Morals

[Dak]

Anything that is relative will have opposing views on a given issue. That's common sense. Whether or not it seems "completely retarded" to you makes no difference to the fact that it's "completely right." There is no fact about the way that the world operates that says "killing people is wrong." There is no ethereal moral law floating about in the stratosphere that states this. We do not live by moral standards because they are objectively right. We live by moral standards because we believe they are right. I listen to the music that I listen to because I believe it's good, not because it's objectively good. I think Kant's conception of "subjective universality" applies well here. A subjectively universal claim is a claim that says that everyone ought to behave with respect to this claim. For example, I believe that abortions should be legal. I believe that this should hold true and I can't believe that anyone would think otherwise. I believe that this claim should apply universally. Another person believes that abortions should be illegal. He believes that this should hold true and he can't believe that anyone would think otherwise. He believes that this claim should apply universally. It's impossible for both to have objective validity, and yet both exist.

There is a huge difference between art preference (whether or not you like BAN really doesn't impede on my freedom) and any kind of moral argument.

The argument of the existence of univerally applied claims is a given. What I am saying is it is possible that there is objectivily valid option when the situation is judged rationally from all angles.

You continuously insist that the concept of objective morals is "ethereal", "magical" etc. I am saying they are not.To insist on that though does get you out of having to look at human interaction objectivily.

If anything, relevant morality is pretty "ethereal" because it is just created out of thin air by whoever is thinking.

How does the inquisition make the fact that some people believe that morality should be less rigorous than others any less true?

We aren't arguing beliefs, or rather, I am arguing that some concepts of how humans interact go deeper than just beliefs.

My point with this was that it doesn't even matter whether some people believe in "more rigorous morals", because their concept of more rigorous morals might look like to me as no morals.

So although we both might agree that there is a concept as "rigorous morals", what does it mean? Just that you hold yourself to more personal rules than someone else does? Just because it is a personal rule does that mean it is a moral? We really need to define what a moral is or this is just going to keep going in circles.

Validity doesn't need to come magically. Validity rests in the power of its logic. A good moral code is logical and not just based on what somebody said is objectively true. This is like the America showing their imperial might around the world because they had a "manifest destiny" to do so. We are mature, rational people. We do not require magical authority in order for us to follow something. And that's a good thing too, since there is no such authority.

On the magic/ethereal, refer to my earlier statement. You are insisting that for there to be an objective moral law there must be a Diety. I am saying proper interaction can be completely objectified.

The concept of morals is in part arbitrary in that it is man made and based on the observations of what is conducive to 'goodness.' This is a practice based on observation of how people function. It's not the discovery of some objective fact, it's just what some people have decided is the best moral code given the circumstances. It's possible that there's a better moral code out there that is not implemented.

I agree here in part, and said as much earlier, with exception to that the observation must be in search of objective fact, or there is no point in observation to start with.

Of course there is a reason. If you don't think it's a good thing to fucking stab your mother to death, then that's a pretty good reason not to do it. You don't need God to tell you that something is objective in order to have an intelligent idea regarding it. Whether or not the rules you follow are stupid is determined by the individual. Maybe if you put some thought into what your morals are, they wouldn't be stupid. But apparently, unless it's divinely inspired, it's stupid.

Again, if you believe that we can have "laws of the universe" without a creator, then why can't we have basic laws of interaction without a creator?

I don't even know what you're trying to say here? You can't have what both ways? You can't have morality be non-objective and still have morality? That's fucking absurd.

If morality is whatever you say it is but also whatever I say it is then it isn't anything, unless morality just means "personal rules to live by", which apparently is what you mean. So that means I can decide it is "immoral" to walk on the left side of the street, take right turns on red, or park east to west. Do you see how ridiculous this can get?

The law has nothing at all whatsoever to do with whether or not morality is objective, which is what we've been discussing. This is pretty obvious given that "morality" supposedly existed before laws were passed.

Which should go to prove that there could be some aspects that are objective. Laws were just a way of "writing them down". Of course though as with all human achievements, the majority finds a way to slip in things to benefit themselves at the expense of others.

