Could Science prove an "objective morality"?

Author: seldiora

Posts

Total: 72
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
Roughly speaking, the three moral axioms are (i) Live and let live, (ii) Tell the truth to those who have a right to know it, and (iii) Respect the environment. These are subject to three requirements, namely, utility, reasonableness, and beauty.
This sounds interesting.

Do you have any guidelines regarding "who has a right to know the truth" and perhaps how individuals can ("objectively") determine "utility", "reasonableness", and "beauty"?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Disagreement doesn’t mean subjective,
ob-jec-tive:

1.  (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [**]
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
An individual's moral intuition is NOT empirically demonstrable (and or logically-necessary).
It’s necessary if the goal is to get to heaven and if you’re a logical person than it should be.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
It’s necessary if the goal is to get to heaven and if you’re a logical person than it should be.
Why would I want to live forever in a golden box 1,400 miles tall? [**]
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Because it’s blissful.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Are you familiar with Hedonic Adaptation? [**]
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Not really but it sounds pretty self explanatory.
MarkWebberFan
MarkWebberFan's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 291
1
2
6
MarkWebberFan's avatar
MarkWebberFan
1
2
6
-->
@FLRW
Tarik is correct. Derek Parfit, an Oxford scholar whom is widely considered one of the most important and influential moral philosophers of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. , in 2011 produced a massive work on ethics titled On What Matters. This two-volume work covers a lot of ground, but one of its main claims is that morality is objective, and we can and do know moral truths but not because moral judgments describe some fact. Indeed, moral judgments do not describe anything in the external world, nor do they refer to our own feelings. There are no mystical moral or normative entities. Nonetheless, moral judgments express objective truths. Parfit’s solution? Ethics is analogous to mathematics. There are mathematical truths even though, on Parfit’s view, there are no such things as an ideal equation 2 + 2 = 4 existing somewhere in Plato’s heaven. Similarly, we have objectively valid moral reasons for not inflicting pain gratuitously even though there are no mystical moral entities to which we make reference when we declare, “Inflicting pain gratuitously is morally wrong.” To quote Parfit, “Like numbers and logical truths … normative properties and truths have no ontological status” (On What Matters, vol. 2, p. 487).
As I understand it, Parfait seems to think that moral judgments are strictly a priori. Then why is he assuming that we make no references in moral judgments? If I'm standing next to a river I think it would be impossible for me to reason (a priori alone) that I'd drown in the river. I would need empirical evidence of drowning, such as testing myself to breathe underwater. I simply don't get your source. How would I arrive at a purely a priori conclusion that throwing a person in the river would kill her?
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,087
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@MarkWebberFan
The answer is very complex, see On the Parallel BetweenMathematics and Morals  by JAMES FRANKLIN.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,087
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@MarkWebberFan
Many philosophers think we can know some moral propositions a priori. Few deny that we can know a priori or the proposition that if it would be wrong not to do something, one ought to do it or other propositions that are obviously true because of definitions. But some philosophers claim we can know more significant moral propositions a priori.
On one familiar view, we can know a priori the fundamental moral principle (or principles), e.g., the principle that one ought to perform the action that has the overall best consequences, or the principle that one ought to act in accordance with virtue, or whatever the basic moral principle really is. Some hold we can know the principle via analysis or because it defines the moral term it is about. We can then know every day moral propositions about particular actions or types of actions by inferring them from the fundamental principle in conjunction with empirical facts.
However, some theorists claim we can know many more moral propositions a priori, in particular, propositions that are not so closely tied to the meaning or reference of moral terms. Others go farther, claiming that most or all moral claims can be known a priori, or even that moral claims can be known only a priori.

15 days later

Jasmine
Jasmine's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 126
0
3
6
Jasmine's avatar
Jasmine
0
3
6
No.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
However, some theorists claim we can know many more moral propositions a priori, in particular, propositions that are not so closely tied to the meaning or reference of moral terms. Others go farther, claiming that most or all moral claims can be known a priori, or even that moral claims can be known only a priori.
Hume's guillotine