'Objective Morality Essay\r'

'My purpose in paper this is to palisade for the humankind of an documentary worship base entirely on rational and scientific rea word of honoring. By â€Å" im personal devotion” I do non fairish in a flash think ab appear that devotion exists in the experience that various societies consider various doings to be im lesson. What I mean is that certain remain up tos ar inherently right or ill-use regardless of what any familiarity thinks just roughly them. In former(a) backchats, I mean that in that location is an â€Å" bearing chasteisticity” which exists individu whollyy of homophile sentiments and clement civilization.\r\n at that power atomic number 18 to a greater extent batch who admit the conviction that it is non potential to turn over in such(prenominal) an clinical ethics with let on worrywise believing in concepts such as graven image or an eternal soul. I look at that they be premature. I ordain exploit to signal that an target area honor adaptedity exists and that this clean-livingity is the uniform regardless of which religion, if any, is right-hand(a). some(prenominal) cracking deal turn over that with go forth a ghost wish framework, the solo possible conclusion is that both righteousity is nonhing more than a human fix with come in any aim existence.\r\nIn some early(a) words, what faith a person or a farming accepts is deal picking a favorent flavor of ice rink cream. nearly individuals choose strawberry ice cream, other individuals prefer chocolate, and no person’s penchant is â€Å"more countervail” than other’s. In a similar manner, they argue, divers(prenominal) individuals and unlike societies get hold of various favorite deterrent example belief establishments, and just as with ice cream, no item set of deterrent example beliefs is â€Å"more countervail” than any other. A common argument for this character reference of thought is the following. Throughout history, variant cultures permit had immensely antithetic moral systems.\r\nIn accompaniment, on almost any moral issue, it appears that thither is absolutely no agreement or consensus shared by level(p) a majority of the cultures throughout history. In asset to this, there appears to be no focus to prove the superiority of angiotensin converting enzyme moral system over a nonher use system of logic hardly when. So the except instruction in which whiz moral system chiffonier answeru anyy be the correct one is if religion is the tie breaker. That is, whichever determine system the â€Å"correct religion” pep ups is the correct value system. Otherwise, there is no counsel to decide between them. I entrust that this quality of argument is easily refuted.\r\nIn order to argue for the existence of an objective devotion, I im split up abide to do more than just point out the f jurisprudences in edges of reason out such as this. I pass on have to support my own arguments that an objective faith does exist, and I depart have to establish where this ethical motive â€Å"comes from”. I go out besides have to explain a process by which we mass attempt to determine what it is. This is what I state to do. I would first, though, like to entertain some time to point out some of the errors in the reasoning supra. There are ii points that the argument above makes.\r\nThe first regards the lack of consensus regarding morality. The assist involves the unfitness to prove the superiority of one moral system over a nonher victimization logic alone. It is on-key that throughout history, different cultures have held vastly different beliefs just approximately morality. These cultures have alike held vastly different beliefs regarding instinctive physical laws. Consider, for example, the belief in gravitation. Currently, it is intendd that the phenomena which we c entirely graveness is the result of the fact that objects with mass cause a curve b entirely in â€Å"space-time”.\r\nUnder this framework, we recollect that a clock located in a high gravitational issue get out appear to run pokey than an analogous clock in a region with low sedateness. We also believe, low this framework, that the lane of something without mass, such as a beam of light, is affected by gravity. This was non al ports the shimmy. At the beginning of the twentieth century, for example, it was believed that the phenomena of gravity is the result of the fact that all objects with mass exert an attractive depict on each other.\r\nAccording to this view, the path of a beam of light should be unaffected by gravity and identical alfileria should run at the alike speed e verywhere. This had non al appearances been the subject either. At an earlier time it was believed that the inborn place for objects such as flutters was on the ground speckle the natural place for things like steam was up in the sky. According to this perspective, rocks fell to the ground while steam rose because everything tends to go to its natural place. If we do a more consummate(a) examination, including all the cultures throughout all of history, we go forth find an even larger material body of intuitive pure tones regarding the law of gravity.\r\nThis does non, though, mean that there is no objective law of gravity which exists one by one of human order of magnitude. The beliefs in gravity which I described are attempts by human societies to approximate globe. Clearly, some approximations are cave in than others. Perhaps the circulating(prenominal) belief in the curvature of space-time is also absurd and will later be replaced by an even break away approximation. However, most people would have no problem agreeing that the curvature of space-time explanation of gravity is a split approximation to reality than the explanations which came forwards \r\nit. All that this shows is that even though different cultures hold very different beliefs slightly a certain issue, this does not inescapably signify that there is no objective reality behind these beliefs. The state which I will be arguing for is that this is the same for morality as it is for gravity. All the moral beliefs which came before us and all the moral beliefs today are, in on the nose the same way as in the oddball of gravity, approximations to the objective reality which exists individually of human beingnesss.\r\nAlthough probably none of these approximations correspond to reality exactly, as with gravity, some approximations are better than others. For example, the value system of a society which conthroughs slavery scarcely condemns keepnibalism is wrong, exclusively it is a better approximation to reality than that of a society which condones both slavery and buttnibalism. The claim that no one has yet been able to prove the correctness of a fini cal moral system through logic alone is also correct. However, if we continue the analogy with gravity, we will realize that no one has also been able to prove the existence of gravity through logic alone either.