måndag 8 juli 2013

Moral realism-reponse to ' absolute morality is unproven is what makes it a matter of opinion”'

“what i am claiming is that the very fact that absolute morality is unproven is what makes it a matter of opinion


I disagree.

Just because it is impossible to prove moral notions in a scientific way doesn’t imply that there is no such thing as objective moral truths.

Here are some quotes that I do agree with:
There is a whole tradition of secular moral realism that does not depend on religious belief. For example, see Huemer's book, "Ethical Intuitionism." If you are telling me that I need to believe in God to believe that the statement, "The Holocaust was morally wrong," is true, I could not disagree more.

We all share certain moral intuitions, such as: it is wrong to cause suffering/death without a good reason. That moral principle is a true moral principle. And in response to anyone who says, "well the truth of that principle can be doubted," I reply: why let your skepticism stop there? You can doubt everything. If doubtability is the test, then no proposition can ever be true in an "objective" sense.


“Moral realism is not the view that moral truths are constructed, or made true, as a result of what people value morally; rather, moral truths exist independently of any perspective, including ideal perspectives.”

“Science tells us that we ought to believe what the evidence appears to show. That is itself a normative claim. But let’s assume that we ought to believe what the evidence shows. What counts as evidence? The answer is that certain evidence, which is consistent with the assumptions of the scientific paradigm, counts, but all other evidence is excluded and ignored. There can be completely different sorts of empiricism (the theory that all knowledge comes from the senses as opposed to being innate). It is incorrect to say that moral realism or all spiritual traditions are unconcerned with evidence or that there is no evidence for them. There is a concern for evidence and there is evidence; it is just not recognized as “scientific” knowledge because science rejects that sort of evidence from the outset. There are many things to measure; science measures only some and even defines how measurement can proceed. Everything else is ignored.”

“The abolitionist philosophy that I have developed certainly relies on rational argument but ultimately rests on a foundation of moral realism. For example, when I state, “it is wrong to inflict suffering on a sentient being without an adequate justification,” I mean that to be a principle that represents a moral fact. From this principle, together with the logical premise that the moral notion is meaningless if an adequate justification can include the pleasure, amusement, or convenience of the person(s) imposing the suffering, I argue rationally to the conclusion that we cannot justify most animal use, however “humane” it might be. (I have other arguments against any animal use that is not ruled out by the “necessity” argument.)

So the theory (or that part of it) rests on logic and rationality, and certain nonmoral facts about animal sentience. But you cannot get to any normative conclusion if you don’t agree with the moral fact that it is wrong to inflict suffering on another sentient being without an adequate justification. If you ask me to “prove” the truth of that moral fact using a framework prescribed by science or in a way that every rational person would be compelled to accept, I can’t. That does not mean that “it is wrong to inflict suffering on animals without an adequate justification” is not a moral fact; it does not mean that no evidence supports it. My views are based on moral intuitions, which involve beliefs that are based in experience, but which cannot be “proved” with the sort of evidence that is used in the prevailing paradigm of science. I would, however, maintain that the truth of the moral intuition, “it is wrong to inflict suffering on animals without an adequate justification,” is self-evident, even though its truth does not rest on observation. “

One more post:
You have from the outset taken the position that you will believe that morality is subjective until the opposite can be scientifically be proven, which per definition of the limitations of the scientific paradigm is impossible.

Then you use your position “conveniently” to exploit and harm other animals for trivial ‘palate pleasure’, and to be indifferent of their unnecessary suffering and death. If you care the slightest of nonhuman animals, then the case for veganism is crystal clear, as explained earlier. And as long as you permit people exploiting animals for the “pleasure”/convenience of food, and participate in this yourself, you are a part of the animal abuse (and also guilty of the most horrendous parts of the abuse, which you enable by endorsing the property status of animals), instead of a part of the solution.

For some clarity I recommend:

It is an objective fact that the property status and domestication of animals is causing them horrendous amounts of suffering, e.g. enabling the industrialized animal abuse depicted in this video: http://www.earthlings.com/

Without the domestication that started 10000 years ago, and that is perpetuated by each non-vegan choice, 58 billion land animals wouldn’t yearly be exploited, many of them living a life of constant torture.
Your position also harms other people, since the animal industry is causing lots of environmental damage, poverty, starvation, etc.:

Furthermore, the enslavement of animals, the domestication, also has resulted in human slavery, oppression against women, and other forms of oppression that is rampant in our society. It is covered in this book that I want to read: http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-15188-7/animal-oppression-and-human-violence#.UZAIageHrdk.facebook

Regardless of what you believe about moral truths, all that it takes to become a vegan is love and compassion, caring more about the animals, their interests of not suffering and interest of continued existence, than frivolous ‘taste experience’/convenience/social peer pressure.

Naturally any vegan who cares about animal and human rights, and who is understanding that one is complicit in the exploitation if one is not educating people participating in animal exploitation, and who is understanding how efficient education is in order to change people's mindsets and actions, will try to educate you about their views. You will regard it as "imposing beliefs", and the vegan will regard it as their moral obligation. You should consider that your temporary frustration is nothing compared to the suffering of the victims (the animals) that we are trying to protect and defend.

I think this will be my last reply. Thanks for the discussion!

Inga kommentarer:

Skicka en kommentar