in different ways.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Can There Be Objectively "Correct" Morals?

Post by Spectrum »

Mgrinder wrote:It's hard to accept FUL as sound as it is rather vague and does not seem to include special cases. It's easy to come up with extreme examples where murder would be, regrettably, the best thing to do. Suppose 25 people are spelunking in a cave and the cave starts to fill up with water. Soon they will be trapped in the cave and drown to death. Everyone tries to get out, but the person closest to the exit gets stuck (as he is quite fat). He can't be moved, and if he doesn't move everyone will drown. In order to save the 24 other people, this unfortunate man must be killed and pieces cut off him so that the rest of the party can get through.

In such a horrible case, it seems murder is the right thing to do, regrettable and grotesque as it is. Notice that this seems an objective truth, though it is relative to this particular situation. Where does this leave Kant's categorical imperative? Defeated, far as I can see.

The problem is that Kant's imperative is that it assumes that all situations are "normal" ones. Normally, killing someone is a terrible thing to do, and should not be done. However, there are lots of situations that are not "normal". So you have to first define the situation, then everyone can see what to do. Kant must first define what "normal" is, which doesn't seem fruitful , as he must go through an infinite list of situations.

Morality is relative to the situation, yet it is still objective, once the situation is defined.
As I mentioned, FUL is sound, but still crude, thus it need further polishing resulting in the FLN, FA, FH, and FRE. I won't to into the details.

Kant's categorical imperative (CI) from the morality level at most is to be used as a guide.
Within the moral system, there is a provision for variation according to circumstances.
As I had stated, morality is a personal inner mental matter and not a legislative issue.

On the applied side, the judiciary may use the CI as a guide and enact the Law, 'No one shall commit murder ..."
This is now a legal matter and not a morality issue.
In your spelunking case, it will be up to the court to decide whether there is a murder or not in accordance to the Law enacted.
The issue is now shifted to the case of judgment which is another aspect of the Ethical system. There will obviously be varied judgments between different people. The question is how to ensure the majority of people are competent in making good judgment between 'what is ought' and 'what is'.
If we do not have some objective [fixed] point, then there is no way to assess the varied judgments and make improvements to the moral sense and virtue capacity of the majority.

The Morality perspective do not get involve in the practical aspects of Ethics, i.e. churning out an infinite list of situations in the real world [an impossibility anyway]. What Morality is obligated is to formulate and establish the implicit principles of objective 'correct' morals as guidance and also provide principles to reconcile the Pure principles of the CI with the varied empirical real world. This is the task of philosophy-proper.

IMO, Kant proposed a very effective ethical system, but the problem is, it can be VERY easily misinterpreted if one do not take the trouble to understand it thoroughly (which is VERY difficult to grasp).
The first impression of Kant's ethical system is, it is very Rigid, Cold and Robotic when in reality, it is very humane, even 'passionate' [you'll be surprised by this] and flexible.

-- Updated Tue Jul 22, 2014 12:29 am to add the following --
Wilson wrote:Spectrum, the problem with Kant's categorical imperative is that it is not provable as a universal, valid moral law. First of all, he assumes that there ARE universal moral laws, without proof that that's the case. The Categorical Imperative is his starting point, and I disagree with it. It's fine if you want to begin with that assumption, and if you do, you can build a consistent moral structure upon it. ...
Kant Categorical Imperative is grounded on an assumption of absolute freedom. From the speculative perspective this is a transcendental illusion. However, in the morality perspective, it is not merely an assumption plucked from the air, it is a convergent that is critically examined, rationalized and justified and supported by the whole range of Kant's critical philosophy.
You could just as easily say that the basic rule is that is moral which does the most good for the most people,
Easily??
As I said, Hitler could claim that [most good for most people] if Nazism is imposed on the whole world

If you critically examine your easy rule, you will find it would be full of holes. Kant did refer to the concept to the Summun Bonum, i.e. the Highest Good (Cicero), but has to critically examine it and cover whatever holes possible from this concept.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Gaxotte
New Trial Member
Posts: 4
Joined: May 22nd, 2014, 3:21 pm

Re: Can There Be Objectively "Correct" Morals?

