Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “The first principle of value that we need to rediscover is this: that all reality hinges on moral foundations. In other words, that this is a moral universe, and that there are moral laws of the universe just as abiding as the physical laws.(1)” He helped build the Civil Rights movement upon these moral laws: whites are not superior to blacks and discrimination based upon skin color is wrong. Dr. King believed that morality was objective: it was wrong to oppress non-whites regardless of both the government’s position on the issue and the opinion of millions of Americans.
Now, most of us agree with Dr. King about the equal treatment of human beings. That goes without saying. But committing to the idea of objective morality? That’s another story. I’d like to argue that we all believe morality is objective, even if we don’t think we do. To say that morality is objective is to say that there are some moral facts about the world. Facts, by definition, are true regardless of whether or not people agree with them. An action can be wrong even if those who perform that action believe it to be right. Let’s start with this question: Are there any facts, at all? Certainly!
Arithmetic:
- 2+2=4
- 1+1=2
- 7 is greater in quantity than 4
Geometry:
- In a right triangle, the square of the 1st leg plus the square of the 2nd leg is equal to the square of the hypotenuse:
- A square has 4 equal sides and 4 right angles.
Logic:
- X cannot be non-X at the same time and in the same sense (Law of Non-Contradiction).
- A ball cannot be both green all over and red all over.
- A bachelor is unmarried.
It’s clear that there are facts. Facts are objectively true, by definition. Their truth does not depend on our agreement with them. People disagree with facts all the time. I live in NYC. We have no shortage of crazy people on the subway claiming that the human race is being subtly infiltrated by aliens, or that the moon is actually a giant WMD put in place by the Russian government. Do their wacky theories nullify the fact that the moon is a real, cosmic entity? Of course not. Facts are facts. They are judgment-independent. Now, the next question to ask is whether or not there are moral facts. It seems that the answer is, yes. There are some moral facts that hold true regardless of whether or not we agree with them. Let’s take this, for example:
Philosopher Michael Ruse says, “The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says, 2+2=5.”(2)
Is it wrong to rape children? If the answer is ‘Yes’, then morality is objective because ‘wrongness’ can only be determined when measured against some independent standard. Saying that child rape is a moral act is not the same as saying that vanilla is a tasty flavor of ice cream. Choosing vanilla over rocky-road is a matter of preference whereas the issue of child rape is a matter of ‘rightness’ and ‘wrongness.’ But in order for there to be ‘rightness’ and ‘wrongness,’ there needs to be an objective standard. This means that the child rapist is wrong, even though he may sincerely believe that he is right. Because morality is objective, we are justified in saying that the child rapist is wrong. If morality is not objective, then there is no basis for labeling actions as wrong (or right). At most, even the worst behaviors could only be considered socially disadvantageous or acting out of fashion.
What evidence is there for objective morality?
I believe that the best evidence for objective morality comes from our moral experience. We know that raping children is wrong. It’s not just socially inconvenient or out of fashion, it is really wrong. How do we know? In the same way we know all metaphysical truths: We just know.
1. We know that the external world is real.
We are not in a matrix, we are not all in a dream, and we are not brains in a vat being stimulated by a crazy scientist creating the illusion of our external world.
2. We know that the past is real.
The world was not created 2 minutes ago and given the appearance of billions of years of age. I was not created 30 seconds ago and implanted with 21 years’ worth of memories.
These truths are unlearned and self-evident. We cannot test them. They simply exist. And the same goes with moral facts. There is no scientific evidence for the truth of the statement “Raping children is wrong,” but it is true, nonetheless. We are justified in trusting our moral experience in the absence of contrary evidence. Why should we distrust our moral intuition if there is no evidence to the contrary? And if we choose to distrust our intuition with regard to morality, then what makes us think that our intuition about these other metaphysical truths is correct?
Maybe we are living in the matrix. Who knows?
1. Martin Luther King Jr. in Peter Holloran, A Knock at Midnight: Inspiration from the Great Sermons of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. (New York: Warner Books, 2000), p. 10.
2. Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended (London: Addison-Wesley, 1982), p. 275.
Few objections to your article:
ReplyDelete'To say that morality is objective is to say that there are some moral facts about the world.' Moral is an attribute of an action or a deed not of facts - facts are neither moral nor immoral, facts just are.
'Facts, by definition, are true regardless of whether or not people agree with them.' To say that would be a pleonasm - if something is a fact it cannot fail to be a fact, so it is not facts that are true but statements about facts (but also about processes and events) that can be true or false - if a statement says a and it is a (there is such a fact, or a process, or an event that a) then a statement is true, if ~a then the statement is false.
'An action can be wrong even if those who perform that action believe it to be right'. There are proponents of that theory (e.g. utalitarians), i.e. if the outcome of the action is wrong then the action leading to that outcome is also wrong, but if you accept that theory it has bad consequences: if somebody needs your help but you don't know the outcome of you potential action, and obviously you cannot know it, then should you try to help the person in need or not?
'It’s clear that there are facts. Facts are objectively true, by definition.' About facts - above. There is no subjective true - how would you know it? (Though nowadays you can obviously say anything about truth: that truth is relative, that it is subjective, that there is no truth - but clearly in these cases you are not talking about truth)
'Facts are facts. They are judgment-independent. Now, the next question to ask is whether or not there are moral facts'. See my first objection concerning 'moral facts', and second objection concerning 'true facts'.
'We know that raping children is wrong. It’s not just socially inconvenient or out of fashion, it is really wrong. How do we know? In the same way we know all metaphysical truths: We just know. (...) We are justified in trusting our moral experience in the absence of contrary evidence' We know that a sentence is true or not by it being in accordance with reality; if a sentence a is to be true the reality must be as the sentence says and we have means to verify and falsify it. If I say 'It rains outside' and you can go outside and check it, then after you verify or falsify the sentence it turns out to be either false or true. If I say 'There is intelligent life on Alpha Centauri' my sentence is neither true nor false because it can be either way but we have no means to verify or falsify it. If I say 'It is true that Islam is a true religion' my sentence, from logical point of view, does not make much sense because you neither can verify nor falsify that statement and you never will be able to do it. How do you want to check your moral statement? It seems that you call to intuition but intuition is a rather bad judge because your opponent can have a contrary intuition. By the way as facts cannot be true there are no metaphysical truths but only true or false sentences/statements in a metaphysical theory.
I have tried to think about objective morality (M. Scheler's theory is probably the best attempt to do it) but after 15 years I still don't know how to do it without applying to non-objective aspects of reality. The best basis for it is perhaps biological and psychological well being of a person. So acting against human's health would be immoral. But that is a very weak theory (held e.g. by Erich Fromm) for a number of reasons.
"Moral is an attribute of an action or a deed not of facts - facts are neither moral nor immoral, facts just are." Obviously, that is what I meant. 'Moral facts' are facts about the moral status of actions and behaviors. I'm not saying that the fact, itself, carries a positive or negative moral status.
ReplyDelete"To say that would be a pleonasm - if something is a fact it cannot fail to be a fact, so it is not facts that are true but statements about facts (but also about processes and events) that can be true or false - if a statement says a and it is a (there is such a fact, or a process, or an event that a) then a statement is true, if ~a then the statement is false." You're right. My point here was to simply point out to a largely relativistic audience that truth exists. And facts are true (they correspond to reality) by definition. Believe it or not, some people are shocked to hear that statements can be true wholly apart from their affirmation of those statements.
"There are proponents of that theory (e.g. utalitarians), i.e. if the outcome of the action is wrong then the action leading to that outcome is also wrong, but if you accept that theory it has bad consequences: if somebody needs your help but you don't know the outcome of you potential action, and obviously you cannot know it, then should you try to help the person in need or not?" The point of my statement was to show that someone can be wrong, even if they sincerely believe that they are right.
"We know that a sentence is true or not by it being in accordance with reality; if a sentence a is to be true the reality must be as the sentence says and we have means to verify and falsify it. If I say 'It rains outside' and you can go outside and check it, then after you verify or falsify the sentence it turns out to be either false or true. If I say 'There is intelligent life on Alpha Centauri' my sentence is neither true nor false because it can be either way but we have no means to verify or falsify it. If I say 'It is true that Islam is a true religion' my sentence, from logical point of view, does not make much sense because you neither can verify nor falsify that statement and you never will be able to do it. How do you want to check your moral statement? It seems that you call to intuition but intuition is a rather bad judge because your opponent can have a contrary intuition. By the way as facts cannot be true there are no metaphysical truths but only true or false sentences/statements in a metaphysical theory." In a loose sense, one can equate 'moral intuition' with 'moral experience', and by that I mean that we are epistemically justified in trusting our moral experience for the same reason that we are justified in trusting our sense experience of the external world. In the absence of counter-evidence, we are justified in accepting our moral and sense experience. Neither can be verified, but so long as I have no reason to distrust them, I can trust them.