Ideal Observer Theory

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Kaz_1983
Posts: 432
Joined: May 26th, 2019, 6:52 am

Ideal Observer Theory

Post by Kaz_1983 »

What do you guys think of the observer theory?

For anybody that doesn't know “the ideal observer theory’ was first espoused by the philosopher Adam Smith and it's been said that people like David Hume have been supporters of this theory. The "Ideal observer theory" puts forth the idea that what is right is determined by the attitudes that a hypothetical ideal observer would have. To break it down, the Ideal observer theory is the meta-ethical view which claims that ethical sentences express truth-apt propositions about the attitudes of a hypothetical ideal observer.
He leaves it open whether the reaction is sentimental, so there are possible variants of Ideal Observer Theory that are not sentimentalist.
I suppose it comes down to whether you believe that the "Ideal observer" has used reason alone to come to their moral judgement/s or whether moral judgements are based the human sentiments... look at the theory like this;

P1) The ideal observer feels that the idea of murder brings about “moral disgust”

P2) For me, the idea of murder brings about “moral disgust” too

C) I believe that the ideal observer’s feelings about murder are similar to mine.

The ideal observer theory is kind of like your conscience - your conscience or in this case the “Ideal observer”, keeps you in check... there is also a version of that is based on the desires and human sentiments of a hypothetical ideal observer. David Hume apparently espoused a version of the ideal observed theory....
... the reference is not to anyone's actual sentiments, but to sentiments they would have in suitable circumstances. Suggestions of this type of view can be found in Hume and Smith...
To sum it up, for me it sounds a lot like a "subjective" version of the divine command theory, because in both cases we're talking about an ideal observer - just in one case the ideal observer is God and the other one is subjective and what is right and wrong is determined by the attitudes that's a hypothetical ideal observer would have in his possession - both are kind like that.... see in a lot of ways “The ideal observer theory” is kind of like Virtue Ethics, because in both cases the primary focus is on what type of person we should aspire to be.

All quote from here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mora ... #SubIdeDis
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Ideal Observer Theory

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Kaz_1983 wrote: November 23rd, 2020, 8:12 am What do you guys think of the observer theory?

For anybody that doesn't know “the ideal observer theory’ was first espoused by the philosopher Adam Smith and it's been said that people like David Hume have been supporters of this theory. The "Ideal observer theory" puts forth the idea that what is right is determined by the attitudes that a hypothetical ideal observer would have. To break it down, the Ideal observer theory is the meta-ethical view which claims that ethical sentences express truth-apt propositions about the attitudes of a hypothetical ideal observer.
He leaves it open whether the reaction is sentimental, so there are possible variants of Ideal Observer Theory that are not sentimentalist.
I suppose it comes down to whether you believe that the "Ideal observer" has used reason alone to come to their moral judgement/s or whether moral judgements are based the human sentiments... look at the theory like this;

P1) The ideal observer feels that the idea of murder brings about “moral disgust”

P2) For me, the idea of murder brings about “moral disgust” too

C) I believe that the ideal observer’s feelings about murder are similar to mine.

The ideal observer theory is kind of like your conscience - your conscience or in this case the “Ideal observer”, keeps you in check... there is also a version of that is based on the desires and human sentiments of a hypothetical ideal observer. David Hume apparently espoused a version of the ideal observed theory....
... the reference is not to anyone's actual sentiments, but to sentiments they would have in suitable circumstances. Suggestions of this type of view can be found in Hume and Smith...
To sum it up, for me it sounds a lot like a "subjective" version of the divine command theory, because in both cases we're talking about an ideal observer - just in one case the ideal observer is God and the other one is subjective and what is right and wrong is determined by the attitudes that's a hypothetical ideal observer would have in his possession - both are kind like that.... see in a lot of ways “The ideal observer theory” is kind of like Virtue Ethics, because in both cases the primary focus is on what type of person we should aspire to be.

All quote from here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mora ... #SubIdeDis


I don't think the ideal observer theory is like the divine command theory at all. With the ideal observer, at least as in Hume, the judgement is based on feelings of benevolence or feelings of humanity (to use a couple of terms he uses). Those are feelings that are common with other people (basically, everyone who is not a sociopath, though Hume does not use that term). And viewing the matter as "an ideal observer" is to help one weed out other feelings, such as feelings of self-interest, which may affect how one feels about a situation. Those other feelings are not the basis of ethics (according to Hume).

With the divine command theory, there is no check or limit on what god can command. So that, when, for example, in Deuteronomy, god commands his followers to commit genocide, that (according to the divine command theory) is the right thing to do:


Deuteronomy 7:

1 When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;
2 And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:
3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.


Deuteronomy 20

16 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:


In Deuteronomy 20:16, not only are all of the people to be killed, but all of their animals as well ("thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth").


In the Bible story of Abraham and Isaac, where god commands Abraham to kill his son Isaac, Abraham's willingness to do this is regarded as a virtue. (This story occurs in Genesis 22.) Even though his son has done nothing wrong; it is just an arbitrary command from god, and so Abraham is ready to murder his own son.

Think about what kind of man would be willing to do such a thing, because he hears voices telling him to do this. That is the ideal of the ethical man according to the divine command theory.


Murder, rape, pillaging, all can fit with the divine command theory. With a theory like Hume's, those things are not permissible.


The divine command theory of ethics is about as unethical of an ethical theory as one can have.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: Ideal Observer Theory

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

Kaz_1983 wrote: November 23rd, 2020, 8:12 am What do you guys think of the observer theory?

For anybody that doesn't know “the ideal observer theory’ was first espoused by the philosopher Adam Smith and it's been said that people like David Hume have been supporters of this theory. The "Ideal observer theory" puts forth the idea that what is right is determined by the attitudes that a hypothetical ideal observer would have. To break it down, the Ideal observer theory is the meta-ethical view which claims that ethical sentences express truth-apt propositions about the attitudes of a hypothetical ideal observer.
...
What makes this observer "ideal"? Does she possess a correct understanding of the goals of morality? Is she completely unbiased and objective? What are the qualities that one should have if one is to make decisions as to what is right and wrong?
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Ideal Observer Theory

Post by Gertie »

Kaz_1983 wrote: November 23rd, 2020, 8:12 am What do you guys think of the observer theory?

For anybody that doesn't know “the ideal observer theory’ was first espoused by the philosopher Adam Smith and it's been said that people like David Hume have been supporters of this theory. The "Ideal observer theory" puts forth the idea that what is right is determined by the attitudes that a hypothetical ideal observer would have. To break it down, the Ideal observer theory is the meta-ethical view which claims that ethical sentences express truth-apt propositions about the attitudes of a hypothetical ideal observer.
He leaves it open whether the reaction is sentimental, so there are possible variants of Ideal Observer Theory that are not sentimentalist.
I suppose it comes down to whether you believe that the "Ideal observer" has used reason alone to come to their moral judgement/s or whether moral judgements are based the human sentiments... look at the theory like this;

P1) The ideal observer feels that the idea of murder brings about “moral disgust”

P2) For me, the idea of murder brings about “moral disgust” too

C) I believe that the ideal observer’s feelings about murder are similar to mine.

The ideal observer theory is kind of like your conscience - your conscience or in this case the “Ideal observer”, keeps you in check... there is also a version of that is based on the desires and human sentiments of a hypothetical ideal observer. David Hume apparently espoused a version of the ideal observed theory....
... the reference is not to anyone's actual sentiments, but to sentiments they would have in suitable circumstances. Suggestions of this type of view can be found in Hume and Smith...
To sum it up, for me it sounds a lot like a "subjective" version of the divine command theory, because in both cases we're talking about an ideal observer - just in one case the ideal observer is God and the other one is subjective and what is right and wrong is determined by the attitudes that's a hypothetical ideal observer would have in his possession - both are kind like that.... see in a lot of ways “The ideal observer theory” is kind of like Virtue Ethics, because in both cases the primary focus is on what type of person we should aspire to be.

All quote from here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mora ... #SubIdeDis
It seems like an attempt to bring a quasi rational/objective structure to moral subjectivism.

I think it's right to acknowledge that moral subjectivism has a massive problem - the ''all things are permissible'' problem.

So can introducing the concept of an Ideal Subject escape that problem?

At the level of logical form, ought claims may have a tacit argument place for a standard, just as for contextualists—but the standard is context-invariant. The second is dispositionalization: the reference is not to anyone's actual sentiments, but to sentiments they would have in suitable circumstances. Suggestions of this type of view can be found in Hume and Smith—recall their talk of correcting our sentiments by reference to the common point of view or the impartial spectator's response. Here is a recognizably Smithian formulation of this kind of view:

To judge that X is wrong is to believe that any informed impartial spectator would disapprove of X.

Roderick Firth's (1952) Ideal Observer Theory is a more contemporary variant of this kind of view. He formulates it as an analysis of the meaning of ethical statements, but it can also be taken as an account of the corresponding thoughts. In general form, it is as follows:

To judge that X has a moral property is to believe that any ideal observer would have an ethically significant reaction to X in conditions ideal for doing so.

By an ‘ethically significant reaction’ Firth means

the kind of moral experience which we take to be evidence, under ideal conditions, for the truth of our ethical judgments. (Firth 1952: 326)

He leaves it open whether the reaction is sentimental, so there are possible variants of Ideal Observer Theory that are not sentimentalist. In specifying the characteristics of the ideal observer, Firth uses a ‘pragmatic methodology’ of

examining the procedures which we actually regard, implicitly or explicitly, as the rational ones for deciding ethical questions. (ibid. 332)
This looks like clutching at straws to me. Even as an appeal to the underlying notion that our sentiments are 'supposed to work in particular ways' which have a rationality to them. Because now we know our species' sentiments evolved for utility, both the selfish and social (''benevolent'') ones.


This part of the article spells out that the role of the Ideal Observer is to replace God as the perfect Moral Arbiter, acknowledgiing Dostoevsky's point - '' If god does not exist everything is permitted'' -

If we actually disqualify someone's ethical verdicts because she is ignorant of non-moral facts, failure to vividly imagine what something would actually be like, partiality, non-moral emotions, and inconsistency, this shows that we implicitly regard moral judgements as valid only when made by an omniscient, omnipercipient, impartial, dispassionate, consistent, but otherwise normal judge (ibid. 333–345). These are then the characteristics of the ideal observer.
But the difference is God is not only omniscient, but crucially here the embodiment of Goodness - that's why God can't get it wrong (Divine Command Theory). But the Ideal Observer has nothing to check with, no foundational touchstone of Goodness to evaluate and reason from.


So I think it fails.

If moral philosophy wants to address the double body blows of the death of god as our perfect moral arbiter and objective moral source, and our knowledge that evolutionary utility is what shaped our dispositions towards 'moral' approval and disgust, we need to think afresh.

What would an appropriate modern fit-for-purpose morality look like? What is it for? What might justify it?
User avatar
Sapien
Posts: 5
Joined: November 22nd, 2020, 3:21 pm

Re: Ideal Observer Theory

Post by Sapien »

How does one find out what the ideal observer thinks of a given situation?
Kaz_1983
Posts: 432
Joined: May 26th, 2019, 6:52 am

Re: Ideal Observer Theory

Post by Kaz_1983 »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: November 23rd, 2020, 6:50 pm
Kaz_1983 wrote: November 23rd, 2020, 8:12 am What do you guys think of the observer theory?

For anybody that doesn't know “the ideal observer theory’ was first espoused by the philosopher Adam Smith and it's been said that people like David Hume have been supporters of this theory. The "Ideal observer theory" puts forth the idea that what is right is determined by the attitudes that a hypothetical ideal observer would have. To break it down, the Ideal observer theory is the meta-ethical view which claims that ethical sentences express truth-apt propositions about the attitudes of a hypothetical ideal observer.
...
What makes this observer "ideal"?
The "Ideal observer" has complete knowledge of what has happened in the past and also has complete knowledge of what all of the possible consequences will be -- this means that the "Ideal observer" is 100% fully informed, Also like a judge the ideal observer is as impartial as any observer can be but the observer must be human qualities, human sentiments for example and reactions towards actions like "killing an innocent person" or "stealing a person's car for no reason apart the enjoyment it gives the thief. The "Ideal observer" isn't some supernatural being like a God for example..
Is she completely unbiased and objective?

Yes the Ideal observer is unbiased and their judgements are universal - no two Ideal observer's should ever disagree..
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Ideal Observer Theory

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Gertie wrote: November 23rd, 2020, 7:18 pm
Kaz_1983 wrote: November 23rd, 2020, 8:12 am What do you guys think of the observer theory?

For anybody that doesn't know “the ideal observer theory’ was first espoused by the philosopher Adam Smith and it's been said that people like David Hume have been supporters of this theory. The "Ideal observer theory" puts forth the idea that what is right is determined by the attitudes that a hypothetical ideal observer would have. To break it down, the Ideal observer theory is the meta-ethical view which claims that ethical sentences express truth-apt propositions about the attitudes of a hypothetical ideal observer.

I suppose it comes down to whether you believe that the "Ideal observer" has used reason alone to come to their moral judgement/s or whether moral judgements are based the human sentiments... look at the theory like this;

P1) The ideal observer feels that the idea of murder brings about “moral disgust”

P2) For me, the idea of murder brings about “moral disgust” too

C) I believe that the ideal observer’s feelings about murder are similar to mine.

The ideal observer theory is kind of like your conscience - your conscience or in this case the “Ideal observer”, keeps you in check... there is also a version of that is based on the desires and human sentiments of a hypothetical ideal observer. David Hume apparently espoused a version of the ideal observed theory....

To sum it up, for me it sounds a lot like a "subjective" version of the divine command theory, because in both cases we're talking about an ideal observer - just in one case the ideal observer is God and the other one is subjective and what is right and wrong is determined by the attitudes that's a hypothetical ideal observer would have in his possession - both are kind like that.... see in a lot of ways “The ideal observer theory” is kind of like Virtue Ethics, because in both cases the primary focus is on what type of person we should aspire to be.

All quote from here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mora ... #SubIdeDis
It seems like an attempt to bring a quasi rational/objective structure to moral subjectivism.

That might depend on the version of the "ideal observer theory" under consideration. I think in Hume's case, he was trying to describe what people in fact are doing when they make moral judgements.

Gertie wrote: November 23rd, 2020, 7:18 pm I think it's right to acknowledge that moral subjectivism has a massive problem - the ''all things are permissible'' problem.

What is this problem that you mention? No matter what the truth is regarding ethics, not everyone is going to abide by whatever rules or principles are put forth. At least some people will violate whatever moral rules there are. That fact is true regardless of whether we are dealing with some form of moral subjectivism or some objective morality. In the world, people murder, rape, torture, etc. None of that is changed by whether some form of moral subjectivism is correct or some form of objective morality is correct.

Gertie wrote: November 23rd, 2020, 7:18 pm So can introducing the concept of an Ideal Subject escape that problem?

At the level of logical form, ought claims may have a tacit argument place for a standard, just as for contextualists—but the standard is context-invariant. The second is dispositionalization: the reference is not to anyone's actual sentiments, but to sentiments they would have in suitable circumstances. Suggestions of this type of view can be found in Hume and Smith—recall their talk of correcting our sentiments by reference to the common point of view or the impartial spectator's response. Here is a recognizably Smithian formulation of this kind of view:

To judge that X is wrong is to believe that any informed impartial spectator would disapprove of X.

Roderick Firth's (1952) Ideal Observer Theory is a more contemporary variant of this kind of view. He formulates it as an analysis of the meaning of ethical statements, but it can also be taken as an account of the corresponding thoughts. In general form, it is as follows:

To judge that X has a moral property is to believe that any ideal observer would have an ethically significant reaction to X in conditions ideal for doing so.

By an ‘ethically significant reaction’ Firth means

the kind of moral experience which we take to be evidence, under ideal conditions, for the truth of our ethical judgments. (Firth 1952: 326)

He leaves it open whether the reaction is sentimental, so there are possible variants of Ideal Observer Theory that are not sentimentalist. In specifying the characteristics of the ideal observer, Firth uses a ‘pragmatic methodology’ of

examining the procedures which we actually regard, implicitly or explicitly, as the rational ones for deciding ethical questions. (ibid. 332)
This looks like clutching at straws to me. Even as an appeal to the underlying notion that our sentiments are 'supposed to work in particular ways' which have a rationality to them. Because now we know our species' sentiments evolved for utility, both the selfish and social (''benevolent'') ones.


This part of the article spells out that the role of the Ideal Observer is to replace God as the perfect Moral Arbiter, acknowledgiing Dostoevsky's point - '' If god does not exist everything is permitted'' -

Frankly, I think god is irrelevant to ethics, and could not serve as any reasonable foundation of ethics. For either ethics is dependent upon god, as in the divine command theory (which reduces ethics to whims of god,which may include genocide or anything else, as mentioned in my first post in this thread), or ethics is not dependent upon god, in which case god is irrelevant to what ethics is.


Gertie wrote: November 23rd, 2020, 7:18 pm
If we actually disqualify someone's ethical verdicts because she is ignorant of non-moral facts, failure to vividly imagine what something would actually be like, partiality, non-moral emotions, and inconsistency, this shows that we implicitly regard moral judgements as valid only when made by an omniscient, omnipercipient, impartial, dispassionate, consistent, but otherwise normal judge (ibid. 333–345). These are then the characteristics of the ideal observer.
But the difference is God is not only omniscient, but crucially here the embodiment of Goodness - that's why God can't get it wrong (Divine Command Theory). But the Ideal Observer has nothing to check with, no foundational touchstone of Goodness to evaluate and reason from.

If god possesses goodness, then goodness must be a quality that has some meaning, which means that we need only look at that for morality and can forget about god.

To put this another way, if you know that god is good, you must already know what it is to be good, and consequently you don't need god to tell you about it. If you don't know what it is to be good, then you cannot know that god is good. Consequently, you have no reason to suppose that what god says is good.

Gertie wrote: November 23rd, 2020, 7:18 pm
So I think it fails.

If moral philosophy wants to address the double body blows of the death of god as our perfect moral arbiter and objective moral source, and our knowledge that evolutionary utility is what shaped our dispositions towards 'moral' approval and disgust, we need to think afresh.

What would an appropriate modern fit-for-purpose morality look like? What is it for? What might justify it?

I think you might want to look at the Euthyphro by Plato. God does not help with morality at all.

The divine command theory is just that if god commands something, that makes it good. Thus, if god commands murder and rape, then murder and rape are good. Also, if all there is to morality is that it is commanded by god, then there can be no reason to object to god commanding murder and rape, because, according to this theory, all there is to being good is that it is commanded by god. So there is no standard to judge what god commands; anything and everything that is commanded by god is equally a command of god, and consequently equally "good".
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Ideal Observer Theory

Post by Jack D Ripper »

In Hume, the idea of the ideal observer is no different from in a court of law in which a judge is not allowed to be a judge of his own case. A judge is only supposed to judge a case when that judge does not have a personal interest in the case. This is to eliminate bias.

The same idea applies to judging actions that people do. If you are a participant, your own personal interests may influence your judgement of the case. It is in cases where you are not a participant that you are more likely to be fair.

So it is not a determinant of what is right; it is a method that one can use to try to get the right answer in specific instances. Just like in a court of law, with a judge not allowed to be preside over a case which involves the judge (like the judge suing his neighbor or whatever). That aspect of the law tells you nothing about what the law is or should be on the case in question. The same is true of Hume and ethics; this idea of using an ideal observer (which is not a phrase Hume uses) does not give you the foundation of ethics. It is just a way to try to get at the right answer to particular ethical questions.