Post by Gaxotte »

Hi ! Not sure why you have put "correct" in scare quotes. Your question is whether there can be objectively correct morals. Unless you are using "correct" in some sense other than its ordinary one of "true" or "valid", and I don't think you are, I don't see that "correct" needs any qualification marked by quotation marks. And just a thought : we should separate 'true' or 'valid' from 'universally true or valid'. It seems to me that it's at least logically possible for a morality to be true or valid and also socially or historically or personally specific (this last as in 'situation ethics'). So it might be morally correct for an ancient Greek to seek insight through mantike (divination), since that made perfect sense in her conceptual world, but not for me to do so since I don't share the necessary assumptions. Your question prompts many possible answers. I've simply shared a couple of thoughts.
Seahunt
Posts: 66
Joined: October 12th, 2010, 10:21 pm

Re: Can There Be Objectively "Correct" Morals?

Post by Seahunt »

Hey Mgrinder, You trashed a bunch of people's thoughtful opinions, with poor arguments, but contributed nothing yourself. Remember, it is easy to attack what others build, but that does not make you right .... or moral. Enjoy, seahunt
User avatar
Mgrinder
Premium Member
Posts: 904
Joined: February 1st, 2010, 1:24 am
Contact:

Re: Can There Be Objectively "Correct" Morals?

Post by Mgrinder »

Seahunt wrote:Hey Mgrinder, You trashed a bunch of people's thoughtful opinions, with poor arguments, but contributed nothing yourself. Remember, it is easy to attack what others build, but that does not make you right .... or moral. Enjoy, seahunt
Huh?

You sure you read what I wrote? Not talking about someone else? I contributed by saying that what is good for people is relative to the situation, but is objective once the situation is defined. Gave arguments too, if you care to look. Trying to answer the original question. Hard to see how that might hurt someone's feelings. Then I argued against kant's categorical imperative with a cave argument. Not sure how that would be hurtful either.

This is a philosophy forum. It's sort of expected that there be disagreements, but I have no idea why you would think I am being rude or whatever... :?
SoylentGreen
Posts: 88
Joined: June 19th, 2013, 7:31 pm

Re: Can There Be Objectively "Correct" Morals?

Post by SoylentGreen »

Seahunt:

What is your understanding of Kant? He wrote extensively on morality in the works he wrote after his first Critique; and there is little I can take exception to (albeit I admit I have not read as extensively as I should have at this point in my life); but there are some good sites dedicated to Kant that I think might change your mind on this important philosopher. Steve Palmquist of Hong Kong Baptist university has a site dedicated to Kant that has much information, and he presents in a series of essays, a more balanced perspective on Kant--which I'm now in the process of reading through. There are so many secondary resources on Kant however that it's easy to get lost in the oceans of misunderstanding that plague Kant's work. Thus far I've only found that this site is very credible and Palmquist addresses lots of misunderstanding that surround Kant. But who can disagree for instance, with the Categorical Imperative (a philosophical reformulation of the Golden Rule--leaving out any reference to a Higher Being). If there's any sound definition of morality I'd say at least that Kant Imperative is hard to improve upon. It's a completely different matter to live up to the demands imposed on one by the Imperative but it's certainly worthwhile to try one's best to live up to it.

The problem is that it's impossible, given the kind of world we live in, to achieve a universally acceptable standard. The world is prone to giving birth now and then to monsters despite all the good that people manage to do. And it seems to be moving more and more in the direction of violence as the means to an end. We've had Stalin and Hitler and other monsters in the last century. With how this new century is unravelling I think the red carpet is being laid out for the next monster. We would do well to prepare ourselves against this by looking deeply into our own sense of right and wrong and doing what we can to direct humanity away from its present downward spiral toward violence and wars as the only means to achieve a better more secure state (this has never worked for Israel--but they simply cannot understand or they refuse to understand this). Following the categorical imperative is just one way among others that this can be achieved--it' would be hard on my conscience knowing the moral duty I have toward others while pressing a button that launches a missile into the air to blow up innocent civilians, or a passenger airplane. Kant's C.I. only reminds--and if I ever forget, reawakens in me--this sense of moral duty.
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: Can There Be Objectively "Correct" Morals?

