Pathetic Arguments for Objective Morality...

DifferentiatingEgg

This post is dedicated to collecting pathetic arguments often used by objective moralists, you know the kind who make fallacious appeals to what is unequivocally "Good" or "Evil."

I'll start with the unimaginative low-hanging straw these moralists love to grasp for when making the foundation of their argument—the claim that "killing babies is objectively evil."

The argument is a cheap rhetorical tactic, relying on multiple logical fallacies, including: Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Popularity, Begging the Question.

To dismantle this fallacy, I've devised a thought experiment: The Contraption of Moral Failure

Suppose you come upon a screen that displays a particular contraption. This contraption and its occupants are as real as the screen, but at some far off undisclosed location say, halfway around the world. Inside this contraption there are two chambers. One is sheltering a helpless infant, the other houses a carnivorous beast, lets make it a small sized beast, that would take time to devour the baby alive. Between them is an impenetrable barrier—but a countdown has begun as you became the unwitting observer of this screen.

120 seconds is on the clock, when the timer reaches 0 the barrier will lower and the beast will begin eviscerating the baby alive. The death of the infant will be both traumatic and excruciatingly painful.

There is, however, a button that will instantly destroy the contraption, but also both baby and beast. Preventing the baby from undue pain and suffering.

What do you do?

The objective moralist's dilemma boils down to two outcomes:

Pushing the button, or a refusal to act.

If you push the button, to prevent the baby from experiencing untold pain and suffering, then both deontology fails as does the objective "killing a baby is evil." As you're actually doing some "Good" : preventing extreme pain and suffering that leads to a traumatic death.

Refusal to act endorses extreme suffering and a traumatic death over a painless instant death, proving that their morality is detached from the reality of human well-being, which is what their moralist claims are said to uphold.

Eitherway their rigid morality collapses in on itself as a house made of straw.

So the next time a moral absolutist throws out "killing babies is evil" as a trump card, hand them this thought experiment and watch them implode under the weight of their own "objective morality."

If anyone has any others please feel free to post them, and we'll see what thought experiments can be arranged to dismantle them.

T Clark

This post is dedicated to collecting pathetic arguments often used by objective moralists, you know the kind who make fallacious appeals to what is unequivocally "Good" or "Evil." — DifferentiatingEgg

The idea of objective morality is not one I have much use for, so I'm not here to discuss the merits of whether or not it is ever acceptable to kill babies. Instead, I want to focus on the arguments you have used to make your case.

I'll start with the unimaginative low-hanging straw these moralists love to grasp for when making the foundation of their argument—the claim that "killing babies is objectively evil."

The argument is a cheap rhetorical tactic, relying on multiple logical fallacies, including: Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Popularity, Begging the Question.

To dismantle this pathetic fallacy, I've devised a thought experiment: The Contraption of Moral Failure — DifferentiatingEgg

Here's what Wikipedia says about the pathetic fallacy.

The phrase pathetic fallacy is a literary term for the attribution of human emotion and conduct to things found in nature that are not human. It is a kind of personification that occurs in poetic descriptions, when, for example, clouds seem sullen, when leaves dance, or when rocks seem indifferent. — Wikipedia - Pathetic Fallacy

So, as far as I can see, the pathetic fallacy is not a logical fallacy as we usually think them and it doesn't apply as an argument against moral objectivists. The logical fallacy that might apply is, as you note, appeal to emotion or pity, but I don't think it applies to this situation either. Here's what Wikipedia says about appeals to pity in philosophical arguments.