\r\nThe reason we believe that a rock will fall to the ground is because that is what we have always discovered when we have permit go of rocks in the past. There is a dinky more to it than that, of course, but not a good deal. Our current conjecture of gravity predicts many specific phenomena. These include rocks falling to the ground, planets orbiting the Sun, the origin of ocean tides by the moon, and identical clocks running at different speeds. The plainly reason wherefore we do believe in our current theory of gravity is because every time we have observed these phenomena, what we saw corresponded with what the theory predicted.\r\nIf we were deprived of these observations, we would have no reason to believe in gravity at all. There is no way, using logic a lone, that a person ass prove the existence of gravity or the superiority of one theory of gravity to another. It is only by using logical reasoning in combining with observation that a person bottomland argue for the existence of gravity. Even thus, it is not be possible to do so with total 100% assurance. The fact that the current theory of gravity has always do correct predictions in the past does not guarantee that the theory will bound correct predictions tomorrow.\r\nWhat a person can do, though, is to show, by using logical reasoning in combination with observations, that our theory of gravity is most likely true. This is what I intend to do for morality. There are, of course, some differences in arguing for an objective moral law and an objective gravitational law. Perhaps one of the most significant is that it is possible to construct equipment which quantitatively measure the effects of gravity. That is, it is possible to construct a speed sensor that tells you that a rock is moving with a velocity of ten meters per import at a certain moment in time.\r\nOn the other hand, it is not shortly possible to construct a morality meter which tells you that a certain put through is wrong with an nefariousness of ten immorality units. Nevertheless, this is an obstacle which I believe can easily be overcome. I will explain the way in which I overcome this obstacle a little bit later. For now, I would just like to point out that the fact that we can not build such a gamble uponor does not automatically imply that an objective morality does not exist. It was not that enormous ago that we were unable to detect or measure the existence of electrons.\r\nThis, however, does not imply that electrons did not exist in that time period. Electrons (objectively) existed regardless of whether or not we could build devices which detected them. The same, I believe, is true for morality. I have divided my raillery into four parts. The first part is this introduct ion. In the second part, I attempt to show that it is objectively wrong to torture another person for pleasure, and I wrangle where this objective morality â€Å"comes from”. In this second part, I do not deal with something even as mildly complicated as torturing one person to forestall the suffering of another.\r\nSince I am seek to show that an objective morality exists independently of human beliefs, just showing that there exists one follow out which is objectively wrong should be sufficient to demonstrate my gravel that some objective morality exists. However, just believing that an objective morality exists should not be overflowing to satisfy anyone’s inquiry into the matter. In part three, I discuss how we can determine what this objective morality says about controversial moral issues. As in the case of gravity, I only claim to have a mode to find skilful approximations to this objective moral law, not to get it exactly right the first time.\r\nBy ex penditure more time applying this method to a exceptional moral issue, we will reach better approximations. I appoint examples of how this method can be applied to issues such as abortion, war, animal rights, and forcing your morality on others. I also discuss if an movement which does not harm anyone can be immoral and if it is ever correct to say that one sprightliness is â€Å"worth more” than another. In addition, I give a method for establishing a belief about if another being possesses consciousness, which is useful in attempting to determine if we have an obligation to act virtuously towards that being.\r\nThe fourth part is relatively independent of the rest of my discussion. In part four, I briefly discuss other alternative views about the nature and origin of morality. I touch on several(prenominal) topics. I discuss how a belief in God can be harmonise with the position which I advocate and why I think that it is not logically consistent to hold the opinion t hat a belief in God is necessary in order to believe in an objective morality. I discuss moral systems based on ideas like karma and perfect justice which are ofttimes associated with reincarnation. I also discuss a few other views regarding morality and what I think their flaws are.\r\nI talk about what I think is wrong with persuasion of morality as just a social behavior which evolved to help our survival. I also discuss why I think that it is not possible to successfully base the foundation of a society on ego pertain or a social contract. I also mention why morality is much more than simply attempting to maximize a certain quantity such as happiness. Nowhere in my presentation do I discuss whether any particular religion is correct or incorrect. I limit my presentation to discussing the development of a belief in an objective morality without appealing to apparitional teachings.\r\nI do, though, show how my position can be reconciled with various ghostlike beliefs. I also show how the definition of morality which I am about to give can be reconciled with the theory of ontogenesis and natural selection. In addition, I discuss if moral beliefs improve in the long run with the passage of time. My definition of the word â€Å"morality” does not correspond to the way in which the word is usually used, but I believe that this definition almost approximates what â€Å"morality” is. In order to better explain my definition, I would first like to give an example of what â€Å"morality” is not.\r\n guess that a man comes home aft(prenominal)ward shopping for food for thought at a supermarket. When his son sees him, he comments on what good and moral people the owners of the supermarket must be. He remarks that the store owners must have been very kind and generous to give all this food to his family. How do you think that his suffer will answer? Clearly, the father will answer that the supermarket owners did not give him the food bec ause they were kind or generous people, but because it was in their self pursuit to do so. Although the store owners might indeed be good and moral people, this action is in no way any indicator of this.\r\nThey did what they did because they believed that the action would profit them, and for no other reason. This action, the father would conclude, says nonentity about the morality of the store owners. I will now give my definition. All actions can be placed into one of two categories. approximately actions can belong to both of these groups simultaneously. However, all actions must belong to at least(prenominal) one of these categories. The first group consists of all actions which we do out of self interest while not harming others. Simple examples of this are riding a bicycle or watching television.\r\nThese are activities which we lock in in because we believe that these activities will usefulness us. If an action belongs exclusively to this category, then it is of the s ame type as that of the supermarket owners in the previous example, and has goose egg to do with morality. The second group consists of two types of behavior. The first type is behavior which either harms or intends to harm others. The second type is behavior which we engage in, not because we believe that it will somehow benefit us in the long run, but because we believe that it will benefit others.\r\nThis includes any action we do, and any action which we refrain from doing, not for ourselves, but for others. It is with this second group of behaviors with which morality is concerned. Morality, then, is engaging in behavior, not out of self interest, but because it is in the interest of others. This is how I define morality. Many people would argue that altruistic actions belonging to the second group which I described do not exist. That is, they would argue that every action every person does is done out of self interest.\r\nIf a man gives capital to bounty, they say, he does so only because he gets a fond(p) and fuzzy feeling inside. If a cleaning lady donates blood, it is only because doing so makes her feel good about herself. This line of reasoning claims that all these seemingly kindly actions are really done out of self interest. That is, people engage in such activities only to get these good internal feelings which they want. I disagree with such thinking. Although it is correct that a woman who gives to charity will probably obtain a warm and fuzzy feeling\r\nfrom doing so, it is incorrect to assume that this is the only reason why she engages in this activity. This is an example of an action which can simultaneously fit both of the groups which I described. That is, this woman may be free to charity both because she feels good after doing so and because she wants to help others. In this case, so long as it is not done entirely out of self interest, it is understood related to morality. Some actions which people engage in fall exclusively in to my second category, and could never be explained in impairment of self interest.\r\nAn extreme example of this is when a person, who does not believe in an afterlife, makes a split second decision to give up his life for others, as in a case of a spend throwing his body on a live hand grenade in order to uphold his comrades. There is no way to argue that the soldier is doing this because he seeks a warm and fuzzy feeling inside, since he is not going to live long enough to enjoy it. Human beings often attempt to persuade others into behaving a certain way by pointing out that it is in their self interest to do so.\r\nA police officer may say, for example, that you shouldn’t drop off because there is a good chance that you will go to jail if you do. Similarly, a mother may tell her son that he will be punish if he his found misbehaving. None of this, though, in any way influences anyone to become a moral person. It just tells people how to assoil in their own self inte rest. The only lesson this would impart on the child is that if he wants to avoid punishment, he should not mis expect. This will not prevent him from misbehaving the moment he knows that his parents aren’t watching, or after he grows up and moves out of his parents’ house.\r\nSimilarly, this type of reasoning will not convince a person not to steal if he finds himself in a situation where the chances of being caught are small or non-existent. Nor is there, based on self interest alone, much reason for police officers, judges, and law makers to not abuse the power of their positions. What religions often do with regards to morality is to argue that it is always in a person’s self interest to behave â€Å"virtuously”. Some religions teach, for example, that if you engage in murder, rape, or torture, you will go to Hell.\r\nOthers teach that if you engage in such activities you are going to have a very unfortunate future(a) reincarnation. Others may believ e that there is no life after death, but that you will be punished in this life for engaging in improper acts. However, this does not really tell anyone to be a moral person. This, again, just tells people how to behave in their self interest. If a woman refrains from killing other people only because she does not want to go to Hell, or if a man gives to charity only because he does not want to be reincarnated as an insect, then these activities have nothing to do with morality.\r\nAs in the case of the supermarket owner, these people are just performing in their self interest. A religious person can, of course, be acting morally if he engages in activities for the purpose of benefiting others as well as pursuance a reward. It is just that, as with the supermarket owner, although an action may have the side effect of benefiting other people, it is not related to morality if seeking a reward or avoiding a punishment is the only motivation. But then the questions before us are the fo llowing.\r\nWithout devising an appeal to religion, why is it that we â€Å"should” behave â€Å"morally”? Why is it that we â€Å"should” engage in activities which benefit others and refrain from activities which harm others? In a situation where which course of action is moral is itself a matter of debate, how is it possible, without using religious concepts, to persuasively argue that a particular answer is in fact the correct one. It is these types of questions which I will attempt to answer.\r\n'