Only sane people have a system of morality?

I guess if morality is just whatever than the answer would be no? So we should retry all the "criminally insane", since they aren't insane, they just made up their own morality which they followed. We shouldn't punish them for that.

BTW, I am being a "jackass" about this point because you are making a ridiculous point.

Sorry if the fact of the matter at hand is not what you want it to be, but I can't change that. We can't agree on a definition of what is moral any than we can agree on a definition of what is good music. We probably cannot come to a universal consensus on anything unless it is objective and can be shown to be so empirically, like mathematical equations.

Again, art appreciation is not morals.Refer to earlier statements. If everyone just thought that the majority of scientific fields were subjective and never studied them to be sure we would still be arguing over whether the earth was flat or not.

Success is not furtherance of society?

Individual success (not at the expense of others) = societal success.

And again, you're not reading what I'm saying. I said that there's no reason to believe that there is an objective basis for morality and that that basis is to guide a successful society. I didn't say that morality and success of all individuals is not linked at all. It's pretty obvious that it is. But saying that morals exist in order to contribute to a successful society in no way contradicts that. It's just a by-product of the way that was communicate that morality has an impact on our "success."

This is going to go in circles because we haven't agreed on terms so I think that needs to be addressed first.

It's valid because we give it validity. Nothing else beyond that is required. You are talking about magical authority, and you're doing it over and over again. You say that morality does not exist in any real sense unless morality is objective. This is an appeal to a magical authority, like manifest destiny. There is no objective truth that says that it's a requirement not to rape, kill, and steal for successful human interaction. First of all, in order to make this claim, you also have to assume that there is also an objective quality to determine success, which also doesn't exist. Or, rather, which is also relative. For somebody who is looking to steal a loaf of bread from a black jew, stealing a loaf of bread from a black jew is a successful human interaction.

Success not at the expense of others. Your example of theft from a black is not success for the black jew, therefore is not maintaining the balance.

We really need to define terms or we can just stop here.

What is success when balancing society and the individual to assure equality of treatment and progression of capabilties?
What are morals?

 

[Omni]

What are morals?

Personal views and opinions based on one's own beliefs of what is right or wrong. This is something that is impossible to objectify, due to the fact that successfully interacting with others is not a requisite of moral values. You still haven't figured this out for some reason. People's opinions and views of what is right and what is wrong are just that, opinions and views. Not facts, and not something that can be objectively measured.

You're trying to come up with all these ways to do so, but you are clearly missing the definition of what moral values are if you're under the impression that interacting with others on a social level without negatively impacting them is a requisite part of moral views. You are objectively wrong if you attempt to define the word as such.

Different people have different opinions of what is morally acceptable, and since we are not ordained to behave in a certain way, there is no objective wrong or right. It's opinions only. Nothing you say can redefine the word.

 

[Omni]

Realistically, all you're actually doing is presenting your beliefs that certain moral views can be more conducive to creating successful societies, but that has nothing to do with some people's moral values and also isn't related to the meaning of the word.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

those things that prevent societies from failing are called laws

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Morals,Rights & Laws DO NOT exist. It's just an idea. Laws are made up as religion is; just words, No more. Morals as in - Majority rules, but that is not the end all. Therefore it is not the case that while morale is of this kind wrong and right actions do not exist.

Only If you believe them to.

At this point many people, both at the popular and scholarly levels, have this intuition that, if God does not exist it is difficult to see how there could be any objective foundation, any universal standard for good and evil.

How do you get ethics from different arrangements of space, time, matter and energy? A purely materialistic universe would be morally indifferent. Moral judgments would be just relative and subjective, merely expressions of personal tastes. Or they might be just social conventions that society has agreed upon so that people can live together without chaos.

There is no real objective right and wrong! The concept of objective morality loses all real meaning in a universe devoid of God.

Our strong intuitions that a Right or Wrong, selfishness, discrimination, hate etc... are objectively or even outrageously immoral, are just delusions.

"Life itself is only a vision, a dream. Nothing exist but empty space and you, and "you" are but a thought."


Only individuality.

 

[Cythraul]

Oh boy. Looks like I've arrived a bit late here. Since this thread has already turned into a dialectical clusterfuck I won't jump into any of the extant debates, but I do have one thing I'd like to nitpick about, namely:

Scientific laws and morality are not "universal" or "relative" in the same sense as the other. A "universal" moral guideline is merely one that it has been collectively agreed upon is right, for whatever reason. A universal scientific law (well, a scientific law is universal by its nature) is one that is the only possible answer that can be derived from the given value data. There is no interpretation. The data itself provides you with the answer. This is completely unlike morality in ways that I hope I don't have to explain.

Since when could a scientific law be derived from data? That gets things backwards. The inference from laws and auxiliary statements to statements about data has the character of a derivation I suppose, but there is no comparable derivation that goes on in the other direction. One could also argue that there is no sense to the notion of a law's being objective in the sense of its being true, because laws don't state truths (people have made this argument regarding laws in physics; I'm not so sure about the other sciences.) Regarding your point about data, even data itself is theory-laden and subject to interpretation. And you seem to suggest that observational data uniquely determines which theory is correct, which is a pretty bold claim to make. I'm not trying to question the rationality of science here, but merely point out that what goes on in science is a hell of a lot more complex than the 'unproblematic data unequivocally determines theory' view.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

This thread is a clusterfuck. Every fact is related on one side to it's sensation, and, on the other, to morals. The game of thought is, on the appearance of one of these two sides, to find the other: given the upper, to find the under side. Nothing so thin, but has these two faces, and, when the observer has seen the obverse, he turns it over to see the reverse. It's a pitching game of this penny, - heads or tails.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

2+2 = 5

 

[skeptik]

There is a huge difference between art preference (whether or not you like BAN really doesn't impede on my freedom) and any kind of moral argument.

You're missing my point. I'm not equating morality with art preference, merely the way that they function. Both are value judgments. They are different kinds of value judgments with different characteristics, but they function similarly.

What I am saying is it is possible that there is objectivily valid option when the situation is judged rationally from all angles.

I know this is what you're saying, but this is all you're saying. Just saying something a lot is not making an argument. Please tell me what you mean by "objective," because we can't possibly be using the same definition. What I mean by objective is a real, infallible, unimpeachable truth whose truth would be obvious regardless of our existence. That killing would be objectively immoral whether or not we think that killing is immoral universally and whether or not we have reasons to think that killing is wrong. If "killing is wrong" was objectively true, it would not even need any reasons to be true. That all people think that killing is wrong does not make the claim that killing is wrong objective.

You continuously insist that the concept of objective morals is "ethereal", "magical" etc. I am saying they are not.To insist on that though does get you out of having to look at human interaction objectivily.

The appeal to some objective nature is an appeal to some magical authority. You are resting the validity of the claim on some unidentifiable principle that is supposed to somehow exist as an incontrovertible fact of the world. And what do you even mean by "looking at human interaction objectively?" You're obviously using "objective" in a different sense here. It is impossible to look at anything from an objective point of view. We are subjective entities. It is an essence of our nature and is inescapable. We do not have the capability of looking at ourselves from an objective perspective.

If anything, relevant morality is pretty "ethereal" because it is just created out of thin air by whoever is thinking.

"Relevant morality" (whatever that means) is not "created out of thin air" if you mean what I think that you mean. Morality that is not presumed to be inspired by magical authority is not created illogically and without reason. Quite the contrary. I already gave my conception of morality, and even you can't say that that was "created out of thin air" as if it has no practical function.

Just because it is a personal rule does that mean it is a moral? We really need to define what a moral is or this is just going to keep going in circles.

A moral is a statement of belief about some type of ethical issue.

On the magic/ethereal, refer to my earlier statement. You are insisting that for there to be an objective moral law there must be a Diety. I am saying proper interaction can be completely objectified.

