I can't speak for Wayfarer but surely any metaphysics is always based on a human point of view. If we have described it, we co-created it. As an idealist, I imagine Wayfarer would hold to a view that there is a reality beyond human perception. Perhaps the enlightened gain access to it.

That's not a criticism of his account alone; I think it a more general issue. No moral system can be complete. Morality, and human choice and action more generally, are not the sort of thing that can be systematised. This should not be surprising, since it is clear that as soon as a system is posited, our creativity will find issue with it. — Banno

I think this may be the most important point to bear in mind when one is trying to 'solve' a problem that has preoccupied some of our greatest thinkers.

I suspect Harris was propelled by that question so beloved of fundamentalists - 'How can atheists have a morality if you don't believe in God?' In his earnest pursuit to provide a foundational basis to secular morality, I think he may well have overcompensated.

In the Blind Spot sits experience: the sheer presence and immediacy of lived perception.
This statement is LOADED with problematic talk about something that is "blind". — Constance

I think the idea of the blind spot is a metaphor for the failure to recognize a bias held by our own position - humans often assume a god-like, objective understanding of reality when it is actually a perspective with limitations. In this I think the notion is appropriate and I think Wayfarer states the problem well.

The conceit of a lot of modern thinking is to believe that science really does exclude the subject. In fact that is impossible. What scientists endeavour to do, is to arrive at an understanding which is as general as possible, devoid of personal, subjective or cultural influences. That's what 'the view from nowhere' is trying to achieve, and it can do that. But it's not a metaphysic. To mistake it for a metaphysic is to lapse into scientism. — Wayfarer

To my mind this is one of your best succinct descriptions of the matter at hand.

Not sure if this helps, but you may recall that Sam Harris compares wellbeing in morality to 'health' in medicine. We have the science of medicine devoted to health and yet health is not easy to define and people are in disagreement about what health looks like, or what impacts some things have on health. Sure, elements of health are measurable - and many of these also constitute wellbeing measurements. If smoking causes cancer, presumably it is also morally wrong to sell tobacco....

And the Nazi soldiers just took her word for gold?

This is what is so unrralistic about this scenario: that the soldiers would just belive people. — baker

It would help if you didn't prejudge this. Yes, they accepted her words. They had no reason to think she knew anything. These were weekly door knocks undertaken in the hope that neighbors would rat each other out. Three minutes at each house in the street.

If they suspected my grandparents, they would have torn the place apart and wouldn't have asked the questions in the first place.

The Nazi scenario is emotionally loaded, but grossly unrealistic. If you think a Nazi patrol looking for hidden Jews would simply take a person's word for gold, and move on after a No .. — baker

No. The Nazi scenario is not 'grossly unrealistic' - it happened to my grandparents in World War Two - German troops regularly went door to door asking locals if they had any information about Jews and/or resistance people in hiding. My grandmother also happened to be hiding people in her basement.

But this scenario applies to anyone who is asking you provide an answer to a question the true answer of which which could result in someone's harm. It's a simple way to dramatise the flaws in deontological approaches. Another good example would be a violent male asking if anyone knows the new address of his ex-partner who has fled his attacks. This comes up in my work a lot.

I don't think religions need to have deities, I'm not even sure they need to involve the supernatural. I like part of Emile Durkheim's definition - “A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden–beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community..."

Do religions have to involve a search for meaning? Do they have to provide guidance for behaviour?

:up:

Thanks - this is actually something I have wondered about.

In some schools of Mahāyāna Buddhism, it is said that Buddha's actual spoken words (i.e. all of the content preserved in the Buddhist scriptures) are only baubles or toys to attract the ignorant. His actual meaning is forever unspoken and communicated in silence. (This is the gist of the legendary origin of Zen Buddhism in the Flower Sermon.) — Wayfarer

I don't think this is what Derrida had in mind when he said 'there is nothing outside of the text' :wink:

Another thread on the Christian Trinity popped up. Surely this is theology?

No worries and thanks for being generous.

Back to wisdom.

It can be very problematic indeed if applied incorrectly to a nefarious influential individual.
Those who labeled and still label Donal Trump wise caused and continue to cause many 'problems.' — universeness

So the issue of wisdom is a complex one and some dolts have been described as wise, that's for sure. I sometimes hope to acquire wisdom but I often wonder if I am more or less wise than I was 20 years ago. In philosophy wisdom seems to be associated with insight but there are several usages of the word. I'm not sure insight increases with age, but experience does bring with it certain capabilities. Some are also diminished.

Nietzsche wrote - 'There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy.' That got me thinking about how we often feel or intuit insights about the world before we are able to verbalise them.

I am not sure you have the luxury to dismiss Knowledge from a philosophical inquire and biology from your efforts to understand a biological by product! — Nickolasgaspar

This may be true but I can't judge their merit, not being a biologist. I am very aware of people using what is rightly expert knowledge to argue a point on this site (be it advanced exegetical understanding of Plato or quantum mechanics).

(To borrow from the old joke) I don't know anything about morality, but I know what I like.

Thank you.

:pray:

:up:

It can be very problematic indeed if applied incorrectly to a nefarious influential individual.
Those who labeled and still label Donal Trump wise caused and continue to cause many 'problems.' — universeness

Oh.. and yes, true enough.. Bye.

You seem to be attempting a rather infantile 'carrot and stick,' style exchange with me. A tried old strategy. — universeness

For whatever reason it seems to me you are not able to communicate as an honest interlocutor. No worries. Bye.

Yeah, it's a good point and I have wondered why some of these threads are here. Hasn't stopped me sticking my nose in like a schmuck....

Why are you attempting to test my understanding of the term, perhaps it would have been wiser to offer your own. It would have been less petty. — universeness

Not it's not petty, it is asking what you mean by wiser? How does one measure an increase in wiseness?

Please try to focus on philosophy and not on imagined slights.

How warranted it is when it has been applied to someone is open to review and is only confirmed through regular demonstration but it's a measure I personally value over all other measures of an individual when we have 'HUmanS as the measure of all things.' — universeness

So you are saying wiseness is a problematic term. I think that's sensible.

Frankly, I don't understand the question. — Agent Smith

Which question? The OP is asking:

is one particular moral view objectively right and the others are wrong, regardless of what people believe? — PhilosophyRunner

I assume that people are goal-driven, purpose-driven beings, and that therefore, they know why they do things, esp. when those things require concerted effort and resources — baker

I don't assume that. I see people make what they might call goals but these aims or 'ornaments' are often deflections and distractions from more significant needs - to be liked, to be in control... whatever.

Only for a child. The wise person knows how to think properly, thinks properly, and thus makes an end to aimless, useless thinking. — baker

Nice. How do you define think properly?

As a theist, though, I do think their goodness does in fact come from a higher source, even if they deny it. Their beliefs (like mine) don't create reality. One of us is wrong regarding this whole theism thing, but I don't contend that theists are better people because they are theists. The idea that faith alone makes you a better person isn't something I subscribe to. — Hanover

Thanks. This seems to be to be a balanced and generous view. Do you subscribe to any form of idealism?

The shortalls he summarised have being debunked. MAybe you can point out which ones in your opinion still fly. — Nickolasgaspar

In relation to morality I don't really care for science or biology based arguments. I am not a scientist, so I don't know which tentative theory or source of data is accurate or not. Science based arguments just sound like those old advertisements for chewing gum- '4 out of 5 dentists recommend brand X..'

There are probably many scenarios where wellbeing is not all that helpful and I think Issac's question of 'whose wellbeing' is a good one. When there is competing wellbeing, whose are we chiefly concerned with?

If we can increase the world's overall wellbeing by 200% though the slavery of 5% of the world's population, do we do it?

What do you say to this argument?

To claim the secular humanist's beliefs about humans are foundational is to claim something special about humans, but they deny humans have any. If humans have no degree of magic in their constitution, then we'd need to treat human beings like the pool balls that they are.

So, either (1) admit that humans are special and worthy of special treatment and make that your foundation, or (2) deny that and stop with trying to create special rules for these ordinary physical entities. If you choose (1), you're not a secular humanist as they define themselves and you've not avoided any of the problems levied against the theist. If you choose (2), you're not a secular humanist, but some sort of nihilist, which is exactly what the theist expected to be the result. — Hanover

the important 'value' for me is to encourage all to try to become wiser — universeness

What does wiser mean?

The problem, however, is that governments (and other institutions) are not persons and so have no virtue in and of themselves. Individual government officials can be virtuous, but government policy cannot. So I see a need there for foreseeable consequences to be considered and in that case, perhaps a loose idea of 'well-being' might make a good foundation on which to base one's arguments. — Isaac

Agree. I think wellbeing's chief function is as a foundation for social policy and law.

So, either (1) admit that humans are special and worthy of special treatment and make that your foundation, or (2) deny that and stop with trying to create special rules for these ordinary physical entities. If you choose (1), you're not a secular humanist as they define themselves and you've not avoided any of the problems levied against the theist. If you choose (2), you're not a secular humanist, but some sort of nihilist, which is exactly what the theist expected to be the result. — Hanover

Why do you think many secular humanists are concerned about human rights and work hard to help others and improve human life? Do you think these impulses are the remnants of theism?

Talk about rigidity.
The point is not to lie. You seem to think the point is to have the conversation on the other person's terms. — baker

No, I'm pointing to the fact that truth telling can kill people. If we ignore potential consequences we are a fools.

To the first question, yes. We can agree, but that's just because you and I already think that way. Others disagree and we cannot persuade them objectively, by using your 'metrics'.

We might say "keeping slaves harms the well-being of the slaves and so is immoral". Someone else might say "keeping slaves does cause that harm, but it is outweighed by the greater benefit to society's well-being brought about by the increased economic growth, so the slaves ought to put up with their bonds for the greater good". Both arguments use the same metric - the well-being of society - just over different timescales. We might say "but look at societies with slavery, they perform no better than societies without, that disproves your theory" and they could reply "wait another twenty years, the benefits take time to accrue". — Isaac

I think you have summarised nicely the shortfalls in the wellbeing argument. I have generally taken the view that for secular morality, wellbeing can work as a tentative foundation - subject to ongoing clarifications and refinements - which for me is an improvement on debating the putative will of gods which humans can't agree on. It's definitely flawed or incomplete, but I'm not aware of anything better for now.

What do you think? — universeness

I think we have different world views.

Your suggestion, that I maybe 'hand-wringing,' (perhaps you also see a manifest image of me, in your head, maniacally laughing!) is a bit more malevolent and quite a jump, a bit over the top Tom. — universeness

Err, it's not all about you... I was writing about 'the scenario' you dramatised.

In essence we hold different views about nomenclature and approach. I think it is fair to ask questions about our systems of value, so enjoy... Bear in mind that for many people it does end up in analysis paralysis and a whole lot of navel gazing foolery that is of little use to anyone.

It got me thinking about decision making in general. Can we ever be properly informed? As imperfect beings how do we know when to intervene and when to be passive? Are good intentions enough by themselves? How does one control how their actions impact the world when none of us have a definitive knowledge or right and wrong - a perfect moral compass by which to make decisions — Benj96

So many questions. I simply trust in my ability to do in good faith the best I can, with what I have available. Experience and good judgement help. No one has a perfect moral compass - whatever that might mean. And I can't control things outside of my own sphere. It's fine by me.

Do you care about your well being, are you ok with acts by others that affect it? — Nickolasgaspar

These are the Sam Harris type questions, whenever he talks about Wellbeing as the basis for secular morality. I generally accept these sorts of arguments.

How can you call acts that endanger your well being ? — Nickolasgaspar

Not sure what this question means. Do you mean, 'What can you call...?'

So if we agree on the principle....are we reasonable to thing that if we choose the act that increases our well being ..can we be sure we have a Moral system that can produce objective moral values?
If not why? — Nickolasgaspar

Sure. As half-baked secular humanist, I've advocated wellbeing/flourishing for some years.

