Does Absolute Morality have Any Justification?
Absolute Morality
In a nutshell - in my view - there is no permanent, universal, absolute, necessary, certain, apodictic reason why anyone ought to do anything. There is no certain morality that is justifiable to some permanent and certain truth. The Ten Commandments - good guidelines, but not apodictically certain or permanent and universal, at least, I'd need you to prove to me that they are. All that we humans call moral or immoral are that which we feel is moral or immoral, and that which we feel moral or immoral has to do with our personal preferences - are we a caring person or not? In so far as we care for other people then it is immoral to hurt them, because we find that distastefully.
What do we have left then? Can we all then do what we like? No, but we should. Before I continue I would like to mention that I search for the truth. I live to seek only that which I cannot deny. As such, because I can see no absolute truths here I will resign myself to looking merely at the facts.
Let's look at the undeniable biological facts: Most people want to live. Most people want to feel happy. Most people want to live in a community in order to be happy, because humans by nature are social beings. Human beings all have material needs and immaterial (psychological) needs. The community must provide for these needs as best as it can if the humans living in it are to be happy / fulfilled. Therefore, this community works best in a certain moderate / harmonious way. If it has fair laws governing the distribution of material goods and an adequate educational system the humans in it will be as happy as possible, which is the entire purpose of said community. All true so far?
But wait, you say, why must it be fair? Why not a tyranny? Certainly that kind of government can work, and many have worked for many years. Isn't that my moral bias creeping into my examination? No. For as Nietzsche pointed out, it is a permanent and universal fact that all humans everywhere of all time (due to the fact that we all feel pain in the same way and have similar psychologies) view morality and justice in terms of "fairness". We feel morally outraged when something is unfair. We feel morally righteous when we feel we have been wronged unfairly. Feeling righteous means feeling justified. Feeling justified means one feels it is fair the way they act - they are entitled to act that way because they have been wronged, and being wronged is unfair. As such, the humans in the regime cannot be happy if the regime is viewed to be too unfair, and the purpose of the regime is to make as many people as happy as possible, not a select few who rule it as happy as possible while the others are not. Therefore, the laws of the community must be as fair as they can be to account for all the desires and views and necessities of the humans living within it, if it is to accomplish the goal of the community. This may indeed be impossible, but I believe that it all follows based on what we decided above.
Therefore, the most efficient community is one which best provides for the happiness of the humans within it, this community is therefore also the most excellent, the most valued, the most Good, because effective production of happiness is the final goal of said community. A community is an environment in which humans can live with the highest degree of possible happiness. The higher degree of happiness which is possible in that community, the better the community. But life is not solely limited to our community, but many communities, and many other things too.
What other existent entities must humans live in harmony with in order to be as virtuous, and therefore as happy (physically and psychologically) as possible? Which remember, we decided was generally speaking the goal of all human communities, or ought to be, whether or not it is the goal of individual humans.
The Good
Basically, Plato asserted that there were the following relations to humanity that needs to be moderately harmonized in order for the humans to be as excellent and therefore as happy / fulfilled as possible: An internal relation between the psychological drives of one's personality which Plato called Reason, Will and Desire, a relation to one's closest friends and lovers, to one's community, to one's regime or state, to Nature itself, and to the Divine, if such a thing exists.
These relations must be harmonious. What does that mean? That means that each relation must be proportionate to allow for the maximum amount of natural perfection of that thing alone, and in relation to all other things. The correct ration or proportion differs between each thing, and in each thing. One can know what the proportion ought to be by determining what the most excellent essence of the thing is by observing its phenomena and extrapolating what the best example of said thing / property of a thing is.
Does one have to or should one ought to attempt to preserve and perfect the Good? That is an interesting question and perhaps the only place where we may make an absolute moral argument, but again, only as a hypothetical. For if a human or a community of humans wishes to live as happy /fulfilled as possible, then they should wish to be as excellent as possible. If they wish to be as excellent as possible, then they need to maintain and steward the excellence of all things (and their relations to those things) which can effect their happiness (happiness here is NOT mere pleasure satisfaction, but a fulfilled confidence and general loving, pleasant, proud, virtuous state, as all excellent humans feel). For no human exists in a vacuum - observation demonstrates we are not rational egoists (sorry all you economics majors who are studying Hobbes although you don't know this). If so, point to me one human who grew up without a family or human community. We do not spring from the ground and start picking up fruit. Therefore, in so far as one wishes to be happy, they should wish to understand and uphold the Good, as it allows for the best harmony for all living things, which allows for the best communities which allows for the most happiness for the most people most of the time.
Even here then, there is no reason what so ever to believe there is any certain or necessary moral rules to guide our citizens. If someone wishes not to be happy, or doesn't understand how this is attained, there is no certain or ahistorical or transcultural moral reason why they ought to, or should try, not to enforce or uphold their Good or anyone elses. They don't have to value the Good, which is valuing happiness for the most people in their community and all other communities most of the time.
All that is universally true regarding human morality is that 1) all humans view justice in terms of fairness, and 2) all humans have to make a choice of whether or not to be fair to others, or not. They can choose to be kind (or their parents can choose to teach them to be kind) or not. We cannot truthfully say they ought to make that choice one way or another, unless we accept other admittions from them, like they want to be happy, or live in harmony with nature, etc. As such, as far as I can see, there is no logical justification for absolute morality. There simply is no proposition which is always true that we may deduce any other propositions from.
Can any human actually live believing that? Do we need lies in order to run our life without question?
The next topic: The Noble Lie
For more information on this moral outlook please read:
Plato's Republic (Allan Bloom's translation)
Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics
The Analects of Confucius translated by Roger T. Ames and Henry Rosemont Jr.
The Tao Te Ching
The Attainment of Happiness by Al-Farabi
Emile by Rousseau
Leviathan by Hobbes
Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche
Genealogy of Morals by Nietzsche
In a nutshell - in my view - there is no permanent, universal, absolute, necessary, certain, apodictic reason why anyone ought to do anything. There is no certain morality that is justifiable to some permanent and certain truth. The Ten Commandments - good guidelines, but not apodictically certain or permanent and universal, at least, I'd need you to prove to me that they are. All that we humans call moral or immoral are that which we feel is moral or immoral, and that which we feel moral or immoral has to do with our personal preferences - are we a caring person or not? In so far as we care for other people then it is immoral to hurt them, because we find that distastefully.
What do we have left then? Can we all then do what we like? No, but we should. Before I continue I would like to mention that I search for the truth. I live to seek only that which I cannot deny. As such, because I can see no absolute truths here I will resign myself to looking merely at the facts.
Let's look at the undeniable biological facts: Most people want to live. Most people want to feel happy. Most people want to live in a community in order to be happy, because humans by nature are social beings. Human beings all have material needs and immaterial (psychological) needs. The community must provide for these needs as best as it can if the humans living in it are to be happy / fulfilled. Therefore, this community works best in a certain moderate / harmonious way. If it has fair laws governing the distribution of material goods and an adequate educational system the humans in it will be as happy as possible, which is the entire purpose of said community. All true so far?
But wait, you say, why must it be fair? Why not a tyranny? Certainly that kind of government can work, and many have worked for many years. Isn't that my moral bias creeping into my examination? No. For as Nietzsche pointed out, it is a permanent and universal fact that all humans everywhere of all time (due to the fact that we all feel pain in the same way and have similar psychologies) view morality and justice in terms of "fairness". We feel morally outraged when something is unfair. We feel morally righteous when we feel we have been wronged unfairly. Feeling righteous means feeling justified. Feeling justified means one feels it is fair the way they act - they are entitled to act that way because they have been wronged, and being wronged is unfair. As such, the humans in the regime cannot be happy if the regime is viewed to be too unfair, and the purpose of the regime is to make as many people as happy as possible, not a select few who rule it as happy as possible while the others are not. Therefore, the laws of the community must be as fair as they can be to account for all the desires and views and necessities of the humans living within it, if it is to accomplish the goal of the community. This may indeed be impossible, but I believe that it all follows based on what we decided above.
Therefore, the most efficient community is one which best provides for the happiness of the humans within it, this community is therefore also the most excellent, the most valued, the most Good, because effective production of happiness is the final goal of said community. A community is an environment in which humans can live with the highest degree of possible happiness. The higher degree of happiness which is possible in that community, the better the community. But life is not solely limited to our community, but many communities, and many other things too.
What other existent entities must humans live in harmony with in order to be as virtuous, and therefore as happy (physically and psychologically) as possible? Which remember, we decided was generally speaking the goal of all human communities, or ought to be, whether or not it is the goal of individual humans.
The Good
Basically, Plato asserted that there were the following relations to humanity that needs to be moderately harmonized in order for the humans to be as excellent and therefore as happy / fulfilled as possible: An internal relation between the psychological drives of one's personality which Plato called Reason, Will and Desire, a relation to one's closest friends and lovers, to one's community, to one's regime or state, to Nature itself, and to the Divine, if such a thing exists.
These relations must be harmonious. What does that mean? That means that each relation must be proportionate to allow for the maximum amount of natural perfection of that thing alone, and in relation to all other things. The correct ration or proportion differs between each thing, and in each thing. One can know what the proportion ought to be by determining what the most excellent essence of the thing is by observing its phenomena and extrapolating what the best example of said thing / property of a thing is.
Does one have to or should one ought to attempt to preserve and perfect the Good? That is an interesting question and perhaps the only place where we may make an absolute moral argument, but again, only as a hypothetical. For if a human or a community of humans wishes to live as happy /fulfilled as possible, then they should wish to be as excellent as possible. If they wish to be as excellent as possible, then they need to maintain and steward the excellence of all things (and their relations to those things) which can effect their happiness (happiness here is NOT mere pleasure satisfaction, but a fulfilled confidence and general loving, pleasant, proud, virtuous state, as all excellent humans feel). For no human exists in a vacuum - observation demonstrates we are not rational egoists (sorry all you economics majors who are studying Hobbes although you don't know this). If so, point to me one human who grew up without a family or human community. We do not spring from the ground and start picking up fruit. Therefore, in so far as one wishes to be happy, they should wish to understand and uphold the Good, as it allows for the best harmony for all living things, which allows for the best communities which allows for the most happiness for the most people most of the time.
Even here then, there is no reason what so ever to believe there is any certain or necessary moral rules to guide our citizens. If someone wishes not to be happy, or doesn't understand how this is attained, there is no certain or ahistorical or transcultural moral reason why they ought to, or should try, not to enforce or uphold their Good or anyone elses. They don't have to value the Good, which is valuing happiness for the most people in their community and all other communities most of the time.
All that is universally true regarding human morality is that 1) all humans view justice in terms of fairness, and 2) all humans have to make a choice of whether or not to be fair to others, or not. They can choose to be kind (or their parents can choose to teach them to be kind) or not. We cannot truthfully say they ought to make that choice one way or another, unless we accept other admittions from them, like they want to be happy, or live in harmony with nature, etc. As such, as far as I can see, there is no logical justification for absolute morality. There simply is no proposition which is always true that we may deduce any other propositions from.
Can any human actually live believing that? Do we need lies in order to run our life without question?
The next topic: The Noble Lie
For more information on this moral outlook please read:
Plato's Republic (Allan Bloom's translation)
Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics
The Analects of Confucius translated by Roger T. Ames and Henry Rosemont Jr.
The Tao Te Ching
The Attainment of Happiness by Al-Farabi
Emile by Rousseau
Leviathan by Hobbes
Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche
Genealogy of Morals by Nietzsche
posted by JB @ 10:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home