You're saying it, but you're not backing it up. You can not possibly mean by objective the same thing that I do. Your "objective" sounds like universal subjective universality to me. That the entire world determines, by examining ourselves and the entire span of human history, that killing innocent people is wrong, is not objective. If you disagree with this, then we quite obviously mean very different things by objective, and you in fact must mean by objective something that's not even terribly interesting or meaningful.

observation must be in search of objective fact, or there is no point in observation to start with.

What is "objective" fact? In what way do you mean for a fact to be objective, and do you mean the same meaning of objective when you say objective fact as when you say objective morality? Because I'm not sure you do.

Again, if you believe that we can have "laws of the universe" without a creator, then why can't we have basic laws of interaction without a creator?

The "laws of the universe" are not actual "laws." The laws are a collection of conclusions that we have reached which we assume to be true based on what we have been able to observe, and we have no damn good reason to believe that they're not true. Laws of nature are happenstances. They could have been otherwise if the universe was different. They're not laws because somebody made them, they're laws because they are the things that actually happen as a result of the way that things have come about.

If morality is whatever you say it is but also whatever I say it is then it isn't anything, unless morality just means "personal rules to live by", which apparently is what you mean. So that means I can decide it is "immoral" to walk on the left side of the street, take right turns on red, or park east to west. Do you see how ridiculous this can get?

This is where we ignore idiotic people. We have a structural framework which limits what we allow people to deem moral and immoral. Whether or not it's possible in our society for somebody to believe that not sacrificing a baby to a god every day is immoral is irrelevant because we don't allow it. One's personal morals cannot violate another person's morals, within reason. Society has to have this in order to protect against stupid people precisely because there is no objective morality, and even if there was, because people don't follow it.

Which should go to prove that there could be some aspects that are objective. Laws were just a way of "writing them down". Of course though as with all human achievements, the majority finds a way to slip in things to benefit themselves at the expense of others.

I was not seriously suggesting that "morality" in the the magical sense that you mean existed; however, it is intuitively obvious that morality had to exist before morality based laws did. This does not in any way mean that because a law is based on a moral that that moral is somehow magically objective. That simply means that the writers of the law collectively agreed upon something that was moral or immoral and passed a law to preserve or prevent it.

I guess if morality is just whatever than the answer would be no? So we should retry all the "criminally insane", since they aren't insane, they just made up their own morality which they followed. We shouldn't punish them for that.

BTW, I am being a "jackass" about this point because you are making a ridiculous point.

Whether or not a person has a system of morality has no bearing on whether or not we're obligated to tolerate it. You are the one making the ridiculous point. The maddest individuals who commit the most sickening acts are often the ones who most stridently feel that they are acting morally. You talk about human history so much, so it should be obvious to you that history proves this.

Again, art appreciation is not morals.Refer to earlier statements. If everyone just thought that the majority of scientific fields were subjective and never studied them to be sure we would still be arguing over whether the earth was flat or not.

Again, I never said the two were the same. But amazingly, you can make comparisons between two things that are not the same. In fact, it's done all the time.

As for science, I'm not really sure whether the terms subjective and objective as we (or I) am using them really even apply appropriately to science. We are subjective creatures trying to discover what seems to be true about our universe. We can never, ever prove that anything that we observe is true. All we can do is consistently not find them to be false. For the sake of pragmatism, we take these things to be as true as we can perceive them to be and act as though they are true.

Since when could a scientific law be derived from data? That gets things backwards.

I'm pretty sure you have to go both ways. Unless we innately understand scientific laws, I'm fairly convinced that we derive what we believe are natural laws from our observations of their behavior. And then we accumulate data from those laws.

One could also argue that there is no sense to the notion of a law's being objective in the sense of its being true, because laws don't state truths (people have made this argument regarding laws in physics; I'm not so sure about the other sciences.)

They state what we believe is true.

Regarding your point about data, even data itself is theory-laden and subject to interpretation. And you seem to suggest that observational data uniquely determines which theory is correct, which is a pretty bold claim to make. I'm not trying to question the rationality of science here, but merely point out that what goes on in science is a hell of a lot more complex than the 'unproblematic data unequivocally determines theory' view.

