Moral presumptions are a problem because that would be assuming that your cultures morals are best.
The solution is not projecting your morals to others.
Assume they could be wrong.
That said there isn’t anything wrong with you living by them, especially to a moral nihilist.
The problem here is that morals are to a large extent a communal endeavour; moral systems work best (and, frequently, only work at all) when they are shared. To have laws that recognise property ownership, say, and that penalize trespass and theft is to enforce the moral values that underpin these concepts on everyone in the community, regardless of whether they all share those values. So it’s not just a question of projecting our morals onto another culture or another community; it’s also - and perhaps even mainly - a question of projecting our morals onto individuals within our own culture/community. Have we any right to do this?
(The moral nihilist would presumably say we have no right to do this, not least because he rejects the whole concept of a moral “right” to do anything at all.)
Is it too simple-minded to use the Golden Rule as a starting point for morality?
Google translates these into:
*Only act on the maxim that you also want it to become a universal law.
Always have whatsoever ye have willed, that man hath been, and that ye are, that ye are in this law, and the prophets.*
I think King James did a better job than Google for that second quote:
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
It’s not simple-minded at all. But what would be simple-minded is to assert that the golden rule has any demonstrable objective truth or validity or force.
Most of us probably aren’t moral nihilists.
Of course there is nothing wrong with it from a moral POV, if morality doesn’t exist.
I’m comfortable saying it’s not ‘wrong’ for him to do that. I’m also comfortable saying I prefer to live in a society that outlaws such behaviour.
As am I. But our preference for living in such a society is a subjective one, not an objective one. Do we have an argument for saying that our preference should be enforced against someone who doesn’t share it? Or, indeed, should be in any way privileged over the different and inconsistent preferences that others may have?
That’s definitely not what Mackie was arguing:
His most widely known, *Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong *(1977), opens by boldly stating that “There are no objective values.” It goes on to argue that because of this ethics must be invented, rather than discovered.
Was he a moral nihilist? (i.e. did he identify as such, or was he identified as such by others?)
Wikipedia notes that “Moral nihilism is distinct from moral relativism, which allows for actions wrong relative to a particular culture or individual.”
He originated the argument from queerness, of course he was a moral nihilist (more specifically, a moral skeptic of a Moral Error Theory (MET) bent - hell, he *coined *the term “error theory”)
And I don’t agree that you *can *sharply distinguish moral nihilism from moral relativism - the one (nihilism) is merely the extreme end of the other (relativism). This is evident in Mackie using the Argument from Relativity as a foundational argument for MET.
ETA: in other words, it is possible to be a (at least Descriptive) Relativist (merely making the observation that different cultures have different moral frameworks) while being a Moral Error Theorist (believing there is no truth value in any of those cultures’ moral statements)
Note also (as Mackie observed) that the MET is also a theory of aesthetics - if we say “There are no objective values”, that goes for our judgements of beauty as well as ethics. By extension, the same can be said of any other flavour of moral nihilism.
Yes we do, to the extent that each individuals behavior directly affects another person.
If MN x decides it’s ok to rape bc it’s just morals in the way and the target (MN z) decides it’s fine to kill MN x than MN x can’t object , or if every bystander decides eh, we’ll just skin MN x alive that’s fine too.
This leads us to a rule of the strongest, In our current society that would be our law enforcement system which has been given power by permission of the majority so MN x can do whatever they like and so can everyone around them. Including exactly, what MN x thinks is wrong.
If it’s ok for every individual to do what they like, then it’s ok for all those individuals to choose to place in power a group to represent them and enforce whatever views they feel like enforcing.
MN is circular logic.
Which is why I’m much more a proponent of live and let live. The degree to which something will directly affect another person is where I like my judgement of who should be allowed to do what to be.
It’s not “OK”. It’s also not “not OK”. That’s the point of MET - you can’t meaningfully make a value judgement like that. But it is what exists, yes. You’ve just described the way it actually works.
Not by anything you’ve shown. In fact, it’s the opposite - moral realism is where the circular arguments exist.
And? How could you show that the rule of the strongest is “wrong” if not by reference to a previously existing moral belief?
Moral relativism or moral nihilism doesn’t say that it’s not ok to organize a democratic system. Just that it’s an arbitrary choice and you calling it “right” or “wrong” or “ok” or whatever isn’t related to any objective reality.
And I fail to see what is circular in this.
Sure, but if you have been raised in a society that don’t, you likely would have no issue with it, and would likely support it.
To give an example, we don’t find it acceptable to rape and plunder our neighbors, but on the other hand, we’re telling young men, not just that they can, but that they have a moral duty to pick up weapons, go somewhere else and kill those other guys wearing funny costumes. I guess you can easily see how someone raised in a different culture could have a massive moral issue with this concept.
And there’s no lack of people currently living who would be willing to justify this funny custom on moral grounds. Probably including you. So, I think that I can assume quite safely that these people (and you), if they’ve been raised in a culture that encouraged enslavement, rape and plunder would likely be perfectly fine with it and would justify it as well.
Well, rule of the strongest wouldn’t need to be right or wrong, it’s not the base for MN.
It is Thrasymachus’ argument though and it fits most philosophy to some extent or another.
The circular part is saying noone has a right to impose morals because they aren’t objectively good or bad. Because then noone has a right to restrict the imposition of morals , since the imposition can’t be objectively good or bad either.
But nobody is saying that (that no one has the right to impose morals…).
Who says that, then?
I think there is a distinction between laws and morals. Sticking with the American system, the law is really about protecting rights and not enforcing morals.
Now, one might point out that the notion that inalienable rights at granted by our Creator is a moral view. Maybe, we could debate it forever. However, also observing that political power flows from the barrel of a gun, and the fact that the Continental Army and Congress leveraged that successfully to establish that as the law if the land, the debate doesn’t much matter at this point.
You could still argue that it is arbitrary, or incorrect, or what have you. OK, get the consent of 2/3 of the states and it can be changed. But again, I think we’ve moved away from morals and into politics.
Upthread.