An appeal to pity (also called argumentum ad misericordiam) is a fallacy in which someone improperly appeals to pity or similar feelings like empathy, as a method of persuading someone to agree with a conclusion. It is a specific kind of appeal to emotion. This fallacy can happen in two ways: 1) when an appeal to pity (or a similar emotion) has nothing to do with the actual point of the argument, or 2) when the emotional appeal is exaggerated or excessive compared to the situation being discussed. Not all appeals to pity are logical fallacies. When the feelings of pity are directly related to the conclusion and help support the argument logically, they can be reasonable. For instance, appealing to pity when asking for help. — Wikipedia - Appeal to Pity

As the text I've bolded indicates, an appeal to emotion isn't necessarily a logical fallacy. I would argue that, in this particular situation, it isn't. As I see it, it is a fundamental human value that we protect the vulnerable members of our community, especially our children and more especially babies. There are all sorts of rational arguments I could make for this, but as I understand and experience it, it all comes down to human nature. It is a fundamental biological, genetic, psychological, emotional, and social fact that we care for our children. We love them. We want to protect them and see they are happy. Saying that isn't a fallacy, it's an acknowledgement of fundamental human values and nature.

Fire Ologist

Any objective moralist who claims unequivocal, rigid “good” or “bad” is a fallacious liar or pathetic ignoramus.

Is that what you are saying?

Because it sounds like you are saying objective moralists are objectively bad, and your thought experiment will take them down absolutely, rigidly, every time.

Without something objective in the mix, what is even the difference between a suffering baby and non-suffering baby? They both make noise and wriggle. So what?

Why does anyone have any opinion about what others do or don’t do to others and their babies?

Once you care about others, only objectivity can to mediate a mutual, communicative, interaction among them. And a moral objectivity is supposed to make the interaction a “good” one.

Like this post. There is something objective here, or you wouldn’t know I was disagreeing with you.

My question is, for all moral relativists, why do you bother?

If there is no moral objectivity whatsoever, how can you say pushing the button to prevent the baby from suffering is “actually doing some good”? If you were beyond good and evil, there is no difference no matter what you do or don’t do - no good or evil results in any case.

DifferentiatingEgg

I'm not here to discuss the merits of whether or not it is ever acceptable to kill babies. — T Clark

Neither am I, Im here to trash the fallacy of using that as a defense towards objective morality that many seem to love employing here.

Here's what Wikipedia says about the pathetic fallacy. — T Clark

Not sure why it even matters to my argument as I didn't even use/discuss it, but thanks for that?

For instance, appealing to pity when asking for help. — T Clark

Sure sure there are times when the fallacy fallacy occurs with every fallacy, no?

As I see it, it is a fundamental human value that we protect the vulnerable members of our community, especially our children and more especially babies. — T Clark

I don't necessarily disagree, though if the vulnerable don't eventually work towards making themselves less vulnerable with aid, then let them be vulnerable, it's obvious they wish it. And many hate reaching out for assistance, cause then they lose a certain autonomy.

Any objective moralist — Fire Ologist

...is obviously forgetting objective morality doesn't exist.

My question is, for all moral relativists, why do you bother? — Fire Ologist

As I clarified for Clark, the post is about overcoming a stupid argument that objective moralists love throwing out on TPF. Not about what people do and don't do with their babies... that's just some strawman of this thought experiment.

If there is no moral objectivity whatsoever, how can you say pushing the button to prevent the baby from suffering is “actually doing some good”? — Fire Ologist

Because those are the presuppositions of the objective moralists who claim there is no reason to ever end an infant's life. The dilemma arises for the objective moralist such that "Killing is objectively evil" w/ "reduction of pain and suffering is objectively good." Thus when presented with the only option to kill in order to reduce pain and suffering... there is a disconnect.

Basically objective moralists throw in the noun "baby" for dramatic effect on "killing is always evil."

It's a rhetorical device used to appeal to several fallacies, but we can remove "baby" all together to really get at what they're implying.

Tom Storm

Why does anyone have any opinion about what others do or don’t do to others and their babies?

Once you care about others, only objectivity can to mediate a mutual, communicative, interaction among them. And a moral objectivity is supposed to make the interaction a “good” one.

Like this post. There is something objective here, or you wouldn’t know I was disagreeing with you.

My question is, for all moral relativists, why do you bother?

If there is no moral objectivity whatsoever, how can you say pushing the button to prevent the baby from suffering is “actually doing some good”? If you were beyond good and evil, there is no difference no matter what you do or don’t do - no good or evil results in any case. — Fire Ologist

Is this conflating moral objectivity with the ability to have meaningful moral discourse?

The moral relativist can have a moral framework, let's say that suffering should be avoided or minimised, because their values (whether these are informed by empathy, cultural values, or personal commitments) leads them to value well-being. The fact that we can communicate and disagree doesn't demonstrate moral objectivity. It shows that we share enough cognitive and linguistic structures to engage in discussion. Moral judgments, like preferring to prevent suffering, can be deeply felt and socially reinforced without appealing to objective moral truths. The relativist can still say that pushing the button is "good" within their framework of values, even if those values are not grounded in an absolute, external moral reality. Or something like that.

DifferentiatingEgg

Moral judgments, like preferring to prevent suffering, can be deeply felt and socially reinforced without appealing to objective moral truths. — Tom Storm

:fire:

The relativist can still say that pushing the button is "good" within their framework of values, even if those values are not grounded in an absolute, external moral reality. Or something like that. — Tom Storm

Absolutely, I mean ffs, I'm not looking to kill anyone or advocate the killing of others. I'm looking to kill a bad argument that's often used as a trump card here...

Tom Storm

↪DifferentiatingEgg

:up: I think this could be an interesting thread.

Banno

The language makes it clear that Egg is looking for a fight rather that a discussion. I'm not that interested, but I'll outline an approach that might help others.

The apparent suggestion is that there is no good or evil because one can set up a situation in which there is no good outcome. That's not an argument which supports that conclusion.

Of course one can construct "experiments" that put folk in an impossible situations. The feeling of "cleverness" is part of the attraction of the facile undergrad obsession with setting trolly problems, of which this is an unoriginal variation. On the serious side, there's a large literature on the Principle of Double Effect, which is the issue in such problems. Make of it what you will. But what this does not show is that there is no such thing as objective morality.

The moral wrong here is that someone set up the contraption.

The ethical course is to prevent this sort of sociopathic action.

For my part, I've been at pains to argue that there are moral truths, but to avoid the confused notions of the subjective and the objective. Kicking puppies for fun is about the character of the one doing the kicking. As is setting up intractable thought experiments. Anyone can kick a pup, and perhaps find it pleasing; cruelty is part of being human. Another part of being human is growing; of realising that one is part of a community, of developing the ability to consider the long-term consequences of one's actions, of moving from self-interest to nuanced considerations of fairness, reciprocity, and social responsibility. This happens around the mid- twenties in a "normally" developing individual, as the prefrontal cortex exerts greater top-down regulation over the limbic system, particularly the amygdala. Yes, that stuff about the Trolly Problem being an adolescent and undergrad obsession has a basis in biology.

PM me if you want further discussion. I don't think this thread worth further response. If that's condescending, so be it.

DifferentiatingEgg

The language makes it clear that Egg is looking for a fight rather that a discussion. I'm not that interested, but I'll outline an approach that might help others. — Banno

Boring. If you can prove it wrong, do so. The only one looking for a fight is you, hence why you came here to do just that, silly. Notice I made this post dedicated to exposing the bunk argument "It's always wrong to kill." And to list out other bunk arguments for objective morality... if you have arguments for objective morality, post em.

The apparent suggestion is that there is no good or evil becasue one can set up a situation in which there is no good outcome. That's not an argument which supports that conclusion. — Banno

"no good outcome" begs the question.

Kicking puppies for fun is about the character of the one doing the kicking. As is setting up intractable thought experiments. Anyone can kick a pup, and perhaps find it pleasing; cruelty is part of being human. Another part of being human is growing; of realising that one is part of a community, of developing the ability to consider the long-term consequences of one's actions, of moving from self-interest to nuanced considerations of fairness, reciprocity, and social responsibility. — Banno

Already overcame this accusation in earlier replies. *Yawn*

PM me if you want further discusion. I don't think this thread worth further response. — Banno

Russell fanboi showing his ressentiment. But of course you're just "joking" as Russell was right? :lol:

Fire Ologist

The moral wrong here is that someone set up the contraption. — Banno

That’s where I would have gone with the experiment.

The moral relativist can have a moral framework — Tom Storm

What is the difference between a framework and an objective measurement?

Because those are the presuppositions of the objective moralists who claim there is no reason to ever end an infant's life. — DifferentiatingEgg

You are not being careful enough in your presentation here.

Moral principals.
And objective “good.”
Sound like things a thought experiment won’t be able to dispel, especially one that relies on some notion of good in order for it to make any sense.

Bottom line, to me, morality puts something in between two or more people. We put it there, but there it is. That’s an object. If nothing “objective” is between them, at least not provisionally assumed to be objective among the participants, then morality and moral frameworks are nonsense.

I’m not saying a moral relativist couldn’t be a saint. I’m saying, without something objective about the topic (like any topic), they can’t explain why, or tell anyone what is moral and what is not. And if they were certain about their moral relativity, they wouldn’t bother to try.

Once two people agree on a concept, like “murdering babies is to be avoided if possible” (whatever law you want), we see objectivity rearing its ugly head.

DifferentiatingEgg

The moral wrong here is that someone set up the contraption.
— Banno

That’s where I would have gone with the experiment. — Fire Ologist

You and Banno are just not thinking creatively enough. The contraption could have been set up for a completely different purpose. Say it allows one side to inherit the other. It just so happens that two people place something unknown to the other in each side. Someone places their child in hopes of them inheriting a boon or favor of some kind. Where as someone places a rabid pet, hoping the pet inherits a cure. The self destruct a fail-safe when things get out of hand.

Moral principals.
And objective “good.”
Sound like things a thought experiment won’t be able to dispel, especially one that relies on some notion of good in order for it to make any sense. — Fire Ologist

Don't even know wtf you're trying to say here other than "it can't work because notion of "good" ... which has already been addressed in other posts. The "doing good" is assumed by the objective moralists stance that reducing pain and suffering is good. Thus THEY come to the crossroads of "damned if I do, damned if I don't," because one way they kill, breaking theor morality, the other way they neglect reduction of pain and suffering... pretty simple.

Tom Storm

The moral relativist can have a moral framework
— Tom Storm

What is the difference between a framework and an objective measurement? — Fire Ologist

A framework is a structured way of describing an approach, while an objective measurement implies a standard that is independent of personal or cultural perspectives.

Philosophim

The argument is a cheap rhetorical tactic, relying on multiple logical fallacies, including: Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Popularity, Begging the Question. — DifferentiatingEgg

Do you realize the irony of what you did here? Isn't this statement an appeal to emotion, popularity, and begging the question?

I'll start with the unimaginative low-hanging straw these moralists love to grasp for when making the foundation of their argument—the claim that "killing babies is objectively evil." — DifferentiatingEgg

Is that really what objective moralists claim? Are there no objective moralists who support abortion? Are objective moralists really so simple as to have a 5 word argument without any justification, clarification, or objective evidence? This seems to be an unimaginative low-hanging straw you're grasping here to make the foundation of your argument.

Eitherway their rigid morality collapses in on itself as a house made of straw. — DifferentiatingEgg

No, a five word sentence you invented for some imaginary objective moralist, which has no evidence for being objective, is collapsing because you designed it to. A straw man.

I sense you got into a conversation with someone recently and became frustrated. So you came here to vent and invent a scenario that you could win and express your belief in your self-perceived superiority to them without them actually being here to shut down your personal delusion. Color me shocked that a subjective moralist is a lazy thinker who creates poor arguments to look down on other people, and likely holds onto the 'philosophy' to justify their own less than stellar behavior towards others.

DifferentiatingEgg

Do you realize the irony of what you did here? Isn't this statement an appeal to emotion, popularity, and begging the question? — Philosophim

Nope, at least not in a fallacious way. For it to be an appeal to emotion fallacy, it would have to manipulate emotions to persuade you're right. Where as the thought experiment present the dilemma between two moral rules. I'm not making an appeal to persuade of correctness. Im showing the moral dilemma which shows my correctness: the damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario, not persuading with a fallacious appeal.

Apply above to the rest.

