Subjectivism and Objectivism And Certain Kinds of Contradictions

From guest blogger, Lee.

Consider this article on contradiction:

A contradiction arises when two ideas each make the other impossible. Contradictions don't exist in reality because reality simply is as it is and does not contradict itself. Only our evaluations of reality can contradict each other. If you think you have found a contradiction, then check your premises. Either you're mistaken about it being a contradiction or one of the contradicting concepts has been improperly formed.

If the content of your knowledge contains contradictions, then some of your knowledge is in error. Because in order to be successful in reality one must know reality, success requires correct knowledge. It is therefore important to continually search for and root out contradictions in your knowledge in order to make sure that your knowledge corresponds to reality. The two primary methods for doing this are logic, the art of non-contradictory identification, and integration.

(http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Contradiction.html ) 

Now consider for a moment that perhaps, under relative and subjective moral standpoints, we do in fact have temporary contradictions that exist in our evaluations of reality. With that being said, we will eventually convene to one conclusion, and thus will eliminate one side of the temporary contradiction.

If we acknowledge the existence of these temporary-evaluative contradictions, then we can begin to accept cultural relativism and individual subjectivism while avoiding the dreaded reality contradictions that usually travels with them.

Hopefully I am making sense so far (though if I’m confusing you then maybe I am just being a good philosopher)…but basically I am saying that yes, contradictions in relative and subjective logic do exist, but they are only part of a momentary battle that wages between moral beliefs, from which eventually the dominant moral rule will emerge victorious.

Do not be quick to see this as objectivism. Objectivism suggests that there are preexisting moral truths that apply to everyone in the universe, and they have not much say in it. I am suggesting that objective truths are made by man and woman and surpass us through a sort of  “survival of the fittest moral”.

This could happen in a variety of ways, the simplest being death, brought on by either natural causes or war. If slavery was truly a dominant moral, then the Confederacy would have won the Civil War. If euthanization, religious intolerance, and the use of fear for control were all dominant moral rules, then Hitler would have won World War II and we would all be speaking German right now. Therefore, what is morally right to us now is freedom, the right to live, tolerance of all kinds, and representative democracy. Overall, civilizations with greater morals will live longer than those with lesser standards.

My idea here is not ironclad, but is fun and interesting to try to apply scientific reasoning to that of philosophy. Maybe all of this competition for survival in morals will one day lead to pure objectivism, in which there is no longer anything to fight over and all of humanity will become a hive mind? Would this be a good or bad thing? And if it was bad, under relative and subjective theory, would be even be able to realize our objective morals were wrong if we all would come to have the exact same moral beliefs?

Why Ethical Objectivism Alone does not Answer our Dilemmas

From guest blogger, Rei.

Ethical Objectivism is the concept that there are some objective moral truths that are universal and independent of culture or belief.  Of the 11 arguments against objectivism we studied in class, the argument from absolutism resonated in my mind. The argument is as follows:

1.)     If moral claims are objectively true, then moral rules are absolute.

2.)     No moral rule is absolute.

3.)     Therefore, moral claims are not objectively true.

First, by testing for validity it can be found that this argument is not valid, as it follows the structure of: if p then q, q, therefore p. However, the argument can be changed to be valid as done below:

1.)     If moral rules are absolute, then moral claims are objectively true.

2.)     No moral rule is absolute.

3.)     Therefore, moral claims are not objectively true.

The argument is now valid. Now let us test for soundness. Consider the following thought experiment: you have a loaded gun and have the option to shoot a stranger. Would you shoot a stranger? Probably not. Do not shoot strangers seems like a viable moral rule. If shooting the stranger will end world hunger? Maybe the rule should have an escape clause to address such a situation; i.e. If world hunger doesn’t end as a result, do not shoot strangers. This thought experiment shows us that extenuating circumstances, such as the shot ending world hunger, make absolute moral rules unfeasible. This is because moral rules will not be able to account for all of these extenuating circumstances. Thus, premise 2 is true. Premise 1 on the other hand is not. Why? The previous thought experiment showed us that moral claims can be viable in spite of absolutism via the addition of escape clauses. So the argument is not sound.

The argument is not sound, but it does highlight that escape clauses are needed for the viability of ethical objectivism. This brings into question the value of ethical objectivism alone as a determinant of reasoning. If moral rules are not absolute, why have them? They can tell us how to act, usually. They can tell us what’s right and wrong, usually. They can tell us what is the morally correct thing to do given a bunch of circumstances. So can sane human beings who can empathize and consider the consequences of their actions. Most everyone can figure out if it’s wrong to shoot a stranger. Philosophical thought is in the harder decisions such as is it morally righteous to kill for the sake of a larger beneficial cause.

An objectivist criticism of my claims may be that I may be over exaggerating the significance of extenuating circumstances. My response to such a criticism would be that the widespan contemporary issues of now are all subject to said circumstances. For example, the black lives matter movement is affected by the fact that black people were enslaved 170 years ago, and black people did not have equal rights until the 1960s. Anti-abortion movements are influenced by religious practices that originated thousands of years ago.