Post by Wilson »

SoylentGreen wrote:Following the categorical imperative is just one way among others that this can be achieved--it' would be hard on my conscience knowing the moral duty I have toward others while pressing a button that launches a missile into the air to blow up innocent civilians, or a passenger airplane. Kant's C.I. only reminds--and if I ever forget, reawakens in me--this sense of moral duty.
When you pictured yourself as having the power to press a button that launches a missile to kill innocent people, did you thumb through your Kant handbook to decide whether that would be a good or bad thing? Or did you know immediately, based on what your conscience told you, that you wouldn't want to be responsible for those deaths? Generally we have an instinctual feeling that certain things are good and others are bad - and that's our conscience. When we read philosophical discussions of a theoretical nature, we consider whether the theory matches, in general, our inner sense of morality. If it does, mostly, we think the theory has merit; if it goes in a direction different from what our conscience says, we reject it. In other words, we accept a philosophical theory of morality not so much because it seems intelligently written, and consistent, but because it matches what we instinctively feel inside.
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Can There Be Objectively "Correct" Morals?

Post by Atreyu »

Wilson wrote:I also believe that morality is based on conscience. Since conscience is individual, and differs from person to person, there can be no universal morality. We humans have consciences because like pretty much every other characteristic we have - physical, mental, emotional, and personality - it came to us by way of evolution, because it offered survival advantages.
Perhaps it should be based on conscience, but it isn't. Just a cursory look at some of the moral codes out there, such as the radical jihadist, shows quite clearly that often it appears to have no relation to it whatsoever. And conscience simply is not 'individual' and does not vary from person to person. It's universal. And people don't have it by default. At best it comes and goes in an ordinary person, otherwise life would be very different indeed. If everyone really had a conscience there would be no war or crime. Just a cursory look at the life of man shows its relative absence.
Wilson wrote: I'm not sure that you can say that conscience is objective, however. It's sort of the opposite. "Subjective" means based on personal opinion and emotions, "objective" is fact-based.
I'm not saying it's absolutely objective. I made that clear. I said it's more objective. It's not as subjective or arbitrary.
Wilson wrote: Under this concept, when we argue about the morality of something, we can only do so because in general we have similar consciences. For most of us, our conscience uses things like the golden rule and greater good for the most people. And most of us have similar consciences because 1) deep down things feel right or wrong to us based on empathy for others, and 2) we tend to accept, in many cases, the opinions about morality that our community has agreed upon.
We argue about morality precisely because we don't have conscience. We would have similar consciences if we had them in the first place, but we don't so we replace them with moral codes which are bound to differ due to different cultures, religions, upbringing, experiences, etc. Conscience is not merely 'feeling something is right or wrong'. It's a special emotion, not an ordinary one. A feeling about 'right and wrong' may or may not be 'conscience'. Shame can be based on conscience, or it can be based on morality, ideas, upbringing, what one has been taught, etc. People can all agree on what is right and wrong because they all have conscience, or because they all have been taught and accept a general moral code.
Wilson wrote: So, for example, I feel strongly that murder of innocent people is wrong, because my conscience tells me that it is morally wrong. But the conscience of a sociopath who has no empathy for others doesn't give him the same message, except perhaps in the abstract. And the conscience of a fundamentalist Muslim may tell him that it is an act pleasing in the eyes of God to kill an infidel who has done nothing wrong except for his disbelief. So it would be an exercise in futility to argue the morality of such an act with a sociopath or a fundamentalist Muslim. Discussions about the right or wrong of something are only likely to reach a consensus if the two parties have similar consciences.
The sociopath and the fundamentalist Muslim have no consciences, hence they are what they are. The former has no moral code, the latter does. The fundamentalist doesn't say it's right to kill infidels because of conscience. If he had a conscience, he'd say nothing whatsoever of the kind. He says it's right to kill unbelievers because that is what he has been taught and he believes in that teaching. And morality is learned and taught. Conscience doesn't need to be learned or taught. And if you have it, you don't need any teaching to tell you what's 'right' and 'wrong'.

Your definition mixes the two and doesn't clearly define the difference between the two terms.
wilson wrote:Morality is what our consciences tell us is right to do; immorality is what our consciences tell us is wrong to do.
See what I mean? You're just replacing 'conscience' with 'morality'. As if they are the same. But they are not, which is why we have two different words. Conscience is what our consciences both tell us is right and wrong to do. Morality is what tells us what is right and wrong in the absence of conscience. You don't need a moral code if you have conscience. Why would you? Morality is only needed for a man who has no conscience. It's the artificial replacement for it and has practical and sometimes impractical functionality in its absence.

One of the main reasons this idea is difficult for many is because they assume conscience in themselves and others when it simply isn't there. Morality is a good disguise for conscience, and can easily fool anyone who doesn't understand the crucial difference.
seahunt wrote:OK Folks, Sorry, but it is time to be critical. I asked if you could give me a definition and so far no one can.
I did a good of job as could be done by explaining conscience. That's as close to 'objective' as you can get. It's common to all, universal, and if everyone had it we'd all agree on what is right and wrong. But we don't have it, so instead we have learned various and often conflicting moral codes in its place, which leaves us with a world in which different peoples and cultures in different times may argue and fight over what is 'right'. Morality changes from place to place, nation to nation, culture to culture, and time to time. What is moral in the U.S. today was quite immoral 100 years ago, and vice versa. Morality is more subjective. Conscience is more objective.

This is the best we can do....
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Can There Be Objectively "Correct" Morals?

Post by Spectrum »

Wilson wrote:When you pictured yourself as having the power to press a button that launches a missile to kill innocent people, did you thumb through your Kant handbook to decide whether that would be a good or bad thing?
Or did you know immediately, based on what your conscience told you, that you wouldn't want to be responsible for those deaths?
There you go again in not understanding Kant's ethical system.

Given the above scenario, the Kantian position would be as follows;
A. Immediate position of required imperative action
1. There is no Kantian handbook of precepts to refer to.
2. Do the best one can based on one's present morality quotient (MQ), including whatever the capability of one's
conscience and total mental capability.
3. Review above action for improvement

B. Subsequent Actions to A above
1. Understand what is the requirement of the Categorical Imperative, say 100/100
2. Analyze one's current position, say 40/100.
3. Strive to improve continuously towards 100/100 (impossible) but realistically 90+/100.
4. Take real actions of improvement corresponded by real changes in the brain.

From the above, you will note that the person MQ is continually improving on an increasing trend against an objective moral standard.

The Kantian approach is firstly an individual matter, but it is interdependent with all humans collectively where each individual is a member of TEAM HUMAN.
Generally we have an instinctual feeling that certain things are good and others are bad - and that's our conscience. When we read philosophical discussions of a theoretical nature, we consider whether the theory matches, in general, our inner sense of morality. If it does, mostly, we think the theory has merit; if it goes in a direction different from what our conscience says, we reject it. In other words, we accept a philosophical theory of morality not so much because it seems intelligently written, and consistent, but because it matches what we instinctively feel inside.
If there are no universal objective moral standards, how do you know your conscience quotient (CQ) is up to standard. Everyone will think their conscience is the best and what we have would be anarchy. How can you get the tribesmen in Amazon, the Arabs in the ME, the CEO in NY and everyone on Earth to act to the same standard?

In the Kantian Ethical model, every member of TEAM HUMAN MORAL is a co-formulator of the moral principles and laws that he is subject to.

There are much more to the Kantian Ethical Model with all its principles integrated and interlocked in a fitting grid within a system. One can throw any doubts and questions at it from any perspective, and one would be assured an answer, except the proof of the ultimate assumption that is presupposed.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: Can There Be Objectively "Correct" Morals?

