Taking a few basic assumptions, such as the reality of the external world and methodological individualism, I believe it is rather simple to demonstrate that moral judgements, ethical imperatives and 'natural laws' are impossible to justify. Briefly it follows thus:
1) The ultimate goal of a teleological being (humans, for example) is satisfaction.2) The correlation between means and the end (satisfaction) are dependent on the various properties of the entity seeking satisfaction, they are an empirical matter. One can not claim that 'killing children must fail your satisfaction' because the truth or falsity of that depends on the constitution of the entity which seeks satisfaction and his material relationship to the world.3) Means can only be valued on the basis of ideas about how means can be utilized to achieve satisfaction.4) As valuation and satisfaction are existentially unique to a specific individual at a specific point, and as the ideas that underly them are also unique to this specific individual, there is no external logical evaluation of means and ends which are possible. One can only say what he thinks he would do, supposing he were in the situation of the valuer. But, of course, only the valuer is in fact in such a position. Contradiction is therefor logically impossible.5) As all individuals and situations are materially unique, and all ideas are unique to the individual, no a priori logical judgement about the suitability or propriety of an individual's capacity to seek satisfaction are literally meaningful.
This does not exclude that moral judgements may be personally meaningful, but they can offer no 'ultimate' justification because justification beyond an individuals concept of means with regard to his satisfaction are beyond rational examination.
we can choose ethical axioms that give the broadest number of future situations a useful outcome.
in your example with preference-satisfaction being the ultimate goal, we can choose ethical axioms in which the maximum number of agents have the chance to choose from the maximum number of options representing the broadest number of satisfactions.
nazgulnarsil: we can choose ethical axioms that give the broadest number of future situations a useful outcome. in your example with preference-satisfaction being the ultimate goal, we can choose ethical axioms in which the maximum number of agents have the chance to choose from the maximum number of options representing the broadest number of satisfactions.
In regards to your first point, the question remains: if we choose this axiom in order to maximize our own utility it is nothing but a 'practical' reason and therefor requires no normative element. This would be the case, for example, where I don't beat you up when we meet, not because of a moral stand either of us are taking, but because beating you up would not be useful to me (or, I presume, to you).
In regards to your second point, there is no necessary connection between my satisfaction or the satisfaction of a 'maximum number of agents'. As I argued earlier, only my satisfaction is meaningful in regards to the selection of ends.
In regards to your nickname, it's funny to me that I know what that means.
you are correct. ethics are just practical reasons with regards to the aggregate of the group interests (inclusive fitness).
RJ Moore II:1) The ultimate goal of a teleological being (humans, for example) is satisfaction.
Our ultimate goal is survival.
RJ Moore II:Taking a few basic assumptions, such as the reality of the external world and methodological individualism, I believe it is rather simple to demonstrate that moral judgements, ethical imperatives and 'natural laws' are impossible to justify.
To substitute and rephrase:
Premises:
(1) an external material world exists
(2) individuals live in this world
(3) the ultimate aim of individuals is SURVIVAL
Argument: A notion of morality DOES NOT FOLLOW from the premises (1), (2), and (3).
I agree with this argument, as is constructed. However, I can readily think of an additional premise which would falsify the argument:
Premise (4): In order to best secure their survival, it is necessary for individuals to cooperate in society.
With the addition of Premise (4), clearly an ethical imperative DOES follow - Namely, anything which fosters cooperation also fosters individual survival, and is therefore good/ethical.
I would take it a little further.
Our goal is survival, although we recognize that life is also finite. And thus, co-operation is a more effect means of surviving as long as possible, than force.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Austroglide:Our ultimate goal is survival.
Is it not demonstratably false?
scineram:Is it not demonstratably false?
Please so demonstrate.
ok? We all should already know that no true statements on ethics or morality entail from descripitive propositions
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
fezwhatley: ok? We all should already know that no true statements on ethics or morality entail from descripitive propositions
What do you mean by "descriptive proposition"?
What's with all the drive-by posting? If you have a point, stick around to make it clear. You can assume neither that (1) your argument is self-evident (2) its truth is self-evident. These assumption are not helpful.
true descripitive propostions , in my understanding are statements that describe a state of affairs, they can pertain to physical objects and concepts. Descriptive propostions make up objective realitity. Examples: My car is red. Plants have cells.
descriptive propostions can be either apriori or aposteriori statements
I think the use of "descriptive proposition", in regard to the assertion that the individual's ultimate aim is to survive, is incorrect:
Descriptive propositions, apparently, deal literally with PHYSICAL reality, whereas the will to survive is here posited as a characteristic of INTENTION or VOLITION.
edit: I mean to say that the will to survive originates in intention or volition, not that it's a characteristic of either of these: the NATURE OF the will to survive is intentional and volitional. This is very far from being a description of material or observable things.
scineram: Austroglide:Our ultimate goal is survival. Is it not demonstratably false?
Philosophically speaking, I'm sure it is. Practically speaking, though, it seems most reasonable to make this assumption. Further, it seems more useful to discuss these things in terms of their practical significance.
I second this.
To darkness I condemn you...
Anyone risking or sacrificing his life, or suicidal does so.
My ultimate goal is to go to Heaven, to lead my family to Heaven and to leave my children with an easier life than I had. Going to Heaven takes priority over everything else.
Even if you ignore my odd-ball outlook on my own personal goals in life, maybe you can offer a definition of survival that is demonstrably universal. Hmmmmmm?
I am in favour of general rules. I think the method of mutualism/cooperativism makes a good means. Rule-Utilitarianism, is one of the finest ethical systems I've found.
Is the negative golden rule an ethical imperative? Do not do unto others, as you would not have them do unto you.
The action axiom is universally true, despite the individual nature of every man.
Without general ethical rules, the collection of individuals that make society, would be a state of barbarism.
Individualism Rocks
Charles Anthony: Austroglide:Our ultimate goal is survival. Good for you but that is not my ultimate goal. My ultimate goal is to go to Heaven, to lead my family to Heaven and to leave my children with an easier life than I had. Going to Heaven takes priority over everything else.
Charles Anthony:Even if you ignore my odd-ball outlook on my own personal goals in life, maybe you can offer a definition of survival that is demonstrably universal. Hmmmmmm?
I'm not in a position to even try to offer such a definition. I do have some questions in regards to your ultimate goal. To me a goal and an "misesian" end is not necessarily the same thing, but I could be wrong. I even seem to remember Mises arguing we can never know our ultimate end. Anyways, could it not be said that you must lead this life "properly" in order to reach your goal? I mean, without knowing your religious beliefs, is it not true that leading a wrong kind of life (including suicide) would not get you into Heaven? Also, when you get into Heaven do you not believe a new life begins? Your survival in Heaven is directly linked to the life you lead now, correct?
In regards to wanting to lead your family into Heaven I have two additional questions. Before phrasing them I must stress that they can be misunderstood which in no way is my intention. The questions is (1) if you do indeed not value the survival of your family higher than their getting into Heaven? And (2) wouldn't you indeed risk your own life to secure their survival in this world?
The reason I'm asking all of these questions is simply that I cannot, not yet anyways, see how survival can be discounted? I mean if it really came down to it, I would guess pure instinct would command us to do something in order to survive.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap