Challenging the Notion of a Moral Foundation and Unearthing the Intricacies of Ethical Truth
In the vast realm of academic disciplines that study morality, normative ethics stands out as a philosophical sub-discipline that seeks to determine what is morally good or bad, devoid of societal influences. However, the philosophical sub-field of meta-ethics takes a step back to examine whether there are objectively correct answers to these moral questions or if ethics is merely a realm of subjective opinion. This article delves into the concept of moral objectivity and challenges the notion of a foundation for morality, offering a fresh perspective on the nature of ethical truth.
The Illusion of Moral Objectivity
Many individuals find it challenging to accept the idea of moral objectivity, often conflating it with cultural universality or innate principles. However, the author argues that objective moral truths exist independently of personal or societal disapproval. For instance, torture is morally wrong not because it is disapproved of, but because it inflicts immense pain on individuals. While some may dismiss moral objectivity as a strange concept, the author asserts that it is a reality that can be understood.
The Fallacy of a Moral Foundation
The author contends that the conflict surrounding moral objectivity arises from the belief that morality requires a foundation. This foundation is often sought in the form of a firm ground or ultimate justification for moral claims. However, the author argues that morality does not necessitate or allow for such a foundation. Instead, morality exists independently, unsupported by any external factors. While certain aspects of morality can be explained by other elements, the entirety of the moral web remains unexplained and inexplicable.
The Role of Foundations in Ethics
To understand the concept of a foundation more clearly, the author examines whether moral theories like utilitarianism can serve as a foundation for morality. While utilitarianism explains the rightness or wrongness of actions based on their promotion of overall wellbeing, it does not qualify as a foundation. Foundations, the author explains, are not moral theories themselves but rather concepts that support or justify moral theories and claims without being part of the moral domain.
The Search for a Foundation
The author explores two potential candidates for a foundation in ethics. One candidate is the causal theory of reference, often used in philosophy of language to explain how terms and concepts refer to the world. By applying this theory to moral terms, it is suggested that concepts like ‘good’ refer to properties that causally regulate their usage. Another candidate is neo-Aristotelian naturalism, which argues that ethical features are part of the natural world. While these theories provide valuable insights, they do not offer a foundation for ethics as they focus on semantics and metaphysics rather than moral claims themselves.
The Role of God and Religion
Contrary to popular belief, the author argues that God or religion does not serve as a foundation for morality. While some may propose divine command theory, which states that an action is morally wrong if God forbids it, this theory is akin to other moral theories and does not offer an external foundation. The author emphasizes that the moral relevance of these theories is subject to dispute and falls within the realm of ethical thinking rather than providing a foundation outside of it.
The Nature of Ethical Disputes
The author delves into the nature of normative-ethical disputes and highlights their fundamental differences from ordinary factual disputes. While factual disputes seek to represent the world accurately, ethical disputes lack the same representational value. The author argues that normative-ethical disputes are non-representational and do not mirror the world but instead influence motivation, emotions, and ethical values. These disputes hold significance in practical and affective ways, unlike disputes such as the ‘squirrel’ debate.
The Significance of Ethics
While normative-ethical disputes lack representational value, they possess specific ethical value, which is derived from doing the right thing for the right reason. The author argues that ethical disputes matter due to their impact on motivation, emotions, and ethical values. These disputes are not arbitrary and cannot be settled through conceptual fiat but require argumentation and reasoning. The author emphasizes the significance of ethical disputes while acknowledging their differences from factual disputes.
In conclusion, the author challenges the notion of a foundation for morality and asserts that morality exists independently, unsupported by external factors. The author argues that ethical disputes lack representational value but hold specific ethical value that influences motivation, emotions, and ethical values. By exploring the nature of ethical truth, the author proposes a pragmatist perspective that encompasses all aspects of ethical thinking without the need for a foundation outside of ethics. This unique approach offers a fresh understanding of moral objectivity and the intricacies of ethical truth.
Leave a Reply