The end of objective morality? | Peter Singer and Daniel Markovits clash over impartiality

Daniel Markovits and Peter Singer battle over morality.
This is an excerpt from the debate 'A rule to live by,' filmed in September 2023 at the HowTheLightGetsIn festival in London.
Watch the full debate at iai.tv/video/a-rule-to-live-b...
'Treat others as you would wish to be treated' is a central principle found in many cultures and all major religions. Known as the Golden Rule, it is widely seen as the cornerstone of morality. Yet some argue the Golden Rule is wrong and damaging. It imposes our values, desires and outlook on those with different experiences, and goals. The extrovert may wish to be the centre of attention but it does not mean they should impose this on a shy neighbour. Furthermore, studies show that in clinical settings, Golden Rule thinking leads to inaccurate judgements with important consequences for medical policy.
Should we abandon the Golden Rule as dangerously narrow? Should we seek to empathise with perspectives different from our own and treat others as they would wish to be treated? Or is this a shift that risks losing our moral compass, and the Golden Rule as an essential universal law?
#Morality #TheGoldenRule #MoralCompass
Daniel Markovits is the Guido Calabresi Professor of Law at the Yale Law School and the founding director of the Yale Center for the Study of Private Law. He is the author of The Meritocracy Trap.
Peter Albert David Singer AC is an Australian moral philosopher and Emeritus Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. He specialises in applied ethics, approaching the subject from a secular, utilitarian perspective.
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...[IAI TV URL]
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses

[@simongross3122]

There is no such thing as objective morality or objective ethics. The closest we can get is "broad agreement", and then who measures that agreement and declares that it is broad? That's why we should demand impartial treatment in law. The fairest thing we can do is treat everyone equally under the law. Law is not morality, or at least it shouldn't be, but it should neither fear nor favour any person or group. That way, people can have their own morals but behave within the law.

[@gsvenddal728]

agree about "objective morality or objective ethics." morality and ethics are purely human mental concepts. Not objective in the least.

[@frederickrose3967]

end of?! When did it ever start???

[@djpokeeffe8019]

If you think your own moral judgement is subjective why do you credit it above others, or even spend any time morally reflecting? If one view is no better than the next why not simply toss a coin? Feeding a hungry child is better than pushing it into a freezing pond.😊

[@imnotanalien7839]

The most basic of moral principles is the notion of truth. A society cannot move forward with groups of people with different ideas of what 1+1=? At this point the society disintegrates. Not all cultural groups can coexist. They need to separate and live in different countries. Countries can trade with each other….leave it at that!

[@DaestrumManitz]

Does the principle of the “Golden Rule”, extend into the nature of retribution? Are the events transpiring in Palestine a form of its reciprocate?

[@bryanhaycock672]

To claim there is no objective reality, implies there is no objective truth. This is a slippery slope to relativism in which truth is done away with, being usurped by opinion and feelings. With no sturdy ground upon which to stand, right and wrong will never have sufficient weight to reliably guide moral thinking and actions. All is in a continual state of flux, with nothing to take one’s bearings by. All is confusion and uncertainty. From a psychological perspective a world of confusion and uncertainty breeds misery and suffering. Just my 2 cents.

[@santaclosed5062]

Our cognition it-self is grounded, situated and embodied. So how we can establish an impartiality?

[@kinghyrule86]

People just be saying anything

[@user-btmbangalore]

Why are lawyers and judges not moralists or philosophers?? They do not have advanced sensitivity to be a philosopher or moralist. Philosophers may not want to be judge or lawyer, he might go into idealstic path that might be inconclusive. In court of law, we need guidlines to decide on infringement of rights of one affected by errant in the shortest possible time. Philosophy is not about infringement of rights alone. It is wholistic in its scope, what would prompt a community to be violent and opportunistic, not one man but the equations that alter all men for good or worse. It is study of man himself, his capability and his limitation. Lawyers and judges need not think and analyze wholistic, for that very resson easier to recriut in big numbers or could be terminated for infusing personal whim or has confused law to be personal merit or personal domain. However, a rare judge or lawyer has been found to be an above average philosopher, he however has to differentiate the domains. His role as judge or lawyer has commonality with the other in his profession, he has no right to be philosopher in order to be seen or thought of as exceptional.

[@nyroysa]

Daniel Markovits! I read your book!!

[@davidtrindle6473]

There’s no such thing as “objective morality.“ update your education and learn more about evolutionary psychology, and you will find that morals arise primarily from our genetic dispositions, not Bibles and philosophers. I highly recommend the book by Robert Wright called “the moral animal.”