2024-01-26
I'm jumping in at the deep end with this one. I'm been wondering if there is a foundation for morals, or rather, how moral relativism and moral absolutism interact, and if there is a solution at all to this.
It seems to collide with problem of free will also. For instance, Kant states in the preface to his Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten that the tripartite division of philosophy into physics, ethics, and logic is firstly a distinction into formal and material philosophy, where the former is logic and the latter {physics,ethics}. The material philosophy is in turn divided based on subordination to laws of nature (physics), or free will (ethics). This of course, seems to pre-suppose free will.
Kant's philosophy is deontological in nature, that is, it speaks of a duty (Pflicht) which for an actual to be classed moral must be obeyed. In this way it is not the consequences of an action that matter, but rather whether the action was committed in the first place. I'm sure we all have experience of doing wrong but getting away with it, or having it turn out ok in the end. Under a deontological view, as Kant teaches, this is still immoral. He writes, in the preface to the same work, "Jedermann muss eingestehen, dass ein Gesetz, wenn es moralisch, d.i. als Grund einer Verbindlichkeit, gelten soll, absolute Notwendigkeit bei sich führen müsse; dass das Gebot: du sollst nicht lügen, nicht etwa bloß für Menschen gelte, andere vernünftige Wesen sich aber daran nicht zu kehren hätten... "
I would agree. We are speaking here, at least firstly, of an absolute, deontological morality. One that is monadic, and might we say, set by God, applying to all. I will return to this.
An idea proposed to my knowledge in the metaphysics of Quality, but likely before as well, is the merging of duty as appertains to free will and to physics. In this way, the factor separating physics from ethics, and human action in that way is this: that those things subject to physics must always subordinate and follow their duty, whereas those things subject to ethics (namely, people) must not always subordinate to their duty.
We stumble upon a stumbling-block here, a truly scandalous one: the problem of free will. Are not humans also subject to the laws of physics? Since the action of a human is determined in that way, what opportunity presents itself for us to either do good or bad? Where is our test from God, as it is commonly said in religious circles?
I'm not sure. I'm sort of just discussing here, not really trying to give answers. I certainly don't have them for one.
In the vein of consequentialism as mentioned above, I might also wonder: what does it matter if something is wrong, or if it is a "duty" if it doesn't have to be followed? So what if something is wrong? It might be deontologically wrong, but there isn't anything beyond that. If I were Christian I might say I'd go to hell, but we haven't gotten that far yet, and even Kant doesn't believe in hell I'm pretty sure. Is it just academic?
Another issue exists. We may, in searching for an absolute set of rules, stumble across things we deem unethical which are now to be called ethical, and things which we now deem ethical, or commit nonetheless, which are in fact unethical. There may well be many things which are unethical we commit out of ignorance, or for the facilitation of ordinary life. This would imply, not only the obvious matters, for instance that murder is wrong, but this or that thing we do in our everyday life, and think nothing of, is wrong. Indeed, could it not be that all which we do is wrong in some respect? For I breathe and walk, yet to breathe contributes to air pollution, and to walk expends valuable energy. Both may well be wrong in their own right. Or we may find that things we wish to deem immoral are in fact moral: that is the problem with moral relativism, is it not? We want some way to say that certain things are wrong. Is that just a mere want? After all, if all is determined, and subject to physics as it seems nowadays to me, then what is immoral? Are not all actions determined?
Perhaps ethics is an emergent property. It does not exist in its own right, but is only emergent from the emergence of sentience, or some other thing. Then again, what is it conditioned on?
I've run out of things to say on this for now. This is a problem I am very unknowledge about, and which is probably important to solve. That said, there is an argument, which is I assume a form of Pascal's Wager, that I ought assume that moral absolutism or something like it is true. And even if moral relativism were completely the case, that doesn't mean that I should go out and murder still. After all, if it were true, then there would be no reason to over not doing it. Then again, the other way around would be true as well. And that is the issue I suppose.
I have not reached 1000 words: that's ok. I'll leave it here for today, as I have little else to say at the moment. I plan to read more regarding this topic, and hopefully come to a slightly clearer mind on it. This year, I wish to read the books I already own, which include Kant, Schopenhauer, Thomas Aquinas, and several others. I shall hopefully have a clearer conception of certain things as relate to these topics next year. The hope is that I will also understand Logos and the like more at that time also. I believe that it can be combined in with this also. In the Metaphysics of Quality, moral is given as the firstmost thing, the monad, God if you will. From that emerge all other distinctions. It seems like a good idea, but falls apart upon inspection it seems. It posits the same hierarchy as Schumacher does, from inanimate to human and past this to superhuman. I cannot help but feel that this is an idea that, although perhaps "in vogue" at the time, is somewhat faulty. But I'll leave it there.
Have a good one.