No, a five word sentence you invented for some imaginary objective moralist, which has no evidence for being objective, is collapsing because you designed it to. — Philosophim

No, in fact you're one of the people who tried using this bogus appeal towards me in your stupid is-ought fallacy post. "Good is" thus "Good ought to be." Tautology and Is-Ought at that... that you forgot and said I made it up... well, just goes to show how piss poor your memory is. Are you imaginary?

So if I desire to murder a child is that good? — Philosophim

Just as "Count" Timothy tried to, either earlier today, or yesterday, and there have been more times between that with other people...

And Im tired of seeing that bs being posted as if it's some end all be all to objective morality. Cause it aint.

Philosophim

No, in fact you're one of the people who tried using this bogus appeal towards me in your stupid is-ought fallacy post. "Good is" thus "Good ought to be." Tautology and Is-Ought at that... that you forgot and said I made it up... well, just goes to show how piss poor your memory is. — DifferentiatingEgg

You confuse the question "So if I desire to murder a child is that good?" as proof of an objective morality. It is not, nor is it ever claimed as proof. Its a question designed to make you look at your own stance on subjective morality. Often times subjective moralists like to criticize objective morality and simply assume subjective morality is the default. What they forget is that exact same criticism comes back their way.

The reason you get angry with it is because its effective. It forces you to defend subjective morality with more than 'people can do what they want and its fine'. Often times the desire to hold onto subjective morality isn't for a rational well thought out reason, but a selfish and lazy one. Thinking about morality is hard. Thinking that maybe there are some things you should do and not do that you don't personally want to is annoying. Its essentially one of the first questions to test if you've given the notion of subjective morality serious thought, or if its just because you like what it lets you do personally.

Any person who's seriously thought about subjective morality and its larger consequences will have a good answer to that question when it pops up. Have you really thought about the consequences beyond your own personal desires as to what that would entail if morality truly was subjective?

DifferentiatingEgg

You confuse the question "So if I desire to murder a child is that good?" as proof of an objective morality. — Philosophim

Except that's what you were arguing for so, no, no I was not confused about anything.

Philosophim

Except that's what you were arguing for so, no, no I was not confused about anything. — DifferentiatingEgg

Clearly you are as I just told you it was not. You seem to have also lost your ability to continue to read past one sentence and address the full point I gave you. This does not make you look intelligent, but someone with a chip on their shoulder. Be better than that as I know you have the capability to.

DifferentiatingEgg

↪Philosophim

because talking with you is relatively pointless. It's like talking at a brickwall. Your other talking points are as I said, pointless.

Philosophim

↪Philosophim because talking with you is relatively pointless. — DifferentiatingEgg

Whereas talking with you in this post is objectively pointless. Have a good day and bring a better attitude next time.

DifferentiatingEgg

Whereas talking with you in this post is objectively pointless. Have a good day and bring a better attitude next time. — Philosophim

You didn't even know what a fallacy was until I explained it to you just now...

Do you realize the irony of what you did here? Isn't this statement an appeal to emotion, popularity, and begging the question? — Philosophim

Nope, at least not in a fallacious way. For it to be an appeal to emotion fallacy, it would have to manipulate emotions to persuade you're right. Where as the thought experiment present the dilemma between two moral rules. I'm not making an appeal to persuade of correctness. Im showing the moral dilemma which shows my correctness: the damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario, not persuading with a fallacious appeal. — DifferentiatingEgg

And I addressed your other points in the OP, your fallacy isn't effective, it's just trash. It's annoying that you think it's a good argument. Seriously you need to brush up on basic logic. The reason it's not effective is yes, at times, killing a child could be considered good. And you use it in conjunction with your argument on an objective morality in an attempt to persaude me away from my subjectivity on morality. Thus a fallacious appeal for an objective morality vs subjective morality.

T Clark

Not sure why it even matters to my argument as I didn't even use/discuss it, — DifferentiatingEgg

I misunderstood. You wrote "To dismantle this pathetic fallacy, I've devised a thought experiment." You meant a pathetic fallacy, not the pathetic fallacy. That being said, I would characterize calling an argument pathetic as what you call "cheap rhetorical tactic." Pot criticizing kettle, philosophically speaking.

As for the rest of your OP, you haven't addressed the substance of my comment. Looking back, I think I wasn't clear enough. My basic point is that an appeal to emotion in this particular case is appropriate. It's not a fallacy at all. Your inability or unwillingness to acknowledge that highlights the smug hollowness of your argument.

I'm done there. You get the last word.

DifferentiatingEgg

↪T Clark

I misunderstood. You wrote "To dismantle this pathetic fallacy, I've devised a thought experiment." You meant a pathetic fallacy, not the pathetic fallacy. — T Clark

Fair enough, I'll change that for clarity.

That being said, I would characterize calling an argument pathetic as what you call "cheap rhetorical tactic." Pot criticizing kettle, philosophically speaking. — T Clark

Eh, okay, just your opinion, and not a very reasonable one, just like a fallacy is bad (pathetic) reasoning.

My basic point is that an appeal to emotion in this particular case is appropriate. It's not a fallacy at all — T Clark

That I have to explain to you, and Philosophim what a damn fallacy is and you both have been here for how long again? (8 and 5 years and you both don't know what a fallacy is) It's evidence to suggest your unwillingness to learn.

An appeal to emotion fallacy is used to persuade someone you're right by appealing to emotion rather than the use of logical discussion. We can see the dilemma that occurs through logical discussion and the appeal to emotion fallacy attempts to bypass the logical dialogue all together.

bert1

An objectivist reductio:

1) Good and evil are relative to a point of view
2) From A's point of view, x is good
3) From B's point of view, x is not-good
4) Therefore, x is both good and not-good (contradiction derived)
5) Therefore, it is not the case that good and evil are relative to a point of view (reductio of 1)

What's wrong with that?

EDIT: there's too much wrong with it to be even remotely plausible. The conclusion doesn't depend on 1. I'll have a rethink...

Count Timothy von Icarus

↪bert1

The Principle of Non-Contradiction is traditionally formulated as "nothing can both be and not be, in the same way, at the same time, without qualification." But that "good" in your argument is "good from the perspective of A/B" is a qualification.

Likewise, we might say a stone buttress in a cathedral "floats" (is suspended in the air), but that it simultaneously does not "float" (being stone, it will sink in water). This would not be a contradiction on account of equivocation. Unfortunately, a focus on formal logic tends to assume these ambiguities are all handled outside the argument, because the idea is that you have disambiguated or clarified all your terms prior to formalization. For instance, a simple solution would be for "that which is said to be good by A" and "that which is said to be good by B," to be different variables (say, A and B). But obviously X can be both A and B simultaneously without any obvious difficulty.

bert1

↪Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes indeed. I was trying to make clear an argument I have heard a few times which attempts to derive a contradiction from moral relativism or meta-ethical relativism. I can't make it work! As you say, it's just not a contradiction to hold that one thing can be both good and evil depending on the perspective.

Astrophel

An objectivist reductio:

1) Good and evil are relative to a point of view
2) From A's point of view, x is good
3) From B's point of view, x is not-good
4) Therefore, x is both good and not-good (contradiction derived)
5) Therefore, it is not the case that good and evil are relative to a point of view (reductio of 1)

What's wrong with that?

EDIT: there's too much wrong with it to be even remotely plausible. The conclusion doesn't depend on 1. I'll have a rethink... — bert1

The real problem with this lies with the need to disambiguate contingent good and bad from absolute good and bad. Yes, there is such a thing as the latter. Why not horribly murder your neighbor, that is, what is the ground for the prima facie prohibition not to do this? One has to move to the essence of ethics itself, and this move is not going to be about arguing about competing utility or about whether, ala Kant, reason itself creates its own "duty" to obey. It is going to be "outside" of language altogether, into existence itself. Meaning just this: it hurts like hell; that's why you prima facie shouldn't do it.

There is no reductio, for the "premise" is not propositional.

180 Proof

↪DifferentiatingEgg

"Divine command theory" (defeated by Plato's Euthyphro dilemma, etc).

Pathetic Arguments for Objective Morality...

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions