Political Crossfire Forums

[Gus]

I don't think I've ever encountered an "objective" or absolute ethical theory that appropriately deals with the is-ought dichotomy.

Probably the most popular is Rand's ethical system, which too fails the test. Beyond being nearly incomprehensible, her argument seems to come down to this (and correct me if I have misunderstood):

It is necessary that humans follow ethic P in order to live.
One is human.
.: One should follow ethic P.

Of course, this does not follow, as the premise "One should follow an ethic that leads one to live" is missing...but then one must qualify that "ought" and an infinite regress ensues.



Anyway, I'm sure there are other theories out there. So...those who adhere to an objective ethic: how do you deal with the dichotomy?

Those who are moral subjectivists: how, then, do you justify law?

[anselfir]

Well justification is just a statement that the action in question does not contradict the just configuration of things, the "goal" of hte world. Not being able tofind such a goal, we cannot justify anything.

[Saf]

I would base any sort of ethics upon what allows both individuals and the society as a whole to flourish; thus a libertarian state is necessary: it protects the whole while promising autonomy to each individual. All animal social groups have basic mores which allow the group to function. Ants, wolves, dolphins, birds, they all have a basic system of co-operation which increases, in varying degrees, the survival of the whole. Human psychology also has certain requirements. Unless you are a very disturbed and irrational individual, constant lying, especially to those you value, should cause extreme cognitive dissonance. Really, treating anyone you attempt to value as a means should cause cognitive dissonance. I see Americans adapting to our morally rotten age by abandoning logical thought altogether, thusly avoiding the whole cognitive dissonance problem, and that's scary... So I'd say it's more of a pragmatic consideration (i.e., what works) rather than a lofty Platonic idea of what is "good" objectively.

[The Impeacher]

Saf wrote: I would base any sort of ethics upon what allows both individuals and the society as a whole to flourish; thus a libertarian state is necessary: it protects the whole while promising autonomy to each individual. All animal social groups have basic mores which allow the group to function. Ants, wolves, dolphins, birds, they all have a basic system of co-operation which increases, in varying degrees, the survival of the whole. Human psychology also has certain requirements. Unless you are a very disturbed and irrational individual, constant lying, especially to those you value, should cause extreme cognitive dissonance. Really, treating anyone you attempt to value as a means should cause cognitive dissonance. I see Americans adapting to our morally rotten age by abandoning logical thought altogether, thusly avoiding the whole cognitive dissonance problem, and that's scary... So I'd say it's more of a pragmatic consideration (i.e., what works) rather than a lofty Platonic idea of what is "good" objectively.

i think you confuse instincts for morals, but i get your gist.



imho, the thread question is a false question - and not do to the is/ought problem - but the "brain in a vat" sensory perception problem that is causal to the is/ought reasoning paradox. i also think that is only a rehash of the platonic form/ideal problem, anyways.

ethics are the product of the mind, whereas "objective" in philosophy means the external natural world. how can the product of the mind also have "objective" properties? at best it would seem to be correlation, imho.

so it's unpossible.

that said, if our morals can mimic instincts to approximate the results in a manner in which Saf has suggested... i like the ends notion of this "morality," but it's the means that are always the problem. if these notions produce correlates to "instincts" that are useful to the human race, i suppose that is a form of moral justification based upon an ideal.

the odd thing is, a variant of rule utilitarianism aka known as Naziism could have had the appeances of a horribly successful "instinctual" moral system were it not for some poor strategic military choices.

i'd be hardpressed to call really call that either "moral" or "good" predicated only upon an desired outcome....

[Phædrus]

I too am uncomfortable with the phrase "objective ethics" and certainly feel that the effort to establish such a thing syllogistically is a bit silly.

The "is-ought" thing is tricky. It is of course impossible to justify morals on the basis of fact. (That is it raining does not compel you to put up your umbrella.) Nevertheless, assorted confusions between "is" and "ought" are perfectly common elements of ordinary discourse and politics. The most common perhaps being the belief that things in nature have a moral priority - hence Hume's use of the term "Naturalistic Fallacy" to describe justifications of ought with is.

Be that as it may, there is a "right thing" to do at every moment - just like Spike Lee said.

Describing this philosophically though ... difficult ... although there is a very good essay on the difference between morality and ethics at the beginning of Deleuze's little book about Spinoza that I have found illuminating

[Saf]

Quote: i think you confuse instincts for morals, but i get your gist.
Sorry, I did not mean to insinuate that wolves had morals. ;) But it's an example of practical social behaviour.

[jawsome]

Saf wrote: Quote: i think you confuse instincts for morals, but i get your gist.
Sorry, I did not mean to insinuate that wolves had morals. ;) But it's an example of practical social behaviour.

I believe it's similar to what Plato was describing in The Republic: what is good for the individual is good for the whole. That is to say, treating others ethically (now that's the big question) and morally will be beneficial for not only others, but yourself as well. I have always argued that this is inherently a selfish philosophy, though most people claim it altruistic.

I think it's pretty logical and good, too.

[Phædrus]

Saf wrote: Quote: i think you confuse instincts for morals, but i get your gist.
Sorry, I did not mean to insinuate that wolves had morals. ;) But it's an example of practical social behaviour.

why should wolves have no morals?

[Eduffy80911]

One thing that bothered me about Rand is that she seemed to think it was possible or necessary that everyone come to understand and adhere to objectivism. Even if it is all right and true, the fact is that everyone will never ever be on the same page, so your philosophy or instruction book for life must take that into account.
I try not to employ the concept of "ought" or "should" and instead deal with what is.
As far as morals I can deduce what works for me and believe it would work for you, but until you come to believe it on your own it just doesn't matter.