Re: The Science of Morality

Response to inmendham: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ4PEIJuA3Q

An objective morality depends on the intellect, you say? That part of ourselves that can stand above the conditioning of our brain and reflexes of our bodies?

But what is the intellect? Isn't it in large part supported by language? It is true that our conceptualizaitons of the world are mapped onto the perceptual and motor structures of our brains, but the language we use to voice these conceptualizations is thoroughly immersed in a social context. Language is a social phenomenon. The meaning of words is a function of how those words are used in an intersubjective community. So while we individual brains may feel as though we have got the answer figured out in the space between our ears, as soon as we begin to formulize the answer in our heads into words, and especially when we pronounce those formulizations to others, we engage in an unmistakably social process wherein we all participate in the creation of meaning. This process can never be objective and it is always ongoing. The intellect is a word which derives its meaning from the community that uses the word. It has no physical referent in the world of the senses.

At best, the word objective might mean "agreed to be true by a large group of people." But I see no possibility that there could be a transcendent source of objectivity that was in any way articulable to others (ie, in any way communicated with language). Whether or not individuals can experience some kind of transcendent state wherein all moral questions were answered in an unspeakable flash of insight remains to be seen. But I don't think it is possible for this kind of insight to be translated into our human language as an objective system of morality.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• morality

[wonderist]

"At best, the word objective might mean "agreed to be true by a large group of people.""

No, that would merely be intersubjectivity. Objectivity (epistemological) means that accurate predictions can be made. Science is objective because it makes accurate predictions. Intersubjectivity without reliance on an objective method can lead to things like group-think.

[redliterocket4]

I agree. I meant that in the context of morality, objectivity cannot be assumed to mean the same thing that it does for science.

[supermegalinda]

Could you speak a little louder please next time? Or closer to the mic? I have trouble hearing you even with max volume... Thanks