Rustle in the Bush

For a class, notes:

SO I think the point of this paper is going to be a cognitivist position, basically saying that ethical claims have a truth value or are truth apt or whatever. But first we get a few games.

From the appearance of objectivity we have an idea that ideas of objectivity aren’t misguided. The intro notes a few positions it doesn’t label but I will that are possible objections to objectivity.

(1) Cultural Relativism and Subjectivism – The extent of moral disagreements undermines objective ethics

(2) No epistemic standards for basing ethics. The ‘how’ of ethical knowledge coming to light

(3) Ethical Objectivity may lead to intolerance and dogmatism

Starting the paper – Test

: A child hates spinach. He then reports that he’s glad he hates spinach. To the question “Why?” he responds: “Because if I liked it, I would have eaten it; and it’s yucky!”.

That is supposed to be funny. Because it non sensical. But it doesn’t;t have the same bite as someone who says something like “I’m glad I didn’t grow uo in the 1800s I would have endorsed racism and that is false” it rings like commonsense trueness.

He saying here that in the first case we are dealing with matters of taste, our likings and disliking, and their nature in your own subjective preferences. It’s funny because the child imagines a hypothetical scenario (Where even there is a possibility of liking spinach) but the child doesn’t get that he doesn’t still have to say its bad in a hypothetical.

So we use this test to see if we point to subject preference rather than something more objective like the racism one seemingly, or most definitely with someone who says something like “Glad I wasn’t born… Middle Ages….flat earth….”

Disagreement and Deliberation Test

A phenomenological test for disagreement types. Similar to the last test, a discrepancy in a best ice cream argument doesn’t feel at all like a disagreement over global warming (Seems to be either true or untrue) if presented with a disagreement.

Counter Factual Test

“Had our beliefs and practices been different would it still be true?” Whether or not smoking is in fashion or socially accepted it is still nonetheless true that they are bad in that they make you poison yourself. We can believe it and it won’t be wrong.

What’s at issue?

Why do we want objectivity? But we don’t have to go for the meaning of objective morality? We see what we want it to do and if it can solve major problems.

He poses we want objective morality to help solve for the three tests. And in this case we want that because it “is that a subject matter is objective, if the truths or facts in it exist independently of what we think or feel about them.”

It helps solve the counter factual problem. It presents a truth divorced from belief desire and preference. They are response independent.

It helps in phenomenology too. But he acknowledges at least with the disagreement case that our discourse aspires to objectivity and its different to demonstrate objective moral truths.

Meta-ethically at least he says there is this aspiration which should drive you to exist the consequent of the appearance of objective morality.

SO he isn’t a deontologist like Kant where the law follows from it self. That’s Kant’s solution for meta and normative ethics which is kind of rolling them into one. They should be independent of caring for them themselves. We discover them, we don’t make them true; i.e. make them true as part of discovering the moral law within. We are not legislator, this all seems like a nod to Kant. The case is similar with religion for him.

WHY NOT (OBJECTIVE?)

Disagreement – While He argues it may make objectivity closer to truth, subjectivists and cultural relativists (Different) each in turn argue it gives the opposite conclusion. There are weird and different conclusion for this though; Enoch basically says that there are two main disagreement problems rather than arguments:

(1) If there are objective truths, why so much disagreement?

(2) Why is there any room for debate, lie the way there is no room for debate that F=ma ?

Response –

(1) – It exaggerates the amount of disagreement in disagreement. Also it seems to be self defeating. If you can’t make a stance on the objectivity of moral claims at all, then Enoch says there is no strong way to distinguish meta ethical claims either.

BUT HOW DO WE KNOW?

There is no uncontroversial kind of ethics. all Enoch gives us is the admonition that w need an epistemology of morality based on a priori principles.

WHO DECIDES?

How do we settle conflict? Well forget about settling the morality. We can figure it out by developing the right methods. We figure out how to solve the problem of choosing the worse of two possible beliefs.

It’s an alright account. Food for thought. A good propaedeutic for objectivity.