The Goal theory of Morality

The Goal Theory of Moral Value
I've heard the claim made many times that atheists cannot have a justifiable framework for their morality since their moral framework is not grounded in God. The argument is basically goes that if each man can decide his own morality, who is to say which moral framework is the best. If Tim can say that my morality is right and Sally can say "my morality is right" then who is right? The theist would make the claim that only a higher authority or mediator can be the decider on what is right and what is wrong. The theist would then claim that since objective right and wrong exist, then god must exist.

To respond to this claim I will use a summarized version of Richard Carrier's "The Goal Theory of Moral Value"

Firstly we must distinguish oughts from is's. Morality deals with oughts such as you ought not to lie or you ought not to kill. Theist often accuse atheist of that committing the naturalistic fallacy by inferring an ought from an is. For instance, saying what is the case, like saying that killing causes suffering doesn't show what ought to be the case, like it is wrong to kill. (pg 331) In the Goal Theory of Moral Value, every ought is reduced to an is in the same way Kant did for his hypothetical imperatives. A quick example is someone saying "if you want clean teeth, you ought to brush them". Of course this is not normative in that it applies to everyone. For instance, if a dentist wants to see the effects of not brushing then this statement does not apply to her. (pg 332) Carrier says that morals work the same way as this ought statement accept they ARE normative. (pg 334) It does this by identifying a universal motive for moral action.

This universal motive is happiness (pg 333).This makes sense because whatever reason you offer for anyone to be moral, when we keep asking Why eventually you will land on because it is necessary for your happiness. This is true even in Christianity (pg 339) for if faith in Christ did not lead to ones ultimate happiness then there would be little point in being a Christian. (315) Happiness is so important that happiness becomes THE core value, which is in agreement with Aristotle. By happiness I do not mean fleeting momentary pleasure or joy, but an abiding contentmentthat makes life worth living. (pg 316) So basically this form of morality goes like this You ought to be moral, if you want to find true, lasting happiness and to avoid various forms of misery. (pg 334)

Now lets go back to my example of Tim and Sally. If Tim says follow my moral framework and Sally says follow mine, who is right? Well to determine this I will use an analogy comparing Goal Theory, with technology. Like techniques for farming corn, there is more than one way to do things, but there are better ways and worse ways, possibly even one best way and this varies by circumstance, but in all cases it is the nature of the universe itself that determines this and not human opinion. A Good MORAL technology is better at securing human happiness than a poor one and this is a fact independent of my or anyones beliefs. Thus Goal moral theory is objective and not a subjective ethical system even though it derives entirely from the nature of conscious existence (pg 346).

But how do you prove one moral framework is better than another? Lets say Sallys moral framework says being compassionate will bring happiness and Tims moral framework says suffering will bring happiness, how can we know who is right? Moral Values can be measured scientifically and studied by psychologist and sociologist. We can look at psychological studies and see that compassion brings more happiness to an individual and that people who cause suffering to themselves and others secretly hate themselves. Of course we need more study, until the time when a methodological investigation on morality is done; a naturalist can use her experience to fill in the blanks since a naturalist knowledge comes from non-science sources. She would just place the highest authority, not sole authority, in unbiased science. (pg 324)

A final objection would be that what you value is not what I value since values are subjective. Since values refer to an individuals experiences, they are subjective, but it doesnt follow that none of these values are objective in a sense of being universally shared by everyone. (pg 336) Well what about people who dont want to be happy? The fact that some there might be some people who do not want to be happy would not affect the normativity of moral values for the rest of us, only for them. (pg 343)

In the end Carrier has set out Naturalistic moral theory that is both objective and scientifically verifiable. If need be I will make another video demonstrating reasons why lying or stealing is wrong, the values that naturally follow from happiness, and any what if scenario questions etc. Thanks for your time.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Richard
• Carrier
• Sense
• and
• Goodness
• Without
• God
• NonTheist
• Atheist
• Agnostic
• Morality
• Moral
• Framework
• Objective
• Subjective
• Happiness
• Value
• Virtue
• Ethics

[JusticeIsWhere]

Clear, concise, excellent

[Kan2209]

Damn someone beat me to it.

[padreallenp]

None is righteous, no not one; no one understands: no one seeks God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless: no one does good, not even one. Romans 3:10b-12. The Word of the Lord.

[shnosmas]

i disagree that happiness is the goal. there are many varied goals for people to choose for themselves

[mypolicy9]

@KT45 "the pursuit of happiness is a goal we are bound to follow. "

--"Bound" as in morally obligated? Or "bound" as in necessitated by the laws of nature to actually achieve happiness? Either way, the first claim is a naturalistic fallacy, even if everyone in fact seeks their happiness does not entail they ought to pursue their happiness as the only end of all their conduct. And the second claim is just plain false. Clearly, many people don't ever achieve lasting happiness.

[KT45]

@mypolicy9 the pursuit of happiness is a goal we are bound to follow. We will are forced follow our strongest desires regardless of our conscious thought due to the physical laws of the universe. But unlike Kant's examples of hypothetical imperatives the Goal theory is a hypotheical imperative grounded on this normative fact.

[mypolicy9]

@KT45 ...That is, in Kant's words, no argument from hypothetical imperatives alone can adequately support the judgment that we have a moral duty to do something, or refrain from doing something. Unfortunately, this argument is left stuck in the lurch of instrumental reasoning, and it is still far from proving the "Goal Theory of Morality" as the supreme action guiding principle of conduct.

[mypolicy9]

@KT45 Your video is directly parallel to Mill's fallacious "Proof "of the Principle of Utility that the proof for happiness being worthy of desire is the fact that everyone desires it. But this is still a naturalistic fallacy. Even if everyone desires their happiness, this does not entail that everyone ought to desire their happiness as the sole end of all their conduct, even if every end of their conduct happens to contain happiness as a part, or common denominator, of willed ends.

[mythicalhell]

@FatGermanBastard  yes you are :-) Spank that monkey so you will make those fundies freaked out lol

[truevoiceofsanity]

Its annoying that these videos are not easily accessible on your channel. Seriously, love your vids.