Post by Wilson »

Atreyu wrote:We argue about morality precisely because we don't have conscience. We would have similar consciences if we had them in the first place, but we don't so we replace them with moral codes which are bound to differ due to different cultures, religions, upbringing, experiences, etc. Conscience is not merely 'feeling something is right or wrong'. It's a special emotion, not an ordinary one. A feeling about 'right and wrong' may or may not be 'conscience'. Shame can be based on conscience, or it can be based on morality, ideas, upbringing, what one has been taught, etc. People can all agree on what is right and wrong because they all have conscience, or because they all have been taught and accept a general moral code.
The dictionary definition of conscience is: "an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior." Are you saying that you don't have that inner feeling or voice? Well, I sure do, and I think almost everybody does. If you yourself don't have that inner voice that instinctively tells you whether something is right or wrong, you may be a sociopath - in other words, someone without empathy for others. Sociopath isn't quite the right word for it, however, since the word implies that the individual does antisocial actions. And some people without consciences, without an inner sense of right and wrong, can still be productive citizens who act in accordance with societal norms. But they don't do so, as most of us do, out of concern for our fellow human beings, but because behaving properly is in their own self-interest.

That inner sense of right and wrong - the conscience - isn't purely a product of empathy, sympathy, community responsibility, and so on. It's also shaped by what one's society says are the proper moral principles. So a Muslim believes that it is a sin to deny the Prophet, and that becomes part of his conscience. A Christian may be told that abortion is always wrong, and that becomes part of his conscience. So what we think of as "moral principles" may be embedded in one's conscience.

Are you saying, Atreyu, that you don't have an inner voice that tells you what's right or wrong? Don't you sometimes feel that you are having inner discussions with yourself? I think that most of us do. It's like one part of our brain is having a conversation with another part. When I try to figure things out - not just moral issues - it's almost like I'm talking with myself. I feel that the ability to do that - to have silent inner conversations - is what allows us to do science and philosophy and understand complex issues. So when you see the cartoon with a devil on one shoulder and an angel on another, it's representing conflicting inner voices.

Part of our conflict may be in the definitions, as with so many differences of opinion on all sorts of subjects. For me, conscience is simply that inner voice that tells me, when I observe a situation, that it is either morally right or morally wrong. I don't have to bring out my Kant, or Nietzsche, or Hume to craft an opinion. If I see someone beating a starving child, I instinctively know that it's wrong, and to be honest I don't care what the great philosophers would say about it. If I'm a Muslim and see someone burning a Quran, I would instinctively know that that was wrong - because that teaching has become part of my inner moral code. So it seems to me that you are defining "conscience" in a non-standard way.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Can There Be Objectively "Correct" Morals?

Post by Spectrum »

Wilson wrote:Part of our conflict may be in the definitions, as with so many differences of opinion on all sorts of subjects. For me, conscience is simply that inner voice that tells me, when I observe a situation, that it is either morally right or morally wrong. I don't have to bring out my Kant, or Nietzsche, or Hume to craft an opinion. If I see someone beating a starving child, I instinctively know that it's wrong, and to be honest I don't care what the great philosophers would say about it. If I'm a Muslim and see someone burning a Quran, I would instinctively know that that was wrong - because that teaching has become part of my inner moral code. So it seems to me that you are defining "conscience" in a non-standard way.
You seem to think you are discussing this issue in a pub or flea-market and not knowing this is a 'Philosophical' forum.
In a philosophical forum one is obligated to exhaust any issue to its most extreme limit that one can reach.

Note the more extensive meaning of 'conscience' within a dictionary.
1. the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience.
2. the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual.
3. an inhibiting sense of what is prudent: I'd eat another piece of pie but my conscience would bother me.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conscience?s=t

In a philosophical perspective, one would focus on 2 in more detail and 3.

In your Quran case, you did not take into account the possible actions that follow what your 'conscience' tell you, i.e. kill non-muslims on sight because the 'wrongness' has offended you. In any case, this is not a good example to highlight the criticalness of conscience at the philosophical level.

Here is a more relevant case,
Say you and 15 others are involved in an air crash incident where all are stuck somewhere on top of the snow-filled Andes with dead bodies strewn all over. After 7 days of searching rescuers had given up their search efforts.
Now it happened that everyone's conscience tell them 'cannibalism' in whatever ways is wrong and they must never resort such abominable and vile acts!
The crash site and the bodies of all involved were never discovered even after 1, 10, 50 years.

There is a real case as above and where 16 of 27 were rescued because they gave in to 'cannibalism' even on their dead relatives.

If the people involved had understood the Philosophy of Conscience within a systematic Ethical Framework, there would not be the total fatal consequence in the first example, and in the 2nd case, they would not have to battle against their conscience for days before they did what they had to do.

The human conscience from the philosophical perspective is not merely the resulting thought, i.e. 'I can or cannot do this or that.' Underlying what is 'conscience' there are a complex set of unconscious processes. The faculty of human conscience is like a tribunal court within one's mind where one act in roles as prosecutor, executor, defendant, witnesses, judge and jury at the 'same' time. The resultant of one's conscience must be the same or an near as possible to what is universally 'right' and not Tom, Dick or Harry's conscience tell him is 'right'. How to achieve and improve on 'rightness' of one's conscience (CQ) is the task of the Philosophy of Ethics and Morality.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Wilson
Posts: 1500
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: Can There Be Objectively "Correct" Morals?

Post by Wilson »

Spectrum, from a philosophical perspective, or any other perspective, one would focus on the primary definition. That is, the definition which most people understand when they hear the word "conscience" - that is, the inner voice which tells them whether an action is morally right or morally wrong. Not some secondary definition which you want to shoehorn into your particular argument.

You say, "The resultant of one's conscience must be the same or an near as possible to what is universally 'right' and not Tom, Dick or Harry's conscience tell him is 'right'." In the first place, I don't believe that there is a morality that is universally "right". You believe in moral absolutes, I don't, many or most of the serious posters here don't. And I'm not implying that I would find every person's conscience equally acceptable, just that everyone's is different, and individual, and in many cases not compatible with most people's ideas of goodness. It would be nice if everyone agreed with my moral beliefs, which are basically kind, sympathetic, and generous - but that's not the way the world is.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Can There Be Objectively "Correct" Morals?

Post by Spectrum »

Wilson wrote:Spectrum, from a philosophical perspective, or any other perspective, one would focus on the primary definition. That is, the definition which most people understand when they hear the word "conscience" - that is, the inner voice which tells them whether an action is morally right or morally wrong. Not some secondary definition which you want to shoehorn into your particular argument.
Btw, 'definition' is not primary within philosophy proper. Philosophy-proper must always start its exploration without restraints i.e. no-holds-barred, otherwise one will be starting to philosophize in a straightjacket. I understand, in our discussion, it is effective to ask for some sort of definition, but definitions are always a secondary process in philosophy-proper. Here is one view (you guess who?):
Kant wrote:From this it follows: (a) That in Philosophy we must not imitate Mathematics by beginning with definitions, unless it be by way simply of experiment. For since the definitions are analyses of Given Concepts, they presuppose the prior presence of the Concepts, although in a confused state; and the incomplete exposition must precede the complete. Consequently, we can infer a good deal from a few characteristics, derived from an incomplete analysis, without having yet reached the complete exposition, that is, the definition.

In short, the definition in all its precision and clarity ought, in Philosophy, to come rather at the end than at the beginning of our enquiries.
You say, "The resultant of one's conscience must be the same or an near as possible to what is universally 'right' and not Tom, Dick or Harry's conscience tell him is 'right'." In the first place, I don't believe that there is a morality that is universally "right". You believe in moral absolutes, I don't, many or most of the serious posters here don't. And I'm not implying that I would find every person's conscience equally acceptable, just that everyone's is different, and individual, and in many cases not compatible with most people's ideas of goodness. It would be nice if everyone agreed with my moral beliefs, which are basically kind, sympathetic, and generous - but that's not the way the world is.
I have presented my arguments why there is a necessity to assume Moral Absolutes.

My point is you have not done a deeper philosophical reflection of 'what is conscience' but merely presenting very shallow conventional common sense thoughts on it.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Can There Be Objectively "Correct" Morals?