But there are still issues to iron out - hypothetically :-

Why make the choice to privilege wellbeing? Let's look again at your examples.

killing a terrorist before blowing up a school. — Nickolasgaspar

What if we don't give a shit about the school or its children? What if we agree with the terrorist's aims?

From helping small kids cross the street — Nickolasgaspar

What if we don't like children? Do we need them around - snivelling little shits?

There's a choice made here to care about strangers who don't really matter to us. They are not our children, right?

Are you sure that your concern for wellbeing isn't just a form of sentimentalism based on a fading Christian ethic and its concern for underdogs and losers?

Why not just take care of ourselves and our own circle and not care about other's wellbeing?

My system doesn't use "what is" to arrive to what "ought to be". IT identifies a common characteristic shared by KNOWN acts with positive moral value and uses it as an objective standard in our future evaluation. The system arrives to the "oughts" through the principles without taking in to account "what is the case". — Nickolasgaspar

I'm not a philosopher so forgive me if I ask a stupid question. In brief dot points what are 'known acts with a positive value?'

How do you arrive at an ought through principles without taking in account of what is the case? Aren't principles part of what is the case?

it is part of the larger consideration of the value of human life, which includes minimizing harm and suffering and maximizing well being. — Fooloso4

I agree but I guess Hanover might ask you on what basis ought one to care for these values? The adoption of 'wellbeing' as a criterion of value is adopting a presupposition, is it not?

hey it was Nietszche who was adulated by the Nazis, not Kant. I think the ideology of the Ubermensch is far more suited to fascist authoritarianism than the Critique of Pure Reason. — Wayfarer

Actually Nietzsche would have told the Nazi's to fuck off.

My point isn't what you think it is. It is about lying. Kant says you don't lie to anyone just to achieve a consequentialist greater good. Maybe I should have said Kant would recommend you tell the Russian troops where the Ukrainian women are hiding because lying is wrong.

Doesn't matter what Kant would do, it matters what he suggests we should do. People don't generally discount the American Declaration of Independence just because the signers owned slaves. Doesn't mean we should ignore it, but the words matter all by themselves. — T Clark

That analogy doesn't work. A better example would be if the Declaration of Independence actually said 'human beings are all created equal, except for slaves and women' Then we would ignore it. :wink:

As I understand him, Kant specifically suggests we take on a proscribed, deontological approach that we should all implement so that a rigid moral code is established. He's really not into everyone having their own take.

Perhaps he interpreted it rigidly, although I find it hard to believe he would be that rigid. To me, what it means is that it's ok for me to set the rules, as long as I'm committed to applying them fairly, including to myself. Especially to myself. — T Clark

I always heard that Kant was known for his fixated rigidity, both in his lifestyle (people set clocks by his daily walk) and by his rigid notion of duty which people have often satirized. I've understood the take home message of Kant as being Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus 'justice be done even if the world dies'. It's the opposite of pragmatic. Kant is a hard-core deontologist, an anti-utilitarian who eschewed consequentialism.

So Nazi's win with our help.... (edit: this refers to us telling them in which attics Jews are hiding)

Morality has to do with us evaluating our interactions and how our actions promote specific metrics that favor the well being in a society. — Nickolasgaspar

Surely this is only the case if you already accept a presupposition that there are no transcendent foundations for morality and that moral realism is unrealistic unless we agree to set a goal (an inter-subjective choice) and base morality on that goal, e.g., wellbeing. The reason to do this is pragmatic (the adjective not the philosophy) and eminently contestable.

I'm not a post-modernist or deeply read in Derrida, but I find myself agreeing for the most part. For me it seems that the anti-foundationalist conclusions of po-mo are an inevitable consequence of a process that began in earnest (perhaps) with the enlightenment project. We have peeled away the layers of the onion and found that there are only layers and ultimately nothing at the core. While this represents a freedom of sorts, it terrifies and outrages those who insist on foundations. Humans seem hard-wired for this, we navigate via certainty. The challenge for us all is how to reinvent ourselves in relation to this conception. My prediction in the short term is that the culture wars will lead us back into flailing 'certainties' and ever escalating cant.