|
1.5.2 Inadequate JustificationsVersion 1.0 October 2022Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â (Previous Version)
Some philosophers suggest that we can never, in principle, justify any proposed definition of what is good. If we say “Acting this way is good”, then we can ask “Why is acting this way good?” If we then respond by saying “Acting this way is good because of blah blah” we can then ask “Why does blah blah make acting this way good?” It generates an infinite loop. Eventually some people arrive at an end point, effectively saying “Blah blah makes acting this way good just because it does!!” In practice, some people say it is good because God (or the “sacred book”) said so, where the “sacred book” is the Bible, Qu’ran, Bhagavad Gita, Dhamma or whatever. We look at whether God is the source of goodness in the next section. Other people say “because it breaches their human rights” but this just begs the question: why are the cited human rights good?  We discuss human rights in subsection 1.5.12.4. Many philosophers and writers simply skip over the justification saying effectively “Most people would/would not accept that as being good”. This is essentially an appeal to our common sense morality, which evolved over millions or billions of years, and in humans is tuned for survival hundreds of thousands of years ago in small bands of hunter gatherers somewhere in Africa. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1727 – 1804 CE) proposed a rule called the Categorical Imperative: act as if the maxim of your action were followed universally. Kant believed all other duties and obligations were derived from this imperative. He believed this rule was derived on logical grounds, a conclusion, not an arbitrary choice. Later philosopher found faults in the supposed logic, and while it's still a good rule, it is not justified in principle. In REALigion, a Reasonable Global Way, we are aware of these inadequate justifications for ethical positions, and we accept that we cannot in principle philosophically or scientifically justify our core values. This is why we have to choose our core values, despite the uncertainty, rather than simply conclude what core values are by some purportedly logical or rational process. Some politicians and police have claimed that breaking the law is immoral. John Howard, a supposedly good Christian, when Prime Minister of Australia, said that Muslims should accept the laws of Australia above those of their religion.  This is obviously untenable. Many laws against lying, stealing, rape and murder are obviously good laws and morally we should follow them.  But many laws, especially but not only those of non-democratic governments, are bad: immoral or unethical. Although generally it is best, pragmatically and morally, to comply with national laws, in extreme circumstances it may be morally correct to break a specific bad law. We summarize the conclusions we can reasonably come to on these issues as follows: 1.5.2  Any suggestion that national laws are all ethical or moral is untenable.  Many philosophers suggest that it is impossible to truly justify any definition of the good. This is why the ethical values we choose are called core values! Despite the uncertainty, and the diversity of opinions available to us, we still choose core ethical values, because we have to work out how to behave.  more
* * * * * * *
|
|
English (English)
Español (Spanish)
We acknowledge the traditional owners and custodians of Country, throughout all colonised lands, and their connections to land, waters and community. We pay respect by giving voice to truth, values and social justice, acknowledging our shared history, and valuing the cultures of first nations peoples.
Copyright © 2008 - 2026 Trevor J Rogers, care of the address shown on this page. All rights reserved. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the copyright owner. Any approved reproduction is permitted only with full attribution of the source, referring to this site and this copyright notice. The moral right of the author is asserted.
Top