In other words, you are likely to be a better judge of an ethical situation when you are not personally involved in it or affected by it than if it is a situation in which you are not involved or personally affected by it. It is really nothing more than that.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Ideal Observer Theory

Post by Jack D Ripper »

The last paragraph of my post immediately above has a typographical error. It should be:

In other words, you are likely to be a better judge of an ethical situation when you are not personally involved in it or affected by it than if it is a situation in which you are involved or personally affected by it. It is really nothing more than that.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
Kaz_1983
Posts: 432
Joined: May 26th, 2019, 6:52 am

Re: Ideal Observer Theory

Post by Kaz_1983 »

Sapien wrote: November 23rd, 2020, 8:33 pm How does one find out what the ideal observer thinks of a given situation?
The "Ideal observer" isn't an external, mind-independent entity but rather a hypothetical being that exists within a person's head and therefore mind-dependant.
Kaz_1983
Posts: 432
Joined: May 26th, 2019, 6:52 am

Re: Ideal Observer Theory

Post by Kaz_1983 »

Jack D Ripper wrote: November 23rd, 2020, 11:20 pm In other words, you are likely to be a better judge of an ethical situation when you are not personally involved in it or affected by it than if it is a situation in which you are not involved or personally affected by it. It is really nothing more than that.
That makes sense.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Ideal Observer Theory

Post by Terrapin Station »

"Ideal observer theory" is nonsense on my view, because:

(a) no amount of facts/information about a situation can suggest one moral stance over another
(b) the idea of arriving at a moral stance in a nonbiased manner is incoherent. Moral stances ARE biases--they're preferences for one course of action over another.

I'm a noncognitivist. Moral stances are not true or false. The sooner we acknowledge this and recognize what ethics really is the sooner we can arrive at reasonable social interaction about ethical matters.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Ideal Observer Theory

Post by Terrapin Station »

Kaz_1983 wrote: November 23rd, 2020, 11:50 pm
Sapien wrote: November 23rd, 2020, 8:33 pm How does one find out what the ideal observer thinks of a given situation?
The "Ideal observer" isn't an external, mind-independent entity but rather a hypothetical being that exists within a person's head and therefore mind-dependant.
Right. "Let's say that I'm the ideal observer . . . " basically. Which should get a big LOL and an eye roll.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Ideal Observer Theory

Post by Steve3007 »

If I like chocolate ice cream but my friend prefers vanilla, what flavour does the ideal observer like? I guess if we can answer that we can finally settle the question of which flavour of ice cream is best.
User avatar
Jack D Ripper
Posts: 610
Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
Contact:

Re: Ideal Observer Theory

Post by Jack D Ripper »

Terrapin Station wrote: November 24th, 2020, 11:23 am "Ideal observer theory" is nonsense on my view, because:

(a) no amount of facts/information about a situation can suggest one moral stance over another
(b) the idea of arriving at a moral stance in a nonbiased manner is incoherent. Moral stances ARE biases--they're preferences for one course of action over another.

The reason why it is incoherent to you is that you do not separate out different kinds of sentiments, with some being labeled "moral" (i.e., benevolence or the feeling of humanity) and some being labeled "non-moral" (e.g., self-interest and personal preferences). If you did, then it would make sense to speak of coming to a conclusion in a biassed way versus an unbiassed way.

With the separating out of different sentiments as above, the purely moral judgement would be based solely on benevolence (or the feeling of humanity or whatever one wishes to call such feelings), and would not be influenced by other feelings.

Terrapin Station wrote: November 24th, 2020, 11:23 am I'm a noncognitivist. Moral stances are not true or false. The sooner we acknowledge this and recognize what ethics really is the sooner we can arrive at reasonable social interaction about ethical matters.

Two things. First, there will never be a time when everyone agrees on a moral theory (unless there are only a very few humans left before extinction, who happen to agree). Second, if everyone agreed with you on this, they would have no reason to agree on what social interactions there should be. Consequently, there will never be the agreement that you wish for.

It is also a bit unclear what you mean by "reasonable" in connection with this, given your ethical position.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume
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