Let’s see, courtesy comment 469 in the WJM subjectivism thread:
>>It seems we need to address as MSET 0, that there are moral truths.
In steps of thought:
1 –> Let’s call this proposition, M0. M0 = there is at least one moral truth.
2–> Understand, truths are assertions that accurately describe aspects of reality. As Ari put it, truth says of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not.
3 –> Further understand, morality, of course deals with OUGHT, whether ought-to or ought-not.
4 –> Thus, understand that M0 means:
a: there is at least one assertion (say, X)
b: that accurately describes an actual state of affairs that obtains
c: on which some responsibly free and rational agent A ought-to or ought-not [–> relative to some Y].
5 –> Where, this is not at all yet, we know that X or we know that ~X. Nor for that matter, that there exists some A or there does not exist some A.
6 –> For argument, assert ~ M0. That is, we imply ~X and/or ~A.
7 –> But the assertion, ~ M0, is an assertion about the state of affairs of the world, W, in respect of moral truths.
8 –> That is, the denial attempt ~M0 inadvertently is an instance of M0. For if there is in fact no ought-not, that too would be a moral truth. The moral truth that
(a) all agents A are free to do as they please [and can get away with in a world of might and manipulation],
. . . or else:
(b) that there is no such thing as responsible rational freedom so there is no agent A, implying that there is only blind mechanism and/or blind chance.
9 –> On case (b), however, rationality and responsibility towards truth vanish, argument collapses into manipulation or intimidation, and the life of mindedness is dead. This is absurd, as evidenced by a world of such argument, which implies that A’s exist.
10 –> On case (a), A would be free to do as s/he/it pleases, and can get away with. Which would be a momentous moral truth indeed.
11 –> So, ~M0 if it were so would end in the absurdity of destroying responsible reasoned discourse or else in inadvertently being a major moral truth. Thus, ~[~M0], or, M0.
12 –> Therefore, M0 is so, and in fact self evidently so, as this elaboration could be put far more simply and directly i.e. it is patent.
13 –> In effect, at least one moral truth must exist as the denial of existence of moral truth either exemplifies a moral truth or else it implies an end to responsible rational discourse.
We may then move beyond the bare existence of manifestly evident moral truths to examination of specific cases. As has been done up to this morning here at UD.
The upshot of such is, that there are many highly important and relevant moral truths that are self evidently so on pain of implying undermining responsible rational discourse and even the credibility of mind.>>
That is, we have warrant for holding (in a world in which we must be responsibly, rationally free in order to be able to have genuine argument) that moral truths exist.
This, we may discuss, in the context that there are many specific and pivotal moral truths. END
PS: Let us refresh our memories on a cluster of specific MSETs, where:
>> . . . normally responsive people will at least grudgingly respect the following summary of core, conscience attested morality from the pen of Paul:
Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . .
Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong [NIV, “harm”] to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. [ESV]
Where, John Locke, in grounding modern liberty and what would become democratic self-government of a free people premised on upholding the civil peace of justice, in Ch 2 Sec. 5 of his second treatise on civil Government [c. 1690] cites “the judicious [Anglican canon, Richard] Hooker” from his classic Ecclesiastical Polity of 1594 on, as he explains how the principles of neighbour-love are inscribed in our hearts, becoming evident to the eye of common good sense and reasonableness:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man’s hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8 and alluding to Justinian’s synthesis of Roman Law in Corpus Juris Civilis that also brings these same thoughts to bear:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, “ch.” 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.]
We may elaborate on Paul, Locke, Hooker and Aristotle, laying out several manifestly evident and historically widely acknowledged core moral principles for which the attempted denial is instantly and patently absurd for most people — that is, they are arguably self-evident (thus, warranted and objective) moral truths; not just optional opinions.
So also, it is not only possible to
(a) be in demonstrable moral error, but also
(b) there is hope that such moral errors can be corrected by appealing to manifestly sound core principles of the natural moral law.
For instance:
1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.
(This is manifest in even an objector’s implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.)
2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.)
3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity.
4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise.
5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do.
6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. if a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT, it fails decisively.*)
A summary of why we end up with foundations for our worldviews, whether or not we would phrase the matter that way
7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.)
8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity.
9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd.
10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Thus also,
11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly.
(NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting — again — nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation — or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an institutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases.)
12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil.
_________________* F/N: After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity inter alia.>>
PPS: From earlier this morning (at 141 in the arguing with subjectivists thread), let us also bring into the picture the third member of the triad, justice, truth and beauty:
>>Regarding beauty and principles.
Of course, the world of music is pivotal historically, as the Pythagorean identification of numerical ratios of frequency as a root of harmonious tones and by extension chords etc, was momentous. Indeed, we can see the reasoning from the harmony of music to the harmony of the heavens and thence the earth, thus the rise of the vision of that severe beauty, mathematical elegance. With all sorts of implications for the rise of Science also.
{Let me clip from The Story of Mathematics (an interesting site):
>>Pythagoras is also credited with the discovery that the intervals between harmonious musical notes always have whole number ratios. For instance, playing half a length of a guitar string gives the same note as the open string, but an octave higher; a third of a length gives a different but harmonious note; etc. Non-whole number ratios, on the other hand, tend to give dissonant sounds. In this way, Pythagoras described the first four overtones which create the common intervals which have become the primary building blocks of musical harmony: the octave (1:1), the perfect fifth (3:2), the perfect fourth (4:3) and the major third (5:4). The oldest way of tuning the 12-note chromatic scale is known as Pythagorean tuning, and it is based on a stack of perfect fifths, each tuned in the ratio 3:2.
The mystical Pythagoras was so excited by this discovery that he became convinced that the whole universe was based on numbers, and that the planets and stars moved according to mathematical equations, which corresponded to musical notes, and thus produced a kind of symphony, the “Musical Universalis” or “Music of the Spheres”.>>}
It is not for nothing that the trivium: Grammar, Rhetoric and Logic, went on to the quadrivium: Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy.
And how can I speak of beauty without highlighting that most beautiful expression, by Euler:
0 = 1 + e^(i * pi)
Never underestimate the powerful and pleasing impact of elegant, powerfully unifying simplicity in the midst of vast diversity.
In literature, there has long been a classical tradition on unifying structures and patterns, pivoting on the premise of a deep structure to narrative.
For instance, Northrop Frye (summing up and building on long traditions [cf here]) has spoken of a one story/ monomyth of literature, keyed to the classic seasons. One may group as comedy — spring, romance — summer, tragedy — fall, winter — anti-romances (irony and satire). And yes, the story types move along the cycle of varieties, showing repeating themes and progress, with character, circumstances, conflict and resolution as drivers of plot development.
WILLIAM HOGARTH: The Analysis of Beauty is a classic work on underlying principles of axiology, with particular reference to the visual, and the highlighting of unifying lines in composition, especially the classic elegant S-shape. He speaks of fitness, variety, regularity, [elegant] simplicity [–> recall, less is more?], intricacy, quantity [greatness of magnitude].
So, despite the tendencies of a cynical and too often dismissive era to deride principles and guidelines (and to almost worship the politically correct bizarre, merely novel and ugly . . .), it is patently not so that beauty is simply in the eye of the beholder.
This becomes particularly so in the widespread agreement on facial beauty, especially female facial beauty: http://www.beautyanalysis.com/
Nor should we forget the golden ratio, phi: 1.618 etc, cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio
There is a reason why justice, truth and beauty have long been tightly coupled.
Where, yes, there is morally connected beauty in thought, word and character too.
Where, that beauty may well be a gateway to call us back to sanity as a civilisation.>>