2. Can there ever be an a priori argument for any moral system? If morality is based on adhering to social priorities, then how are those priorities determined?
posted by Pascals Bookie @ 6:13 PM
C.H.U.D. Roundtable
Stop hitting yourself.
Previous Posts
- 3. Can our current happiness ever be independent o...
- DISH OF THE DAYYou're not funny. You're not cleve...
- SCIENCE SUNDAY!!1. Apparently I'm ignorant, but c...
- 2. After all the hype back in 2000, what other th...
- 3. The stated reason that it will be impossible t...
- DISH OF THE DAYSeriously...
- POP CULTURE SATURDAY!!1. Am I evil for finding the...
- 2. "I've got soul, but I'm not a soldier." Ad Na...
- 3. One fine pre-Glitter year in the halcyon ninet...
- DISH OF THE DAYIf I had a hammer/ I'd beat him in ...
2 Comments:
There are two distinct parts to this question, and the second assumes a specific answer to the first.
First: The meaning of a priori is a little tricky to begin with, but I will say that there cannot be a meaningful a priori argument for a moral system. A moral system here, as distinct from a personal morality. The latter usually derives some of its content from the former, and in some small part feeds back into it, but they are not identical. By a moral system, we generally mean the totality of "rules" (although many are non-distinct) that make up attributions of normative value (ie. right and wrong) in a given society (also a somewhat indistinct term with fuzzy boundaries). It seems to me that there is an equilibrium (reflective equilibrium for Mr. Rawlsian over there :) ) between the moral rules of a society (both codified in law and enforced through social expectations) and the personal moralities of the individuals comprising that society. Both influence each other. People acquire their basic moral framework from the culture they are raised in, but later may come to contrary personal moral conclusions which lead them to push for change in their societies morality (ie. lobbying for legal change or creating awareness groups).
All of this, however, tends to come about organically and although change can be and is driven by philosophical reasoning, the people making those arguments are guided and informed by their prior knowledge of themselves and the morality their society has had to this point.
In fact, if I am to be completely honest, I don't buy that there is an meaningful a priori argument for anything. I don't really see how any argument can truly claim to assume nothing and to be based on no empirical knowledge, but even granting that that is possible, how can an argument that at no point interfaces with the world of empirical observations make any claims about that world?
A priori reasoning is at best, tautological. However, it is not useless. A priori arguments (and pure math falls into that category) reveal structure of our world-picture, that is, the basic scaffolding around which all our lives and though are hung. These are the things which cannot be questioned because the rest of our world (language wise) is built upon their solidity and is shaped and constantly adjusted to keep these things true. Consider a man presented with a rubber ball and asked “how many balls are on the table?” The man insists, no matter what additional argument is made, and no matter how many clarifications and caveats are introduced, that there are three balls on the table. At this point we might assume that the man has not fully mastered English and does not fully grasp how numbers work in the language. Or we might hypothesize that he has some sort of visual/neurological disorder that confuses the visual signals his brain receives. We might simply conclude that the man is insane. At no point, however, do we allow ourselves to consider that one might equal three. This is necessarily true we say. It is necessary because in a world where one can equal three, any number of other fundamental conceptions we have make no sense. It is not that our entire set of assumptions and thought are directly derived from the logical rules that forbid one from equaling three, but rather that we have removed one of the pieces of unquestionable scaffolding that give the rest of our world meaning and it its place there must be something else held constant so that the movements of other concepts can have meaning.
That could all have been said (and has been said) much more elegantly and simply by our pal Ludwig Wittgenstein, but he’s unable to post on this blog on account of being dead. Anyway, I’m going to get lunch. Perhaps I’ll tackle the other half of the question when I get back. Bookie, you really should stick to questions about breasts and Lindsey Lohan, otherwise I’ll get fired spending all day at work typing up philosophical arguments.
Bitch please.
I'm sorry.
I love you guys.
Post a Comment
<< Home