Ethics - subjective or objective?

[permanentvacation]

On a thread looking at atheism nooka wrote:

?As an atheist I would say all ethics are entirely human made and mutable. I don't believe that there are any universal moral codes, simply ways that societies have decided to live together. I might personally think that their rules are right or wrong, and many other people might agree with me, but that doesn't make me right. I don't think that one opinion on morals can trump another (in fact it's one of the features of organised religion I really dislike).?

Rather than derail that thread with a substantial tangent, I have decided to give a response and locate it in the philosophy section of Mumsnet. My apologies in advance for the length of the OP, but bear with it, it does make substantial points.

I want to follow up on nooka?s statement about ethics, and particularly investigate what authority lies behind any ethical statement. You are right to assert that as an atheist the highest authority on ethics you can acknowledge is humanity, but I want to explore the ramifications of that. I am particularly interested to work out how an ethical system can apply its precepts to those who don?t agree with them, i.e. what is the source of authority for the application of ethics. And while some might say that you cannot apply a set of ethics to someone who does not subscribe to them, the same people would also want the protection of the criminal justice system against those who do not agree with ethics relating to criminal behaviour. All communities have to have ways to moderate behaviour and prevent things getting out of hand, so I?m afraid we can?t opt for moral nihilism and duck out of asking what authority our moral decisions have with regards to those who disagree.

I want to conduct a thought experiment. Imagine an island with a population of two people ? Alison and Bob. Alison wishes to do something, which we will label as X. She believes it is morally right to do X. Bob disagrees with Alison and thinks X is morally wrong. In spite of long discussions on their grounds for believing the rightness or wrongness of X neither changes their opinion. By what grounds can Bob demand that Alison refrain from X? By what grounds can Alison demand that Bob suspend his moral beliefs and permit X to proceed? If there is nothing higher than human opinion then they are at an impasse.

Now let?s imagine that a third person, Cathy, is washed up on the island. Alison and Bob embroil Cathy in the debate over X. Cathy sides with Alison, and so according to the weight of human opinion on the island, X is authorised as morally right. Bob, in the minority, has to concede as there is no higher authority he can appeal to.

Alison proceeds to do X in the belief that it is morally right, and her belief is authorised by the majority view of the community. However, the next day while walking on the other side of the island Cathy changes her mind and agrees with Bob that X is morally wrong. At this point the moral rightness of X changes to be morally wrong. Even though Cathy has not yet informed Alison of her change of opinion, the simple fact that the majority of the community now feels that X is wrong means that Alison?s authority for her doing X has vanished. If at the point of Cathy?s change of mind Alison was engaged in X her action instantly goes from being right to wrong. As there can be no objective moral content to X, the only determinant of its moral validity is highly subjective, ever changing human opinion.

But there are further problems, such as which human opinions do you count to decide on X?

Let?s say that two more people are washed up onto the beach, Dave and Emily. Dave agrees with Bob and Cathy that X is wrong, but Emily sides with Alison saying that X is OK. So it is three against and two in favour, so X remains wrong. However, Emily feels that the island community is being lead astray by Bob and Dave and believes the executive decision making body should be matriarchal. She persuades Alison and Cathy that only women possess the capacity to make correct moral judgements, and despite Bob and Dave?s protests the women vote through 3 votes to 2 in favour of this new system.

At this point Bob and Dave?s views on X become irrelevant, and X is once again morally right as Alison and Emily out vote Cathy by two to one. Is this right? There is a contradiction of one decision, formed under due process, overruling another decision, formed under due process. And again the morality of X is blown around like a weathervane in a storm.

As a final point in this experiment, let?s say that the island community continues like this for some time. The cultural norm arises that men are excluded from the decision making process and, despite protests from Cathy, X becomes part of the way of life for the islanders. But then a male explorer from another island just over the horizon turns up. He is horrified to find that X is culturally accepted as the norm, and tells the five islanders that on his island X is deemed to be wrong. By what grounds can the explorer maintain that X is wrong on this island as well as on his home island?

So, when you assert that moral authority derives from human sources, you end up with all sorts of problems. Something we hold to be reprehensible one day can be morally good the next, and then back to reprehensible the day after that. We have no way of mediating differences between cultures, and we will have problems as different groups band together to assert that their view should take precedence. Any attempt at enforcing ethics (such as establishing a code of criminal law) can be depicted as nothing more than the whim of the mob.

All of this comes into sharper focus when you put some content into X. Let?s say that X is child slavery. I suspect most of us would agree that child slavery is wrong, irrespective of the views of those involved. But there have been times when some societies have condoned such practice. Surely if Bob stands up against child slavery he is still right, even when Alison and Cathy disagree? Surely the explorer who condemns child slavery is right, even though he cannot overturn the decision of Alison and Emily who form the majority of the ruling class.

But then let?s say X is administering medical treatment to a sick person needing and wanting such care. Surely Alison is right to want to do this, even if Bob and Cathy disagree. But if human decision is the highest authority then Alison is wrong to want to treat the sick. And if there is nothing objectively right or wrong about our actions, only human opinion, is the explorer?s anti-medical culture right to withhold treatment from those who need it? Surely the explorer is wrong, even though his own culture has made a human judgement that medical care is impermissible.

So depending on our definition of X we can end up with two contrary conclusions. In the first instance (child slavery) we go against Alison, in the second (medical care) we agree with her. But Alison uses the same decision making process in both instances, and so the process is clearly flawed.

Instead there must be something objective about X which guides its ethical permissibility. This something is ?mind independent?, it continues to authorise or deny X even when Cathy changes her mind. The ethical quality of X must depend on something more durable than human opinion, and must be something with a higher authority than human opinion. We can also say that this source of authority possesses intelligence, as it is capable of deciding between different courses of action. We can also say that this higher intelligence is concerned with our conduct, for why else would it provide judgement on our actions?

Now before theists get too excited about this conclusion, which does point suspiciously towards something a bit like traditional theistic formulations, I should add a caveat.

While this higher authority provides the enduring, objective moral content of an action, the argument does not of itself validate any particular ethical system. It could be that this higher intelligence has chosen not to communicate its ethical system to us, or has done so imperfectly. It could be that religious systems of ethics are made up partially or wholly of human constructed precepts. So I would not use the objective morality argument as evidence of the supremacy of any particular moral code.

And for atheists who have stayed with me to this point (and thank you for doing so) I would hope the contradictions of saying that moral authority derives solely from human will have been exposed. If you wish to hold that opinion you have to accept that things you take to be absolutely right could, without notice, become morally abhorrent, just because of the fickle nature of subjective human opinion. And I would also point out most atheists arguing about the existence of God want hard, objective evidence and reject anything stemming from subjective human experience. Yet when it comes to moral reasoning the methodology flips, and the search for the objective is abandoned in favour of human subjectivity.

So does my argument stand up? Is it reasonable to say that there is a higher intelligence that gives our actions their moral authority? Are the problems I have raised with the view that there is no such higher authority hold and undermine the position that moral authority derives solely from human decision?

Once again, if you have reached this point thank you for staying with it. The length of the OP is necessary due to the complexities of the issue, and too often we resort to soundbites that do not advance discussion.

just wanted to say that I read to the end - a subject that normally goes in the "too difficult" pile for me so thank you for your well written examples. Not sure if I could explain it to someone else but it was good to read a full response rather than the normal soundbites that always feel a bit unsatifactory.

Well I'm a moral relativist and an atheist, so I would argue all codes of ethics are human defined by their very nature, in that they are codes that groups of people have invented. In your island case you are applying your own sense of ethics in feeling that child slavery is wrong whilst medical treatment is right, but there is nothing particularly wrong with the process if you feel that majority decision making is appropriate. Or matriarchy.
Philosophers have been arguing about different ways to apply ethics for generations. All very interesting, but essentially just different people thinking their thoughts.

Sometimes people have found it useful to attribute their moral codes to a god or gods, but in my view they are still ethical positions defined by people.

So I don't think that there are any contradictions in saying that the concept and varying precepts of moral authority derive from human will, because I do accept that people are fickle and that codes once held to be absolute do change (plenty of historical data to support that). Societies with more harmonious moral codes may last longer, or those with more aggressive ones expand and burn out, and we may well judge them differently (from our current moral standpoint), but that doesn't mean we are any more objectively right. One of the things i think is troublesome about deciding to adopt "god given" ethical rules is their authoritative nature. I'd rather ethics I can think about and have some prospect of evolving than the fixed views of a bunch of people some time ago.

I like your illustrated island though

Thanks for your post nooka.

What I was trying to illustrate with the island example was not so much about how people form their moral codes, but what gives them any authority to enforce them. I agree that it is impossible to prove that any specific moral precept is an absolute, but as soon as we assert one of our precepts onto someone who doesn't share it we have to be clear what gives us the right to do so.

Now you could say that we have no right to enforce our moral viewpoint onto someone else, only to represent our own views and hope they are respected. But if someone was burgling your house, I suspect you would want something stronger to fall back on than trying to persuade them that burglary isn't very nice. And if they listened to your remonstrations and then said that they still believed burglary was OK I'm sure you wouldn't respect their view and leave it there. So we all reserve the right to have our moral framework (or at least parts of it) upheld, even when others do not share that framework.

You could go one step further and say we can enforce our moral framework, but only when authorised by the wider community. But then the contradictions of the island paradox come into play. Does everyone in the community have a say? If not, who decides? And how can different cultures interact? In particular, the scenario where A, C and E decide to form a matriarchy, excluding B and D, leads to a logical paradox. If you ask "is X right" and take a majority view, then it isn't (B+C+D>A+E). But if you take the matriarchal view (itself supported by majority opinion of A+C+E>B+D) then it is (due to A+E>C, B+D=0). So something is simultaneously right and wrong, which is a logical contradiction. And that is the problem with moral relativism. If moral content is purely down to perspective then somehting can be equally right and wrong at the same time, which is nonsense.

And I'm not the only one who thinks this of moral relativism. Noam Chomsky has stated "one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow."

I have been quite harsh about moral relativism, so let me be harsh about religion for a bit.

My belief, from the examples given above, is that moral relativism is unworkable and naive. And the alternative, moral objectivism, requires a validating authority external to human judgement, and in this I find something which I would describe as God.

But to know with absolute certainty what this higher authority deems to be right or wrong cannot be proved, and any ethical system (religious or otherwise) can be analysed in social terms. When we invoke some higher authority to allow us to overcome moral relativity we have to recognise that we could be making a mistake, and safeguards have to be built in. We also need to be in dialogue with ethical systems different to our own, just in case they have struck upon something nearer to the objective truth than our own worldview.

This is why I said on the "bless you" thread that I believe the argument is not between religious/anti-religious but between the good versus the destructive. As a person involved in religion I know that it has its dark side. A false sense of certainty can lead people to override the rights of others, suspending thought because they have been given the "right" answers. It can lead to a tribalism where "insiders" are always defended while those on the "outside" are treated with suspicion. Religion can be judgemental about the wrong things, and lets be honest, a lot of religious services can leave people bored and a bit cold.

I also believe there is a very positive side to religion, but that is not my argument here. I am acknowledging that formal religion isn't perfect to say that I understand why people can be turned off it.

But my argument about the objective moral authority being the only logically consistent view is about God rather than religion. When the inconsistency of moral relativism is acknowledged, we then have to acknowledge that there is something out there, whatever it may be. That thing is something higher than ourselves and has a view on the moral content of our actions. And I would say that once such a thing is acknowledged it cannot be ignored.

Acknowledging this "higher authority" does not automatically commit you to one of the existing religious outlooks. It may be that they are all social responses to the higher authority, and that they have got it wrong as much as they have it right. But to say "there is nothing out there" is not an option open to us, once we want protection from moral systems we disagree with and where we are in the minority.

In the light of that higher authority we have to take life seriously and make strenuous efforts to work out the right way to live. Perhaps that higher authority hasn't given us one specific religious expression through which to relate because we need the humility to recognise that our understanding of God is always smaller than God herself, and as such we need each other. But to say that all religious endeavour (whether through an established religion or through a personal and private quest for truth) is irrelevant is not an option.

Sorry for another long post - it is a big issue, not reducible to soundbites and one which I care about.

Many thanks,

PV.

My view is that ethics are a code when morals fail. And when ethics fail, then justice takes over.

Thanks ilovemydogandMrObama. I have been broadly using the terms "ethics" and "morals" interchangeably, and my main thrust has been arguing about whether something is objectively right/wrong (ethical/unethical or moral/immoral) or whether only human opinion makes it right/wrong.

Sorry pv, but in reality things are often right and wrong at the same time, just from different standpoints. That might not be philosophically tidy, but then human nature doesn't tend towards tidiness really. That there are contradictions to this approach doesn't say to me "therefore there must be God". Personally I'm not that bothered about morality, and I don't think that universal morals are required in order to have laws and justice, although they may be given as a justification. Historically law has been put in place to protect the property of the powerful - it largely still is I guess.

Chomsky looks like he largely thinks moral codes should be of the "do as you would be done by" variety. I think that life is much more complicated than that (more along 'don't assume that other people wish to be treated in the way that you would like them to treat you - ask them what they would like, and tell them what you would like, and then attempt to figure out some compromise if that's not the same thing').

But then I haven't really read or thought about philosophy properly for some time, I guess really when I was at university and decided that I preferred the historical approach to understanding the world to the theoretical. The later I think is very interesting, but not terribly related to reality.

Hi nooka,

I can't agree that an action can be inherently both right and wrong at the same time. I can agree that different people can disagree over the rightness/wrongness of an action, and that the way to decide who is correct is not always obvious, but that isn't the same thing.

I also feel that you have not clarified how anyone subscribing to moral relativism can make a moral claim against a third party not sharing their views. We expect the law to protect us from criminality, but I can't see how relativism can be internally consistent while also expecting one persons view on legality to override some else's (e.g. a criminals).

Finally, my approach with moral objectivism, which does not have these problems, does point to some external validating authority. As I have said before, this need not equate with the God of Christianity, Islam or any other faith. But such an authority, necessary for the logically consistent functioning of an ethical system within a community, raises more questions for the atheist than the theist.

And while these questions appear theoretical on the surface, they relate very strongly to real life realities. Everyday the news is strewn with people, institutions, companies, community groups, nations, etc. disagreeing over whether a given course of action is right or wrong, and often taking action to support their view. Whether such disputes are merely human perspective and there is nothing ethically wrong in any of the cases, or whether there is something irreducibly wrong in the actions of at least some in the news, is a very real question, and closely related to any concept of redress (e.g. justice, lawful protest, respecting the rights of minorities, etc). It is reasonable to ask for consistency, even if such consistency conflicts with other dearly held views.