What Even Is Morality About?

[@danielbailey9248]

look into ayn rand's aristotelian inspired definition and moral code. I recommend reading "objectivism the philosophy of ayn rand" by leonard peikoff.

[@WackyConundrum]

A thought: you said that most ethical theories are false. The implication being that there can be a true one. Let's look at science. In philosophy of science, we no longer judge scientific theories as true or false. Why would we demand "truth" from ethical theories? Why the standard/requirement is so high? Additionally, "true" can mean many things. There are many theories of truth. We must specify what we mean by "true" when we want to say that almost no theories of ethics are true.

[@eliassideas]

Let me put it simply: Almost no theory of ethics has ever sufficiently demonstrated or proved the existence of real moral facts (i.e. values or duties or principles that are objectively proper or more proper than others).

[@WackyConundrum]

@@eliassideas I know. Science also doesn't prove the existence of quarks or gluons. Yet, no one is bashing science for it.

[@WackyConundrum]

I don't understand your attack on the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is ultimately selfish, because it comes down to "the [social] world will be better for me that way". And it is rational to want that which will make it better for you. So, where is the problem? Or, alternatively, what we mean by "rational" is very underspecified or vague. And maybe we mean totally different things by that term.

[@eliassideas]

The problem with the Categorical Imperative is that, strictly speaking, I do not see how it is "rational" to want any X over any Y. This just presumes that there is an appropriate way to wish things. I could have a perfect understanding of Logic, coupled with perfect understanding of all the empirical data of the world, and still want Y over X. There is nothing in logic nor in the empirical world that dictates that I should prefer X over Y. Sure, it may just be the case that I do in fact choose X over Y due to my natural inclinations, but just because this is in fact the case doesn't mean that it "should" be the case.

[@WackyConundrum]

@@eliassideas Well, rationality _is not about_ wanting X over Y. It is about _how to achieve_ the X that you want.

[@eliassideas]

Perfect. So if the X that I want is to cause suffering then i could very rationally use a moral code which allows me to do so perfectly, and i would not be any moral immoral than anyone else.

[@WackyConundrum]

@@eliassideas No. This doesn't follow from what I said. If you have a proper plan of getting X and you're following your plan, then you are doing so rationally. That's it. But also, according to the categorical imperative, wanting good for all is rational because it will bring you the most good overall (and not merely getting that one X). So, "rational" is a relative judgment - we are doing something rationally or not depending on context, such as the goal.

[@WackyConundrum]

I'm not sure why you're saying that ethics is about proper action and that an ethical theory would have to have some normative or motivational force on you. Especially since I'm sure you know about various anti-realist meta-ethical theories, such as emotivism, which are purely descriptive. So, there no pretense of making you do anything in particular there. Either I don't know why are you dismissing these views of I completely missed the point of the video.

[@eliassideas]

You're absolutely right. I have no issue with descriptive ethical theories, but they are just that, descriptive. The video is about normative ethics and in particular moral theories which claim to be objective and truth-apt.