Objective Morality Essay

My pop the question in writing this is to make out for the costence of an verifiable godliness ground entirely on rational and scientific argument. By object glass devotion I do non simply repute that chasteity exists in the sense that various societies consider various follow outs to be im clean-living. What I mean(a) is that certain make forions are inherently right or wrong careless(predicate) of what any society entails ab appear them. In other words, I mean that on that point is an heading ethics which exists independently of human opinions and human civilization. on that point are many large number who select the opinion that it is non potential to conceptualise in such(prenominal)(prenominal) an objective pietism without also accept in concepts such as God or an eternal soul. I mean that they are wrong. I whollyow for attempt to exhibition that an objective goodity exists and that this deterrent exampleity is the same regardless of which religi on, if any, is excoriate. Many large number recall that without a religious framework, the single contingent conclusion is that all morality is nothing more than a human construct without any objective existence.In other words, what morality a soulfulness or a culture accepts is alike picking a dearie flavor of glass cream. nigh individuals prefer strawberry ice cream, other individuals prefer chocolate, and no someones preference is more place than some others. In a similar manner, they argue, divergent individuals and different societies have various favorite moral judgement organizations, and unsloped as with ice cream, no peculiar(a) set of moral pictures is more correct than any other. A plebeian program line for this attri besidese of thinking is the following. Throughout history, different cultures have had immensely different moral systems.In fact, on almost any moral issue, it appears that on that point is absolutely no agreement or consensus shared b y even a majority of the cultures throughout history. In addition to this, there appears to be no itinerary to prove the transcendence of unity moral system over another victimization logic solely. So the only way in which one moral system tush real be the correct one is if religion is the tie breaker. That is, whichever pry system the correct religion advocates is the correct value system. Otherwise, there is no way to decide between them. I suppose that this type of argument is unattackable refuted.In order to argue for the existence of an objective morality, I go forth have to do more than just point out the f rightfulnesss in lines of agenting such as this. I lead have to digest my own arguments that an objective morality does exist, and I get out have to cover where this morality comes from. I will also have to justify a process by which we can attempt to con what it is. This is what I consider to do. I would first, though, like to take some time to point out some of the errors in the reasoning above. There are two points that the argument above makes.The first regards the lack of consensus regarding morality. The sec involves the inability to prove the superiority of one moral system over another using logic alone. It is true that throughout history, different cultures have held vastly different beliefs well-nigh morality. These cultures have also held vastly different beliefs regarding subjective physical laws. Consider, for instance, the belief in gravity. Currently, it is believed that the phenomena which we call gravity is the result of the fact that objects with mass make water a curvature in space-time.Under this framework, we believe that a clock located in a high gravitational cogitation will appear to run slower than an identical clock in a region with low gravity. We also believe, under this framework, that the path of something without mass, such as a beam of light, is affected by gravity. This was not evermore the event. At the beginning of the twentieth century, for example, it was believed that the phenomena of gravity is the result of the fact that all objects with mass exert an attractive force on each other. match to this view, the path of a beam of light should be unaffected by gravity and identical clocks should run at the same recreate every(prenominal)where. This had not always been the case either. At an earlier time it was believed that the indispensable place for objects such as rocks was on the ground while the inborn place for things like steam was up in the sky. According to this perspective, rocks cast to the ground while steam rose because everything tends to go to its natural place. If we do a more thorough examination, including all the cultures throughout all of history, we will find an even larger variety of opinions regarding the law of gravity.This does not, though, mean that there is no objective law of gravity which exists independently of human society. The be liefs in gravity which I described are attempts by human societies to hazard reality. Clearly, some approximations are reveal than others. Perhaps the current belief in the curvature of space-time is also incorrect and will later be replaced by an even better approximation. However, most people would have no problem agreeing that the curvature of space-time explanation of gravity is a better approximation to reality than the explanations which came beforeit. all that this immortalizes is that even though different cultures hold very different beliefs somewhat a certain issue, this does not necessarily imply that there is no objective reality female genital organ these beliefs. The claim which I will be arguing for is that this is the same for morality as it is for gravity. All the moral beliefs which came before us and all the moral beliefs today are, in on the dot the same way as in the case of gravity, approximations to the objective reality which exists independently of hu man beings.Although probably no(prenominal) of these approximations find out to reality exactly, as with gravity, some approximations are better than others. For example, the value system of a society which condones slavery but condemns cannibalism is incorrect, but it is a better approximation to reality than that of a society which condones both slavery and cannibalism. The claim that no one has yet been able to prove the nicety of a particular moral system through logic alone is also correct. However, if we continue the analogy with gravity, we will realize that no one has also been able to prove the existence of gravity through logic alone either.The reason we believe that a rock will buy the farm to the ground is because that is what we have always observed when we have let go of rocks in the past. There is a little more to it than that, of course, but not much. Our current opening of gravity predicts many specific phenomena. These include rocks fall to the ground, plan ets orbiting the Sun, the creation of ocean tides by the moon, and identical clocks running at different speeds. The only reason why we do believe in our current theory of gravity is because every time we have observed these phenomena, what we saw corresponded with what the theory predicted.If we were deprived of these observations, we would have no reason to believe in gravity at all. There is no way, using logic alone, that a person can prove the existence of gravity or the superiority of one theory of gravity to another. It is only by using logical reasoning in confederacy with observation that a person can argue for the existence of gravity. Even then, it is not be attainable to do so with total 100% assurance. The fact that the current theory of gravity has always made correct predictions in the past does not guarantee that the theory will urinate correct predictions tomorrow.What a person can do, though, is to show, by using logical reasoning in combination with observation s, that our theory of gravity is most likely true. This is what I intend to do for morality. There are, of course, some differences in arguing for an objective moral law and an objective gravitational law. Perhaps one of the most significant is that it is possible to construct equipment which quantitatively measure the effects of gravity. That is, it is possible to construct a speed respector that tells you that a rock is moving with a swiftness of ten meters per second at a certain moment in time.On the other sight, it is not currently possible to construct a morality meter which tells you that a certain action is wrong with an viciousness of ten immorality units. Nevertheless, this is an obstacle which I believe can easily be overcome. I will explain the way in which I overcome this obstacle a little bit later. For now, I would just like to point out that the fact that we can not seduce such a detector does not automatically imply that an objective morality does not exist. It was not that enormous ago that we were unable to detect or measure the existence of electrons.This, however, does not imply that electrons did not exist in that time period. Electrons (objectively) existed regardless of whether or not we could build devices which detected them. The same, I believe, is true for morality. I have divided my controvertion into intravenous feeding parts. The first part is this introduction. In the second part, I attempt to show that it is objectively wrong to torture another person for pleasure, and I talk nigh where this objective morality comes from. In this second part, I do not deal with something even as mildly complicated as harrowing one person to prevent the suffering of another.Since I am stressful to show that an objective morality exists independently of human beliefs, just viewing that there exists one action which is objectively wrong should be enough to demonstrate my position that some objective morality exists. However, just ac cept that an objective morality exists should not be enough to satisfy anyones inquiry into the matter. In part three, I discuss how we can determine what this objective morality says most controversial moral issues. As in the case of gravity, I only claim to have a order to find nigh approximations to this objective moral law, not to get it exactly right the first time.By spending more time applying this rule to a particular moral issue, we will obtain better approximations. I give examples of how this method can be applied to issues such as abortion, war, animal rights, and forcing your morality on others. I also discuss if an action which does not harm anyone can be immoral and if it is ever correct to say that one life is worth more than another. In addition, I give a method for establishing a belief about if another being possesses consciousness, which is useful in attempting to determine if we have an obligation to act morally towards that being.The fourth part is relativ ely independent of the rest of my discussion. In part four, I briefly discuss other alternative views about the nature and origin of morality. I touch on several topics. I discuss how a belief in God can be reconciled with the position which I advocate and why I think that it is not logically consistent to hold the opinion that a belief in God is necessary in order to believe in an objective morality. I discuss moral systems based on ideas like karma and perfect justice which are often associated with reincarnation. I also discuss a few other views regarding morality and what I think their flaws are.I talk about what I think is wrong with thinking of morality as just a social behavior which evolved to help our survival. I also discuss why I think that it is not possible to successfully base the foundation of a society on egotism interest or a social contract. I also stir why morality is much more than simply attempting to maximize a certain quantity such as happiness. Nowhere in m y intro do I discuss whether any particular religion is correct or incorrect. I limit my presentation to discussing the development of a belief in an objective morality without appealing to religious teachings.I do, though, show how my position can be reconciled with various religious beliefs. I also show how the definition of morality which I am about to give can be reconciled with the theory of evolution and natural selection. In addition, I discuss if moral beliefs improve in the long run with the passage of time. My definition of the word morality does not correspond to the way in which the word is usually used, but I believe that this definition closely approximates what morality is. In order to better explain my definition, I would first like to give an example of what morality is not. conceive of that a man comes home afterward shopping for food at a supermarket. When his son sees him, he comments on what good and moral people the owners of the supermarket must be. He remar ks that the store owners must have been very smorgasbord and generous to give all this food to his family. How do you think that his baffle will answer? Clearly, the father will answer that the supermarket owners did not give him the food because they were kind or generous people, but because it was in their ego interest to do so. Although the store owners might indeed be good and moral people, this action is in no way any recitation of this.They did what they did because they believed that the action would profit them, and for no other reason. This action, the father would conclude, says nothing about the morality of the store owners. I will now give my definition. All actions can be placed into one of two categories. Some actions can belong to both of these groups simultaneously. However, all actions must belong to at to the lowest degree one of these categories. The first group consists of all actions which we do out of ego interest while not harming others. Simple exampl es of this are riding a bicycle or watching television.These are activities which we engage in because we believe that these activities will benefit us. If an action belongs exclusively to this category, then it is of the same type as that of the supermarket owners in the previous example, and has nothing to do with morality. The second group consists of two types of behavior. The first type is behavior which either harms or intends to harm others. The second type is behavior which we engage in, not because we believe that it will somehow benefit us in the long run, but because we believe that it will benefit others.This includes any action we do, and any action which we come to an end from doing, not for ourselves, but for others. It is with this second group of behaviors with which morality is concerned. Morality, then, is engaging in behavior, not out of self interest, but because it is in the interest of others. This is how I define morality. Many people would argue that altrui stic actions belonging to the second group which I described do not exist. That is, they would argue that every action every person does is done out of self interest.If a man gives money to pilot ladder, they say, he does so only because he gets a warm and fuzzy vox populi inside. If a fair sex donates blood, it is only because doing so makes her feel good about herself. This line of reasoning claims that all these obviously benevolent actions are really done out of self interest. That is, people engage in such activities only to get these good internecine feelings which they want. I disagree with such thinking. Although it is correct that a charwoman who gives to charity will probably obtain a warm and fuzzy feelingfrom doing so, it is incorrect to assume that this is the only reason why she engages in this activity. This is an example of an action which can simultaneously fit both of the groups which I described. That is, this woman whitethorn be giving to charity both becau se she feels good after doing so and because she wants to help others. In this case, so long as it is not done entirely out of self interest, it is still related to morality. Some actions which people engage in fall exclusively into my second category, and could never be explained in terms of self interest.An extreme example of this is when a person, who does not believe in an afterlife, makes a split second decisiveness to give up his life for others, as in a case of a soldier throwing his body on a live hand grenade in order to save his comrades. There is no way to argue that the soldier is doing this because he seeks a warm and fuzzy feeling inside, since he is not going to live long enough to enjoy it. gentlemans gentleman beings often attempt to persuade others into behaving a certain way by pointing out that it is in their self interest to do so.A guard officer may say, for example, that you shouldnt slide because there is a good chance that you will go to jail if you do. S imilarly, a mother may tell her son that he will be punished if he his found misbehaving. None of this, though, in any way influences anyone to become a moral person. It just tells people how to behave in their own self interest. The only lesson this would impart on the child is that if he wants to avoid punishment, he should not misbehave. This will not prevent him from misbehaving the moment he knows that his parents arent watching, or after he grows up and moves out of his parents house.Similarly, this type of reasoning will not convince a person not to steal if he finds himself in a situation where the chances of being caught are footling or non-existent. Nor is there, based on self interest alone, much reason for police officers, judges, and law makers to not abuse the power of their positions. What religions often do with regards to morality is to argue that it is always in a persons self interest to behave morally. Some religions teach, for example, that if you engage in mur der, rape, or torture, you will go to Hell.Others teach that if you engage in such activities you are going to have a very unfortunate neighboring reincarnation. Others may believe that there is no life after death, but that you will be punished in this life for engaging in improper acts. However, this does not really tell anyone to be a moral person. This, again, just tells people how to behave in their self interest. If a woman quits from killing other people only because she does not want to go to Hell, or if a man gives to charity only because he does not want to be reincarnated as an insect, then these activities have nothing to do with morality.As in the case of the supermarket owner, these people are just playing in their self interest. A religious person can, of course, be acting morally if he engages in activities for the purpose of benefiting others as well as seeking a reward. It is just that, as with the supermarket owner, although an action may have the side effect of benefiting other people, it is not related to morality if seeking a reward or avoiding a punishment is the only motivation. but then the questions before us are the following.Without making an appeal to religion, why is it that we should behave morally? Why is it that we should engage in activities which benefit others and refrain from activities which harm others? In a situation where which course of action is moral is itself a matter of debate, how is it possible, without using religious concepts, to persuasively argue that a particular answer is in fact the correct one. It is these types of questions which I will attempt to answer.