Post by Atreyu »

Wilson wrote:The dictionary definition of conscience is: "an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior." Are you saying that you don't have that inner feeling or voice? Well, I sure do, and I think almost everybody does.
Unfortunately that definition is not sufficient in practice because an 'inner feeling' (actually all of them are 'inner') is not necessarily conscience. And, in fact, normally they are not since 'inner feeling' can really be reduced to just 'feeling'. Not all feelings are conscience. Anger, jealously, envy, hatred are 'inner feelings' but they are not conscience. So one can easily deceive oneself concerning 'conscience' and that is exactly what we do, since all of us like to think of ourselves as having it.
Wilson wrote: If you yourself don't have that inner voice that instinctively tells you whether something is right or wrong, you may be a sociopath - in other words, someone without empathy for others.
It's not instinctive and you yourself have suggested that by saying it's learned. Instincts don't have be learned, they come ready-made at birth. Conscience is an emotional function, not an instinctive one. And not an ordinary emotional function, like happiness, melancholy, sadness, or fear.
Wilson wrote: That inner sense of right and wrong - the conscience - isn't purely a product of empathy, sympathy, community responsibility, and so on. It's also shaped by what one's society says are the proper moral principles. So a Muslim believes that it is a sin to deny the Prophet, and that becomes part of his conscience. A Christian may be told that abortion is always wrong, and that becomes part of his conscience. So what we think of as "moral principles" may be embedded in one's conscience.
What society says are the proper moral principles are morality, not conscience. As I said before, you're mixing the two, which makes two words unnecessary. But we have two words because they refer to different things. If conscience is really just morality then we don't need to discuss it as something separate. We can just talk about morality and moral codes.
Wilson wrote: Are you saying, Atreyu, that you don't have an inner voice that tells you what's right or wrong? Don't you sometimes feel that you are having inner discussions with yourself? I think that most of us do. It's like one part of our brain is having a conversation with another part. When I try to figure things out - not just moral issues - it's almost like I'm talking with myself. I feel that the ability to do that - to have silent inner conversations - is what allows us to do science and philosophy and understand complex issues. So when you see the cartoon with a devil on one shoulder and an angel on another, it's representing conflicting inner voices.
I'm not making any claims about my self, just about mankind in general. Inner discussions with oneself is thinking, not conscience. This is an intellectual function, not an emotional one. Thinking is not conscience. Conscience is a feeling, an emotional 'voice' not an actual worded voice in your head. That's reason, thinking, and that is how morality is created. Those 'inner discussions' with oneself and others is precisely how morality, not conscience, is created. Morality is based on thinking about what is right and wrong, not feeling it.
Wilson wrote: Part of our conflict may be in the definitions, as with so many differences of opinion on all sorts of subjects. For me, conscience is simply that inner voice that tells me, when I observe a situation, that it is either morally right or morally wrong. I don't have to bring out my Kant, or Nietzsche, or Hume to craft an opinion. If I see someone beating a starving child, I instinctively know that it's wrong, and to be honest I don't care what the great philosophers would say about it. If I'm a Muslim and see someone burning a Quran, I would instinctively know that that was wrong - because that teaching has become part of my inner moral code. So it seems to me that you are defining "conscience" in a non-standard way.
Quite right. Indeed I am defining it in a 'non-standard' way because 'standard' definitions are quite false which is why this post has come up in a philosophy board in the first place. Yes, conscience is an 'inner voice' (feeling with information in it) that tells you what is right and wrong, period. Not 'morally right or wrong', that's morality. Just right or wrong period. And it's not an instinctive function. 'Right' and 'wrong' for instinct is merely what has survival value. Instinct says 'right' is what keeps you alive and healthy, and what is 'wrong' is what will kill you or make you ill. That's not conscience. What the great philosophers would say about it would be morality, not conscience, because they're thinking about what moral code is proper, rather than just knowing what it is by feeling it with their consciences. The best moral code, which is what ethicists discuss, would indeed be that which always corresponds with conscience. But conscience itself is not a moral code nor any other product of our intellects.

Again, if conscience was really as prevalent as you suggest the life of man would be quite different. Take a look at what's going on in the world, in Israel and Gaza, in the Ukraine, everywhere, and tell me just how common and prevalent and ordinary conscience really is. Most everyone, everywhere, including in the midst of wars and mindless slaughters, have a morality and a moral code. Obviously this is not sufficient and if conscience were the same thing we'd see a quite different reality on the ground.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021