I thought it was pretty obvious that my small paragraph was a vast oversimplification of the scientific process, and I'm convinced that you are reading far more into that small paragraph that we should have, and also that we most likely do not even disagree in any significant way.

 

[Cythraul]

I'm pretty sure you have to go both ways. Unless we innately understand scientific laws, I'm fairly convinced that we derive what we believe are natural laws from our observations of their behavior. And then we accumulate data from those laws.

I suppose that you mean something completely different by the term 'derive' from what I mean by it. What I mean by 'derivation' is deductive inference. There is no sense in which a law is ever derived from data. That just does not happen. I also do not believe that any data uniquely determines or unequivocally demands a particular theory or explanation. You probably mean something way less problematic, so I suppose I don't need to nitpick.

They state what we believe is true.

How exactly does that address the point I made? I mean, it's way off topic and not terribly important to the discussion, but I'm just wondering.

I thought it was pretty obvious that my small paragraph was a vast oversimplification of the scientific process, and I'm convinced that you are reading far more into that small paragraph that we should have, and also that we most likely do not even disagree in any significant way.

Yeah, well, obviously you can't exactly give an exhaustive characterization of science in a short paragraph, but some simplifications are extremely misleading while others not so much. Whatever. It's not a big deal.

 

[skeptik]

I suppose that you mean something completely different by the term 'derive' from what I mean by it. What I mean by 'derivation' is deductive inference. There is no sense in which a law is ever derived from data. That just does not happen. I also do not believe that any data uniquely determines or unequivocally demands a particular theory or explanation. You probably mean something way less problematic, so I suppose I don't need to nitpick.

By derive I mean determine or conclude. We conclude that a scientific law is true following analysis of empirical observation. We have come about many scientific laws by means of repeated experimental observation which displayed no variation and concluded after the seventy millionth time that we can probably go ahead and establish that this is true unless some WTF moment comes about which shows that it's not true.

Maybe you think that I'm saying that we somehow produce laws by observation? I hope that's what you think I'm saying, since that would be easy to dispel. What I'm saying is merely that we have stumbled upon these laws through observation. Or at least in part by observation. Obviously it's not entirely based on seeing an apple fall from a tree a billion times, that's merely to simplify what we should already understand.

How exactly does that address the point I made? I mean, it's way off topic and not terribly important to the discussion, but I'm just wondering.

Well, you said that "laws don't state truths." I said that they state what we believe is true. I really don't care whether one calls scientific laws objective or not.

Yeah, well, obviously you can't exactly give an exhaustive characterization of science in a short paragraph, but some simplifications are extremely misleading while others not so much. Whatever. It's not a big deal.

At least I don't think it's a big deal. Maybe I'm just not getting my wording right to properly express my intentions suitable for one such as you who is so highly sensitive to the specificity of terminology, or maybe we actually disagree. I'm not sure.

 

[Cythraul]

By derive I mean determine or conclude. We conclude that a scientific law is true following analysis of empirical observation. We have come about many scientific laws by means of repeated experimental observation which displayed no variation and concluded after the seventy millionth time that we can probably go ahead and establish that this is true unless some WTF moment comes about which shows that it's not true.

Maybe you think that I'm saying that we somehow produce laws by observation? I hope that's what you think I'm saying, since that would be easy to dispel. What I'm saying is merely that we have stumbled upon these laws through observation. Or at least in part by observation. Obviously it's not entirely based on seeing an apple fall from a tree a billion times, that's merely to simplify what we should already understand.

Sounds acceptable to me. I have a tendency to assume that people are saying ridiculous things when they're really just using terminology in peculiar ways. Sorry for the confusion.

Well, you said that "laws don't state truths." I said that they state what we believe is true. I really don't care whether one calls scientific laws objective or not.

Well, if you're interested in what I'm really on about with that babble about laws you might want to google 'nancy cartwright laws'.

 

[MasterOLightning]

The chick who voices Bart Simpson?

Sorry, this thread needed a post less than 500 characters.

 

[Einherjar86]

A point that keeps being made in this thread is how morals and laws are not the same thing. However, can't we agree that there are certain "generally accepted" moral standards (not objective morals, just relative moral standards that appear frequently in many people) that basically dictate how members of a society should conduct itself? Also, those regulations that are eventually passed into "law" often have their basis in moral reasoning, do they not?

This seems very basic and simple to me.

 

[skeptik]

Of course, all I'm arguing is that this basis is by no means magically objective, let alone infallible.

 

[Einherjar86]

You weren't the one I was questioning, but thanks for clarifying. Some posts earlier made it sound like there were no correlations between laws and morals whatsoever, and I just wanted to specify that there are and make sure that we're arguing from that standpoint.

 

[Dak]

I am going to try to hit everything from Dodens post without quoting to death.

So throughout the last several thousand years there have been certain laws (which it is agreed are at least related to something called "morals") in nearly every civilization that are the same. Usually to hit the big ones rape/murder/theft, at least from within your "group", is wrong. I don't see why this can't be because of some sort of [law of interaction of intelligent species] , because the actions/reactions can be observed, and I would say the large majority of the time would be the same.

Usually in cases where a civilization thinks these otherwise "immoral" things are ok is when it is an "enemy", and the perpetrator subconsciously considers them "less human" or not equal, making it suddenly not immoral.This is usually the justification for most genocide etc. This does not mean that the law itself is subjective, because the morals of Stalin or Mao obviously trampled all over the morals of their victims. So they were breaking this law whether they thought so or not.

You made a reference to something being "within reason". IF human interaction is completely subjective how can you determine what "reasonable" is? You have to set a point such as majority rule or whatever the authorities say is reasonable, whether or not it may be completely "unreasonable".

Since pretty much no society has ever allowed for "murder" of free male citizens, and we can reasonably expect that none in the future will, the question is why? If your answer is "just because" I really can't accept that.

I am assuming you never read the article I linked.

It looks to me like the whole foundation for your arguement is that for there to be objective morals there would have to be a god to set them.
As I said before, if there had to be a god to make "moral laws" the follow on to that logic is there would have to be a god to set the rest of the natural laws.

We can observe the interaction of atoms, planets, galaxies, animals, elements and draw conclusions. Human interaction is not vastly different. Just because our tendency is to subjectivily view evidence to support our own opinions doesn't mean that makes it right.

 

[skeptik]

You obviously don't even read my posts. This is not even worth my time any more. You can't even posit an argument for the existence of a magically objective quality of laws without saying "how is it NOT objective?" That's begging the question, literally, not making an argument. Make an actual argument, or I'm not going to waste my time responding any more. I'm pretty sure you're the only one here convinced by your own argument, so that's good enough for me.

 

[Cythraul]

Case for Objective Morality

I feel like having a bit of fun, so I'm going to pick apart the claims made in this article.

moral principles are short-handed way of expressing scientific or social facts (such as the facts about metabolism)

Obviously false. A moral principle is a statement, or belief, or proposition, or whatever you'd like to call it, to the effect that something ought to be the case. A statement about what ought to be the case is in no way reducible to a description of some scientific or social fact about the world. There is a manifest difference between saying 'I need food to stay alive' and 'I ought to stay alive' or 'I ought to eat food'. If moral principles were reducible to such statements of scientific or social fact, it would be entirely mysterious as to how moral principles could play the sort of cognitive role that they're supposed to play in an objective morality, because then they're not actually telling me about what ought to be done.

The basis of ethics is causality: everything has consequences, and so do actions. Actions have consequences, and our role is to find those consequences and act accordingly.

This seems to assume a position on morality that is the subject of huge controversy within normative ethics. Let's hope the person who wrote this is planning to argue for it.

First, it is important to understand that the skeptic answer can be seen as simply absurd and hypocrite. Most atheists would not accept subjectivist answers in any other area (except perhaps some nihilists), especially things like science. We rightly blame many Christians for holding Creationist positions on faith and subjective appreciation, because their position is not based on reality. But we must put the same blame on the shoulders of the subjectivist position in morality. To argue that morality is not knowledge and that therefore any belief or whim is acceptable, is not any more acceptable than saying that biology is not knowledge and that Creationist is true by default.

Sounds question begging to me, unless the person is planning to argue for it rather than simply use it as part of their argument. At any rate, we're not obligated to give every domain of discourse similar treatment, unless some argument can be adduced that the domain of discourse in question has certain features that would demand similar treatment. Let's hope this person means to give an argument to this effect.

To claim that morality is subjective is a denial of causality

Absolutely not. The only sort of person I can think of who would be committed to such a denial about causality would be a subectivist/anti-realist/etc. about causality. The denial of a moral principle, for instance 'You ought not to fondle children', entails nothing about causes and effects. And it seems to me that one could be a subjectivist about ultimate moral principles without being committed to anything absurd concerning means-ends rationality.

Whatever the moral system upheld by the individual, we can express the general value-judgment process simply in the following manner:

1. There is a moral choice, with two or more possible actions.
2. Those actions exist in a context.
3. The combination of that context and our hierarchy of values (whatever its form) determines the values effected by each action.

We already have a hierarchical system of values in humanistic psychology, which is called Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, and is generally accepted in the field. David Kelley gives a similar account of human needs in “Logical Structure of Objectivism”, albeit one that also includes vital philosophical concerns (bold his):

” Material needs such as needs for health and food: these values contribute directly to survival.

Spiritual needs such as needs for conceptual knowledge, self-esteem, education and art: these values are spiritual in the sense that they primarily pertain to consciousness, and contribute to survival by helping Reason to function properly.

Social needs such as needs for trade, communication, friendship and love: these values are social in that they occur only through interaction with others. Logically, their status as values is due to the fact that they contribute to the fulfillment of spiritual and material needs.

Political needs such as needs for freedom and objective law, which are needs concerning the organization of society. These provide the context for fulfilling our material, spiritual and social needs”
(p81)

I think it is pretty clear that all of its parts are objective. They are based on existing physical and psychological causal facts that we observe in ourselves and other people. It is also a hierarchy, given that the needs at one level need to be fulfilled to a suitable extent before we can be concerned about the others.

Even if I grant all of this, I do not need to be committed to the claim that these statements about needs express normative facts.

We have a hierarchy of values for the same reason than we have a hierarchy of needs – because some values need to be reasonably fulfilled (such as nutrition or sleep) before some others can come under the purview of our actions (such as love or excellence). There is a gradient of importances that necessarily enters into account here. That is why one may say, objectively, that eating is much more important than, say, gaining status. But these values are universal: they apply to all human beings, except in some cases where higher values cannot be effected due to physical defect.

But must I grant that these considerations are indicative of some kind of normative facts? I don't see why I must. What exactly is the argument here? This person seems to be claiming that we have a hierarchy of values that corresponds to a hierarchy of needs, and that our values are objective because they track objective needs. But it's important to notice that 'needs' in this sense is not being used as a normative notion. This is just a description of a ranking of needs as a matter of biological or practical necessity. Sure, if I want to live I need to find food, and I need to find food before I start worrying about whether the hottie that sits next to me in class wants to go on a date. But that does not commit me to the moral claim that I ought to eat.

As far as I can tell (and maybe I'm not reading this person correctly) this person is conflating means-ends rationality with morality. And this whole account seems far too limited. How does the claim that Michael Jackson ought not to fondle little boys fit into all of this? Surely there is no need (in the sense defined above) in Michael Jackson's case corresponding with the aforementioned principle. But I suppose some 'objective' need exists in the boy's case. But why should Michael Jackson give a shit about that? This guy's account doesn't tell me why.

 

[Dak]

Because it has to be applied equally across the board. You can't elevate one person's "needs" without balancing it against the others involved.