Coherent Moral Systems

Ontological Foundation for Morality: The system must be based on a clear ontological foundation that explains the existence of objective moral facts. This requirement underscores the importance of a firm conceptual groundwork that supports the reality of moral facts, be it through metaphysical principles, rational arguments, or divine commands.
Universalizability: The moral principles or facts posited by the system must be universalizable. This emphasizes the necessity for moral facts to be applicable in all relevantly similar situations, ensuring fairness and consistency across various contexts.
Epistemological Accessibility: There must be a plausible explanation for how human beings can come to know or discover these objective moral facts. This requirement underlines the importance of moral facts being understandable and identifiable by individuals, allowing for informed ethical decision-making.
Normativity: The system must provide reasons for action; that is, it should explain why moral facts are binding or authoritative for agents. This highlights the critical role of moral facts in offering motivation and guidance for ethical behavior.

Table of Contents: _{^{(Click any link below to navigate to that section.)}}

What are the minimal requirements for a coherent moral system that claims there are objective moral facts?

To establish a coherent moral system that claims there are objective moral facts, certain minimal requirements must be met. These criteria help ensure the system is logically consistent, practically applicable, and universally recognizable as a framework for moral judgment. Here’s a concise outline of these requirements:

Ontological Foundation for Morality: The system must be based on a clear ontological foundation that explains the existence of objective moral facts. This could be a metaphysical principle, a universally applicable rational argument, or an appeal to a transcendent source of morality (e.g., a divine command theory).
Universalizability: The moral principles or facts posited by the system must be universalizable, meaning they can be consistently applied in all relevantly similar situations, regardless of personal identity or context. This criterion ensures the moral facts are not subject to arbitrary preferences or biases.
Normativity: The system must provide reasons for action; that is, it should explain why moral facts are binding or authoritative for agents. This involves showing how moral facts relate to motivations, duties, or reasons for individuals to act in certain ways.
Practicality and Action-Guidance: The moral facts posited by the system should offer practical guidance for action. They must be sufficiently clear and actionable to guide individuals’ decisions and behaviors in real-world contexts.
Internal Consistency: The moral system must be internally consistent, with no contradictions between its various principles and claims. This ensures the system’s reliability and coherence, making it a viable framework for moral judgment.
Epistemological Accessibility: There must be a plausible explanation for how human beings can come to know or discover these objective moral facts. This might involve rational intuition, empirical observation coupled with moral reasoning, or revelation.
Responsiveness to Moral Experience: The system should adequately account for and be responsive to common moral intuitions and experiences. While it need not agree with every individual moral intuition, it should not systematically contradict widely shared moral judgments without compelling reason.
Dispute Resolution: The system should provide mechanisms for resolving moral disagreements, which are inevitable given differing interpretations and applications of moral principles. This involves criteria for adjudicating between conflicting moral claims or principles.

These requirements form a basic framework for any moral system claiming the existence of objective moral facts. However, the specific content of these facts, and how exactly they fulfill these criteria, can vary significantly among different moral theories.

For a moral system to coherently claim that there are objective moral facts, it needs to meet certain requirements. Here are some of the key minimal requirements:

Objective foundation: The moral system must be grounded in an objective source or basis that exists independently of subjective human preferences, emotions, or cultural norms. This could be based on reason, logic, natural law, divine command, or some other objective foundation.
Universal applicability: The moral system must be universally applicable to all rational beings, regardless of their specific circumstances, cultures, or personal beliefs. Objective moral facts cannot be relative or contingent on individual or societal perspectives.
Logically consistent: The moral system must be internally logically consistent and free from contradictions. The principles, rules, and derived moral conclusions must follow logically from the objective foundation without violating the laws of logic or rationality.
Action-guiding: The moral system must provide clear guidance for moral decision-making and action. It must offer a way to determine what is right or wrong, good or bad, in specific situations, based on the objective moral facts it posits.
Explanatory power: The moral system should have the explanatory power to account for our common moral intuitions, resolve moral dilemmas, and provide satisfactory justifications for widely accepted moral judgments.
Epistemological accessibility: There must be a way for rational beings to access or understand the objective moral facts posited by the system, either through reason, revelation, or some other epistemological pathway.
Motivational force: The moral system should ideally provide a compelling reason or motivation for rational beings to act in accordance with its objective moral facts, whether through rational self-interest, moral obligation, or other motivational factors.

It’s important to note that meeting these minimal requirements does not necessarily mean that a moral system is correct or universally accepted. There can be competing moral systems that claim to meet these requirements but differ in their foundations, principles, and conclusions. However, failing to meet these requirements would undermine the coherence of a moral system’s claim to objective moral facts.

Elaborate on the objective, ontological foundation required for such a moral system.

The objective, ontological foundation of a moral system that posits the existence of objective moral facts is crucial, as it underpins the very possibility of universal, immutable moral truths. This foundation explains not just the nature of moral facts but also their existence and applicability to the moral agents. Here are several perspectives and elements that such a foundation might involve:

Metaphysical Realism

Platonism: Inspired by Plato’s theory of Forms, some moral realists argue that moral truths exist in a non-physical realm of abstract objects. Moral values and duties are seen as timeless entities that are independent of human beliefs, desires, or practices. Moral knowledge, then, involves apprehending these abstract moral entities through reason.
Natural Law Theory: This approach, often associated with Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy, posits that moral facts are grounded in the nature of human beings and the world. According to natural law theory, there are objective moral truths derivable from human nature and the purpose or “telos” of beings. It holds that there are certain goods that are naturally suited to human flourishing, and understanding these can guide moral action.

Theistic Foundations

Divine Command Theory: Some moral systems are founded on the belief in a divine creator who dictates moral laws. In this view, moral facts are grounded in the will or nature of God, making them objective insofar as they transcend human opinion. This theory posits that moral obligations arise from divine commands, which are communicated through revelation.

Non-natural Moral Realism

Non-natural Moral Properties: Another perspective posits that there are objective moral properties or facts that are not reducible to natural or physical properties. These moral facts exist independently of human minds but are not as abstract as Platonic forms. Moral realism of this sort argues that moral properties are sui generis, having their own unique existence that is part of the fabric of the universe.

Emergent Properties

Moral Emergentism: Some theories suggest that moral properties emerge from complex interactions within social and biological systems. While not reducing moral facts to mere conventions, this view holds that moral truths arise from the complexities of life and relationships but once formed, they have an objective status.

Rational Constructivism

Kantian Ethics: Immanuel Kant proposed a form of moral objectivism grounded in rationality. According to Kant, moral laws are derived from the nature of rational agency itself. The “Categorical Imperative,” for instance, is a principle that rational beings recognize as binding upon them, independent of their desires or empirical circumstances. This provides an ontological basis for morality in the structure of reason and rational agency.

Evaluating Foundations

Each of these foundations attempts to provide an account of how objective moral facts can exist and be known. The choice among these (or other) foundations depends on how convincingly they account for the nature of moral reality, how well they align with our moral intuitions and experiences, and how effectively they address challenges such as moral disagreement and the motivation to act morally. The ontological grounding of a moral system is not merely a theoretical issue; it has practical implications for how we understand and conduct our lives morally.

For a moral system to coherently claim there are objective moral facts, it needs to be grounded in an objective ontological foundation – that is, it needs to be based on a source or entity that exists independently of human minds, emotions, or social constructions.

Some potential objective foundations that moral philosophers have proposed include:

1) Robust moral realism based on non-natural moral facts or properties that exist in a metaphysical moral realm, analogous to how mathematical truths are thought to exist in a Platonist sense. On this view, moral facts and truths have an objective existence apart from any human opinion.

2) Natural moral realism based on moral truths being grounded in the inherent nature of reality itself – for example, certain moral facts arising necessarily from the nature of rational agency or consciousness itself.

3) Divine Command Theory where objective moral truths are grounded in the nature and commands of God or a supreme metaphysical entity whose nature is the ultimate source of moral facts.

4) Objective naturalist views where moral truths are reducible to or supervene upon objective natural facts about things like human nature, rationality, consciousness, and what allows for flourishing.

5) Moral non-naturalism where objective moral properties, facts or truths exist, but are irreducible to natural properties and must be understood in sui generis moral terms.

The key is that for the moral facts to be truly objective, they cannot simply be human constructions or projections. They must be grounded in an objective ontological foundation that exists mind-independently. Without such an objective basis, the moral claims would be subjective, mind-dependent claims about morality rather than objective moral truths.

So a logically coherent moral realist system must account for what grounds the objective moral facts it posits and how we can have epistemic access to that objective moral ontology through reason, perception, or some other faculty. Explaining this objective source is crucial for objective moral realism.

Elaborate on the required universalizability of such a moral system.

Universalizability is a crucial requirement for a moral system that claims the existence of objective moral facts. This principle ensures that moral judgments apply equally in all relevantly similar circumstances, regardless of who is involved or where and when they are. Here’s a deeper look into what universalizability entails and why it’s essential:

Definition and Rationale

Principle of Universalizability: At its core, this principle asserts that if a particular action is morally required (or prohibited) for one person in a specific situation, then it must be morally required (or prohibited) for anyone else in a similarly relevant situation. This principle is grounded in the idea of fairness and impartiality, aiming to prevent arbitrary distinctions or biases in moral reasoning.
Rational Consistency: Universalizability is closely related to the concept of rational consistency. It demands that moral principles be applied consistently across similar cases. This consistency is essential for the objectivity of moral claims, as it ensures that moral judgments are not the product of personal preferences, prejudices, or situational variables that are morally irrelevant.

Implications and Challenges

Moral Deliberation: The requirement of universalizability demands careful moral deliberation. When evaluating an action’s morality, one must consider whether the rationale for the judgment could be consistently applied across all relevantly similar cases. This involves identifying the morally relevant features of a situation and determining whether these features would justify the same moral judgment in other cases.
Formulation of Moral Principles: Universalizability also plays a critical role in formulating moral principles. These principles must be stated in a way that is not overly specific to particular individuals or situations, allowing them to be applied broadly and consistently. The challenge is to articulate these principles at the right level of generality, capturing what is morally significant without becoming too vague or too narrow.
Moral Reasoning and Disagreement: One of the strengths of universalizability is its potential to guide moral reasoning and help resolve moral disagreements. By focusing on the requirement that moral judgments be applicable in all similar cases, it provides a framework for debating and evaluating different moral claims. However, disagreements can still arise over what constitutes a relevantly similar situation or how a principle should be interpreted in a new context.

Critiques and Limitations

Determining Relevant Similarities: A significant challenge to universalizability is identifying which features of a situation are morally relevant. Different moral theories may emphasize different aspects (e.g., consequences, duties, rights, virtues), leading to divergent views on what counts as a relevantly similar case.
Context-Sensitivity: Critics argue that strict adherence to universalizability might overlook the moral significance of particular contexts or relationships. Some ethical theories, such as care ethics or particularism, emphasize the importance of context and the uniqueness of individual situations, suggesting that moral judgment always requires sensitivity to specific details.
Balancing Universal Principles and Particular Judgments: Achieving the right balance between universal principles and attention to particular circumstances is a complex task. While universalizability is crucial for ensuring fairness and consistency, a robust moral system must also accommodate the nuanced and variable nature of human life.

In conclusion, universalizability is a foundational principle for any moral system claiming objective moral facts. It ensures that moral judgments are made impartially and consistently, but it also requires careful application and sensitivity to the complexities of moral life.

A key requirement for a moral system that claims objective moral facts is that it must be universalizable – that is, the moral truths it posits must apply universally to all rational beings, regardless of their specific circumstances or contexts.

Universalizability means that the moral facts or principles cannot be contingent or relative to particular individuals, cultures, societies, historical periods, or other parochial factors. The objective moral truths must hold consistently across all possible scenarios involving rational agents.

Some of the aspects this universalizability requirement entails:

1) Scope – The moral facts must extend beyond just humanity to any possible rational agent, whether artificial, alien, or of a different nature than humans.

2) Impartiality – The moral system cannot unjustifiably prioritize the interests of one group over others based on arbitrary properties like race, sex, species membership etc.

3) Consistency – The same moral facts must yield the same moral verdicts in any truly identical scenarios involving rational agents, regardless of context.

4) Generalizability – Moral principles must be abstractable from specific cases into general laws that can be applied universally.

5) Non-indexicality – Moral truths cannot be indexical or defined by context-specific factors like “here”, “now”, etc. They must be non-relativistic.

6) Modal Robustness – Moral truths must hold not just in the actual world, but in any possible world involving rational agents.

The idea is that if there are objective moral facts about reality, they must be universal invariant truths – like mathematical truths – rather than varying based on contingent perspectives.

This universality and impartiality is what distinguishes objective moral realism from relativist theories where morality is culturally/individually relative. Defending universalizability is crucial for grounding moral objectivism coherently.

Elaborate on the logical consistency required of such a moral system. Give real or imaginary examples if possible.

Logical consistency within a moral system is paramount for its credibility, coherence, and practical applicability. A logically consistent moral system is one in which its principles, rules, and judgments do not lead to contradictions or paradoxes when applied. This consistency ensures that the moral system can serve as a reliable guide for behavior and moral reasoning. Here are some aspects of logical consistency and examples to illustrate the concept:

Consistency Between Principles

A moral system must ensure that its fundamental principles do not conflict with each other. For instance, if one principle asserts that “one should always act to maximize the well-being of the greatest number of people” (a utilitarian principle), while another states that “one should never lie, regardless of the consequences” (a deontological principle), these could lead to situations where the principles prescribe contradictory actions.

Example: Imagine a scenario where lying to a dangerous person would save the lives of many. The utilitarian principle would advocate for lying to maximize well-being, while the deontological principle would prohibit lying, regardless of the benefits. A coherent moral system must reconcile such differences or prioritize principles to avoid inconsistency.

Application Consistency

The moral system must apply its principles consistently across similar cases. Inconsistency in application leads to accusations of bias, arbitrariness, or injustice.

Real Example: Consider the principle of equal treatment under the law. If two individuals commit the same crime under similar circumstances but receive vastly different sentences without a clear, justifiable reason, this would indicate a lack of application consistency, undermining the moral and legal system’s integrity.

Consistency Over Time

A moral system should maintain its principles consistently over time, unless there is a justified reason for change (e.g., moral progress, new understanding). Frequent, arbitrary changes in moral judgments or principles suggest instability and lack of reliability.

Imaginary Example: A society that declares theft as morally wrong but then periodically alternates between viewing theft as permissible and impermissible, without significant changes in understanding or context, would lack consistency over time. This inconsistency would erode trust in the moral system and create confusion regarding moral obligations.

Consistency in Reasoning

The reasoning that supports moral judgments must be consistent. This means avoiding logical fallacies and ensuring that similar reasoning applies similarly in analogous situations.

Example: If a moral system justifies helping the poor by appealing to the intrinsic value of human dignity, it should also support other actions that protect human dignity in a consistent manner, unless there is a morally relevant difference that justifies a different treatment.

Challenges to Consistency

Maintaining logical consistency in a moral system is challenging, particularly in complex, real-world situations where moral principles may seem to pull in different directions. This is where moral reasoning and ethical debate play crucial roles in interpreting principles, weighing competing values, and making nuanced judgments.

Imaginary Example: Suppose a moral system emphasizes both the value of individual freedom and the importance of protecting public health. During a pandemic, the system must navigate the tension between these values when deciding on measures like lockdowns or mandatory vaccinations. A consistent moral system would provide a framework for balancing these considerations, possibly by prioritizing one value over the other in specific, justified contexts or by finding a compromise that respects both values to a reasonable degree.

In summary, logical consistency in a moral system is about ensuring that its principles, their applications, and the underlying reasoning do not lead to contradictions or arbitrary decisions. Achieving and maintaining this consistency is crucial for the moral system’s legitimacy and effectiveness as a guide for moral action.

For a moral system claiming objective moral facts to be logically consistent, it must adhere to the fundamental laws of logic and avoid any contradictions within its principles, judgments, and derived conclusions. Logical consistency is crucial because violating it would undermine the objective truth-status of the moral claims.

Here are some key aspects of the logical consistency required:

1) Non-contradiction – The moral system cannot simultaneously affirm a moral statement and its negation as both being true in the same sense. For example, it cannot hold both “Lying is always morally wrong” and “Sometimes lying is morally permissible” as objective truths.

2) Laws of logic – Inferences, arguments, and reasoning within the moral framework must follow valid logical rules like modus ponens, modus tollens, etc. It cannot derive conclusions that violate laws of deductive logic.

3) Terms must be coherent – The moral predicates, properties, and concepts invoked must be coherent and not entail contradictory properties or implications when defined. “Morally perfect evil” would be an incoherent moral concept.

4) Existential import – If the system posits objective moral truths or facts, it must avoid making illicit existential inferences that something exists simply from its conceptual possibility.

5) Ethical Abduction – When generalizing from specific cases to moral principles, it must avoid affirming the consequent or other invalid inductive fallacies.

An example of logical inconsistency would be a moral theory that affirms both:
A) Minimizing suffering is the highest moral imperative.
B) Sometimes inflicting extreme suffering is morally required.

These two putative objective moral truths directly contradict each other, violating non-contradiction.

Another example could be a moral theory that claims:
A) Autonomy for rational agents is an inviolable objective moral right.
B) It is objectively morally obligatory to coercively override the autonomy of rational agents whenever convenient.

Again, this exhibit a clear logical contradiction between the affirmed moral statements.

So while moral dilemmas can point to unresolved issues, a coherent objective moral system cannot baldly affirm blatant contradictions as both being objectively true at the same time and in the same sense. Adhering to logical constraints is essential for the objectivity of the moral claims.

Elaborate on the action-guiding requirement of such a moral system.

The action-guiding requirement of a moral system is essential for its practical effectiveness and relevance. A moral system must not only articulate principles and values but also provide clear guidance on how to act in accordance with those principles in real-world situations. This requirement ensures that moral theory translates into actionable advice, helping individuals make ethical decisions and navigate moral dilemmas. Below are key aspects of this requirement, along with examples:

Clear Prescriptions and Prohibitions

A moral system should clearly prescribe certain actions as morally right or obligatory and prohibit others as morally wrong. This clarity helps individuals understand their moral duties and the behaviors they should avoid.

Example: A moral system might prescribe that individuals should always tell the truth to uphold honesty and prohibit theft to respect property rights. These clear prescriptions and prohibitions guide individuals in their everyday decisions, such as being honest in their dealings and respecting others’ possessions.

Applicability to Real-World Scenarios

The moral guidance provided must be applicable to a wide range of real-world scenarios, including complex and challenging situations where moral dilemmas arise.

Imaginary Example: Consider a moral system that emphasizes compassion and assistance to those in distress. It should offer guidance on how to act in situations ranging from helping a neighbor in need to responding to global humanitarian crises. The system might suggest practical ways of offering assistance, such as donating to reputable charities, volunteering time and skills, or advocating for policies that address the root causes of suffering.

Decision-Making Frameworks

The moral system should include frameworks or methods for making decisions when faced with competing moral values or principles. This helps individuals navigate situations where it is not immediately clear how to apply moral principles.

Real Example: In medical ethics, principles such as autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice often guide decision-making. A moral system should provide a framework for balancing these principles when they conflict, such as when a patient’s autonomous decision conflicts with what the healthcare provider believes is in the patient’s best interest.

Responsiveness to Moral Development

A moral system should be adaptable to individuals at different stages of moral development, providing guidance that is accessible and relevant to people with varying levels of moral understanding.

Imaginary Example: For young children, a moral system might emphasize simple rules and the importance of fairness. As individuals mature, the system can introduce more complex concepts such as the nuances of justice, the importance of intent, and the consideration of consequences in moral reasoning.

Encouragement of Moral Reflection

Beyond prescribing specific actions, a moral system should encourage ongoing moral reflection and critical thinking about ethical issues. This helps individuals develop their moral reasoning skills and adapt to new moral challenges.

Example: A moral system might encourage individuals to reflect on the ethical implications of emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence and genetic editing. By engaging with these issues, individuals can better understand how to apply established moral principles in new contexts and contribute to the development of ethical guidelines for these technologies.

Practical Tools and Resources

To be truly action-guiding, a moral system should offer practical tools and resources to help individuals implement moral principles in their lives. This could include educational materials, ethical decision-making models, and communities of practice for sharing experiences and insights.

Imaginary Example: An environmental ethics system could provide resources on sustainable living practices, such as guides to reducing waste, conserving energy, and supporting sustainable businesses. By offering practical advice and examples, the system helps individuals translate abstract principles into concrete actions.

In summary, the action-guiding requirement of a moral system ensures that it not only articulates what is morally right or wrong but also provides practical guidance on how to live according to those principles. This requirement makes moral philosophy relevant and applicable to everyday life, enabling individuals to navigate moral questions and dilemmas with confidence.

A crucial requirement for any moral system claiming objective moral facts is that it must provide clear and action-guiding principles for how rational agents ought to behave in specific situations. Mere abstract theorizing about morality is insufficient – the objective moral truths posited must yield practical guidance.

Some key aspects of the action-guiding requirement:

1) Decision Procedures – The moral system should articulate specific procedures, rules, or algorithms that rational agents can follow to determine the morally correct course of action across the range of ethically-relevant situations they may face.

2) Resolution of Moral Dilemmas – In cases of apparent moral conflicts or dilemmas, the system must be able to adjudicate and provide a justifiable resolution based on the fundamental objective moral facts, rather than being paralyzed.

3) Scalar Guidance – It should differentiate between varying degrees or magnitudes of moral value, deontic categories (obligatory, permissible, impermissible etc.), and specify how to navigate tradeoffs between competing moral considerations.

4) Specificity – While general principles are necessary, the moral truths should be specific and action-guiding enough to provide traction and constraint for real-world ethical quandaries we face, rather than being too abstractly vague.

5) Articulable Reasons – When a certain action is deemed objectively moral/immoral, the system should be able to clearly articulate the objective moral reasons or facts that ground that particular normative judgment.

For example, an ethical framework like utilitarianism attempts to provide specific action-guidance by directing rational agents to always perform the action that maximizes overall welfare or well-being based on the objective moral truth that only welfare has intrinsic value.

In contrast, ethical non-naturalist views like W.D. Ross’s moral pluralism aim to specify objective prima facie moral duties like justice, beneficence, non-maleficence etc. that generate pro tanto reasons for action that must be weighed against each other.

The key is that if there are objective moral truths about how we ought to behave, the moral system cannot simply posit them as abstract theoretical claims. It must provide concrete, justifiable procedures for how those truths can regulate and guide our actual conduct as moral agents in the real world across different contexts.

Otherwise, the alleged moral facts would be toothless and practical-irrelevant, undermining their purported objectivity and normative force. Action-guidingness is vital for vindicating moral realism.

Elaborate on the required epistemological accessibility of such a moral system.

The requirement of epistemological accessibility within a moral system emphasizes that individuals must be able to understand, acquire knowledge of, and reasonably agree upon moral facts or principles. This accessibility is crucial for ensuring that the moral system is not just a theoretical construct but a practical guide that can inform individuals’ moral beliefs and actions. Here are several key aspects of this requirement:

Clarity and Comprehensibility

Definition: Moral principles and rules must be clearly defined and articulated in a manner that is understandable to people. This clarity ensures that individuals can grasp what is expected of them morally without excessive interpretation or specialized knowledge. Example: The principle of “do no harm” is broadly comprehensible and can guide individuals in various contexts, from personal relationships to professional ethics, without requiring complex philosophical analysis.

Rational Justifiability

Definition: The moral system should be based on principles that can be justified through reason. This means that individuals, using rational thinking, can understand why certain actions are deemed right or wrong within the system. Example: The principle of fairness can be rationally justified by appealing to the idea of equal respect for persons, which most people can understand and accept as a valid reason for moral action.

Empirical Verifiability

Definition: Where moral claims depend on empirical facts (e.g., the outcomes of actions), these facts should be accessible and verifiable by ordinary means. This allows individuals to apply moral principles to real-world situations based on observable evidence. Example: Environmental ethics often relies on empirical evidence about the impact of human activities on the planet. The principle of sustainability can be understood and acted upon by referencing accessible data on climate change, pollution, and resource depletion.

Intuitive Alignment

Definition: A moral system should align with, or at least not radically diverge from, common moral intuitions. While not all intuitive judgments are correct, a moral system that entirely contradicts common sense or widely shared moral intuitions may be too alien or abstract to be practically accessible. Example: Most moral systems recognize the wrongness of unprovoked violence. This aligns with a widespread moral intuition that harming others without justification is wrong, making the moral principle intuitively accessible.

Teachability and Learnability

Definition: The principles and values of the moral system should be teachable and learnable. This means that the system can be transmitted through education, discussion, and moral reasoning, allowing individuals to develop a deeper understanding of the moral system over time. Example: Ethics education often involves discussing historical examples, hypothetical dilemmas, and contemporary issues to illustrate moral principles in action, making the moral system more accessible through learning and reflection.

Cultural and Contextual Sensitivity

Definition: While moral truths are objective within the system, their understanding and application must be sensitive to cultural and contextual differences. This does not mean moral relativism but recognizes that the way moral principles are understood and applied can vary in different cultural or situational contexts. Example: The principle of respect for autonomy must consider cultural variations in how autonomy is understood and valued. In some cultures, community decisions may take precedence over individual choice, requiring a nuanced application of autonomy that is still epistemologically accessible.

Dialogical Approach

Definition: The moral system should encourage dialogue and debate about its principles and their application. This dialogical approach allows for the testing, refining, and understanding of moral principles through communal reasoning and discussion. Example: Public debates on ethical issues related to emerging technologies, such as genetic modification or artificial intelligence, can help clarify and disseminate understanding of relevant moral principles, making the system more epistemologically accessible.

In summary, the requirement of epistemological accessibility ensures that a moral system can be understood, justified, and agreed upon by individuals using common cognitive and perceptual tools. This accessibility is crucial for the moral system to guide action and facilitate moral agreement and learning within a community.

For a moral system claiming objective moral facts to be coherent, it must provide some account of how rational agents can gain epistemic access or knowledge of those purported objective moral truths. Accessibility is crucial because if there is no way for us to apprehend or justifiably believe the moral facts posited, then they remain obscure and disconnected from our ethical reasoning and practices.

Some key aspects of the required epistemological accessibility:

1) Epistemic Faculty – The moral system should specify the cognitive faculty, mode of perception, or method by which we can reliably detect, intuit, or acquire justified beliefs about the objective moral truths. This could be reason, moral intuition, divine revelation, a special moral sense, etc.

2) Defeasible Process – It should articulate whether our access to the moral truths is defeasible and capable of being mistaken, and if so, what kinds of evidence or reasoning could defeat or modify our moral beliefs. This allows for error-correction.

3) Opacity Considerations – If the moral facts are partly opaque or inaccessible to finite minds, the system should delimit the scope of our access and whether there are knowable moral truths humanly transcendent.

4) Epistemic Modesty – Relatedly, it should address whether our epistemic access is inherently limited or pessimistic, yielding moral uncertainty or skepticism in some domains.

5) Theoretical Integration – The account of moral epistemology should cohere with the broader metaphysics and epistemology underpinning the moral realism, avoiding clashes with other theoretical commitments.

For example, ethical non-naturalist views often invoke a quasi-perceptual moral intuition faculty for accessing sui generis moral facts and properties. While divine command theory grounds moral knowledge in revealed scripture or mystical perception of God’s nature.

Naturalistic moral realists might ground moral knowledge in empirical investigation of the natural facts that the moral truths purportedly supervene upon, combining scientific methodology with philosophical reasoning.

The key is that a moral realist system cannot simply posit objective moral truths as abstract existential claims. It must provide some epistemological story, even if inevitably somewhat incomplete or tentative, of how we can gain justified beliefs and knowledge about those objective moral facts from within our human epistemic circumstances.

Otherwise, the alleged moral reality would be systematically inscrutable and the objectivity of the moral claims would be undermined by being completely evidentially insulated from us. Epistemic accessibility bridges the moral facts to our ethical cognition.

Elaborate on the required normative strength of such a moral system.

The normative strength of a moral system refers to its capacity to provide compelling reasons for action, to motivate individuals to behave ethically, and to justify moral judgments and prescriptions. This strength is crucial for a moral system’s effectiveness; without it, the system might be intellectually convincing but fail to influence behavior. Here are several aspects that contribute to the normative strength of a moral system:

Authority and Legitimacy

Definition: For a moral system to have normative strength, it must be perceived as possessing authority and legitimacy. This perception can come from the system’s rational foundation, its grounding in a community’s traditions, or its endorsement by respected institutions. Example: In many societies, laws reflecting moral principles are seen as legitimate and authoritative because they are democratically enacted and enforced by a legal system that has the public’s trust.

Internal Motivation

Definition: A strong moral system inspires internal motivation, meaning it aligns with individuals’ values and desires in such a way that they are internally compelled to act according to its principles, beyond fear of external sanctions. Example: Environmental ethics can instill a sense of personal responsibility for the planet’s health, motivating individuals to adopt sustainable practices out of genuine concern for the environment, rather than fear of legal repercussions.

Rational Persuasiveness

Definition: The moral system should be rationally persuasive, providing reasons for action that appeal to individuals’ capacity for logical reasoning. This involves demonstrating how following the moral system leads to outcomes that are consistent with widely valued goals or principles. Example: Arguments for altruism often appeal to the rational understanding that helping others can lead to a more harmonious and supportive society, from which everyone benefits.

Emotional Resonance

Definition: Normative strength is also derived from a moral system’s ability to resonate emotionally with individuals. Emotions like empathy, compassion, and guilt can be powerful motivators for moral action. Example: Stories and images depicting the plight of the needy can evoke empathy and compassion, motivating charitable actions and support for social justice initiatives.

Consistency and Coherence

Definition: A morally strong system must be internally consistent and coherent, as inconsistencies can undermine its credibility and weaken its normative force. A coherent system presents its principles in a way that they support rather than contradict each other. Example: If a moral system advocates for equality but tolerates discrimination in certain contexts without justification, its inconsistency can diminish its normative strength, leading people to question its overall validity.

Applicability and Practicality

Definition: The system must provide actionable guidance that can be practically applied in real-life situations. Abstract principles with no clear application do not have strong normative force. Example: Business ethics that provide clear guidelines for fair treatment of employees, ethical marketing, and corporate social responsibility can directly influence how companies operate.

Reflective Equilibrium

Definition: Achieving a reflective equilibrium between moral principles and intuitions strengthens the normative force of a moral system. This balance involves adjusting principles and intuitions so they are in harmony, enhancing the system’s persuasive power. Example: Reconciling the principle of justice with intuitive feelings about fairness in specific cases (e.g., considering mitigating circumstances in punishment) can enhance the system’s moral authority.

Definition: The normative strength of a moral system is reinforced by social support and cultural reinforcement. When a community collectively endorses and practices a moral system, its norms become more deeply ingrained and influential. Example: In cultures where hospitality is a deeply valued norm, the practice of welcoming and aiding strangers is reinforced through social expectations and cultural narratives, making it a powerful normative force.

In summary, the normative strength of a moral system lies in its ability to convincingly justify moral actions, to resonate with individuals’ rational and emotional faculties, and to be reinforced by social and cultural practices. This multifaceted strength ensures that the moral system can effectively guide behavior and support ethical living.

For a moral system positing objective moral facts to be fully coherent and compelling, it must provide a robust account of the normative force or motivational reasons for rational agents to actually comply with and be guided by those putative objective moral truths.

Some key aspects of the required normative strength:

1) Source of Normativity – The system should clearly ground the objective moral facts’ normativity or “ought-implying” force, whether it derives from rational agency itself, the nature of value, divine commands, hypothetical imperatives, etc.

2) Overriding Force – It should explain how objective moral reasons are capable of outweighing and taking precedence over conflicting non-moral motivations like prudential self-interest, pleasure, cultural norms, etc.

3) Moral Motivation – It must provide some underlying motivational story or decision-theoretic model for why it is rationally compelling for agents to be motivated to do what the objective moral truths require, rather than being mere abstract valueless statements.

4) Resolving Conflict – The account should yield adjudication principles for how to rationally resolve conflicts between competing moral reasons or ethical dilemmas based on the objective moral facts.

5) Judgment/Motivation Symmetry – The grounds for knowledge of the moral truths should synchronize with the reasons for being motivated to follow them, avoiding epistemic/motivational asymmetries.

For example, some moral realists ground normativity in the pure rationality and inescapable self-governing nature of practical agency itself, such that violating objective moral requirements is akin to violating the laws of logic for a rational agent.

Other views might derive ought-implying force from the intrinsic prescriptivity of objective values like well-being or autonomy that provides reasons for pursing/respecting those values. Or a divine command theorist may locate moral reasons in our obligation to a supremely authoritative source.

The key is that if there are genuinely objective moral truths about how we ought to behave, the moral system must provide some underlying philosophical account of what makes those moral facts genuinely action-guiding and normatively binding for rational agents – rather than being inert valueless statements.

Without a compelling story about the source and substance of moral reasons allegedly tied to the objective moral reality, the objectivity and prescriptivity of the moral truths posited would remain opaque and disconnected from rational motivation. Normative cogency is vital for vindicating moral realism.

Elaborate on the required explanatory power of such a moral system.

The explanatory power of a moral system is a crucial attribute, denoting the system’s ability to account for a wide range of moral phenomena, including our intuitions, judgments, dilemmas, and disagreements. A moral system with strong explanatory power should be able to offer compelling explanations for why certain actions are right or wrong, provide insights into the nature of moral values and duties, and illuminate the underlying reasons behind moral principles. Here are several dimensions in which the explanatory power of a moral system is manifested:

Understanding Moral Intuitions

Definition: A moral system should explain common moral intuitions, the immediate judgments we make about right and wrong, which often serve as the starting points for moral reflection. Example: If people universally find acts of gratuitous violence repugnant, a moral system should explain why such acts are inherently wrong, possibly by referencing principles of harm, rights, or human dignity.

Rationalizing Moral Judgments

Definition: The system must rationalize more considered moral judgments, those that result from reflection, discussion, and the application of moral principles. Example: The condemnation of slavery across diverse societies can be explained by appealing to moral principles of freedom, equality, and respect for persons, showing how these judgments align with reasoned moral understanding.

Resolving Moral Dilemmas

Definition: A robust moral system provides tools for resolving moral dilemmas, situations where principles appear to demand incompatible actions. Example: In a classic trolley problem, a moral system should offer a rationale for whether it is permissible or obligatory to divert a trolley to kill one person instead of five, explaining the moral reasoning behind prioritizing certain lives or principles (e.g., utilitarian calculations vs. deontological constraints).

Explaining Moral Disagreements

Definition: It should account for the existence of moral disagreements, including their sources and why they may persist despite rational discourse. Example: Disagreements about abortion might be explained by differing underlying values (e.g., the right to life vs. bodily autonomy) or conceptualizations (e.g., the moral status of the fetus), rather than simply irrationality or ignorance.

Accounting for Moral Progress

Definition: The moral system should be able to explain instances of moral progress, where societies change their views on moral issues towards what is considered a more ethical stance. Example: The abolition of slavery and the expansion of civil rights can be understood as moral progress through the lens of expanding circles of moral concern and a deepening understanding of equality and human rights.

Illuminating the Nature of Moral Values

Definition: It should illuminate the nature and source of moral values, offering an account of why certain things are valuable or disvaluable. Example: A moral system might explain the value of kindness by relating it to the well-being it promotes and its role in fostering positive social relationships.

Making Sense of Moral Experience

Definition: The moral system should make sense of the full range of our moral experience, including the feelings, motivations, and commitments associated with moral action. Example: The feelings of guilt or pride that accompany moral failures or achievements can be explained as responses to living up to or falling short of moral standards that we recognize as important.

In summary, the explanatory power of a moral system is crucial for its acceptance and effectiveness. It enhances the system’s credibility by demonstrating its applicability to real-world moral questions and challenges. A moral system with strong explanatory power not only guides action but also deepens our understanding of the moral landscape, enriching our ethical life and discourse.

For a moral system claiming objective moral facts to be truly compelling, it must exhibit robust explanatory power – the ability to account for, systematize, and provide justifying grounds for our widely shared moral intuitions, considered judgments, and ethical plausibilities.

Some key aspects of the required explanatory power:

1) Intuition Consilience – The objective moral truths posited should cohere with and explain the broad shape of common moral intuitions across human societies about core ethical issues like prohibitions against cruelty, duties of fairness, rights against aggression etc. Radical alienation from most people’s moral convictions would undermine its credibility.

2) Accounting for Moral Data – It should be able to accommodate, reinterpret or provide principled explanations for the overwhelming majority of considered moral judgments that careful reflection deems legitimate across diverse actual and hypothetical scenarios. Widespread unlikeliness in light of firm ethical data would count heavily against it.

3) Dilemma Resolution – The moral system’s resources should demonstrably resolve or adjudicate a wide range of famously vexing ethical dilemmas, quandaries and hard cases in plausible and illuminating ways, rather than being stymied or ad-hoc.

4) Explanatory Unification – It should synthesize, ground and elucidate the objective moral reasons underlying many of our securely justified particular moral beliefs and duties across different domains in a unified framework with systematic coherence and elegance.

5) Pessimistic Accommodation – Even while vindicating many ethical truths, the system should avoid an immodest or implausive degree of confidence, instead humbly acknowledging and accommodating the expected reality of some irreducible moral uncertainty or residue.

For example, utilitarian moral theorists argue their framework gracefully reconstructs, explains and vindicates many stringent duties of benevolence, injunctions against gratuitous cruelty, condemnation of rights violations, and solutions to ethical dilemmas – all grounded in the maximization of welfare as the sole objective moral truth.

Meanwhile, a moral pluralist like W.D. Ross aimed to vindicate our torn intuitions across diverse duty domains – fidelity, reparations, gratitude, justice, beneficence etc. – as irreducibly prima facie objective moral facts generating pro-tanto reasons.

The guiding idea is that if there are indeed objective moral truths, they should have profound explanatory cogency and fit with the main shape of formed ethical judgment, lest they be massively alienated from our ethical lives. Mere description or stipulation of moral facts would be insufficient – their objective reality should illuminate and make sense of ethics as we faultily but substantively conceive of it. Explanatory power is key for vindicating realism over competing anti-realist, non-naturalist or error theories.

Create a 10-item quiz on the discussion above with answers at the end.

Here’s a 10-item quiz based on our discussion, with answers provided at the end:

Quiz

What foundational principle asserts that if an action is morally required for one person in a specific situation, it must be morally required for anyone else in a similar situation?
Which moral theory is based on the idea that moral truths exist in a non-physical realm of abstract objects, similar to Plato’s theory of Forms?
What term describes the moral system’s capacity to motivate individuals to behave ethically and to justify moral judgments and prescriptions?
According to the discussion, what is crucial for ensuring that a moral system’s principles, their applications, and the underlying reasoning do not lead to contradictions or arbitrary decisions?
What aspect of a moral system refers to its ability to explain common moral intuitions and judgments, resolve moral dilemmas, and account for moral disagreements?
Which moral theory posits that moral facts are grounded in the nature of human beings and the world, aligning with Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy?
The principle that moral principles must be clearly defined and understandable to people, allowing them to grasp what is expected of them morally, is known as what?
What is the term for the moral system’s demand that individuals must be able to understand, acquire knowledge of, and reasonably agree upon moral facts or principles?
Which approach to morality argues that moral properties emerge from complex interactions within social and biological systems, but once formed, they have an objective status?
What principle emphasizes the moral system’s guidance on how to act in accordance with its principles in real-world situations?

Answers

The Principle of Universalizability.
Platonism.
Normative Strength.
Logical Consistency.
Explanatory Power.
Natural Law Theory.
Clarity and Comprehensibility.
Epistemological Accessibility.
Moral Emergentism.
Action-Guiding Requirement.

Here’s a 10-item quiz on the discussion of requirements for a coherent moral system claiming objective moral facts:

Which of these is NOT one of the key minimal requirements discussed?
a) Objective foundation
b) Universal applicability
c) Logical consistency
d) Acceptance by the majority
What kind of foundation provides objective grounding for moral facts according to robust moral realism?
a) Cultural norms
b) Divine commands
c) Non-natural moral facts
d) Human emotions
True or False: For a moral system to be universalizable, the moral truths must hold in all possible worlds involving rational agents.
a) True
b) False
Which example exhibits a logical contradiction violating the consistency requirement?
a) “Minimizing suffering is the highest moral imperative” and “Sometimes inflicting suffering is required”
b) “Autonomy is inviolable” and “Coercing autonomy is always wrong”
c) Both of the above
d) None of the above
What does the action-guiding requirement demand a moral system provide?
a) Abstract theorizing about morality
b) Specific procedures for determining right action
c) Lengthy philosophical treatises
d) Personal opinion polls
According to the discussion, which could serve as the epistemic faculty for accessing objective moral truths?
a) Moral intuition
b) Divine revelation
c) Empirical investigation
d) All of the above
What does the normative strength requirement aim to explain?
a) Why we ought to follow the objective moral truths
b) The physical laws of the universe
c) Evolutional biological facts
d) None of the above
True or False: A moral system need not account for moral dilemmas and hard cases to have explanatory power.
a) True
b) False
What does the explanatory power requirement demand a moral system achieve?
a) Coherence with common moral intuitions
b) Accommodation of legitimate moral judgments
c) Resolution of ethical dilemmas
d) All of the above
Which ability is NOT essential for a moral system to be coherent according to the discussion?
a) Certainty about all moral truths
b) Logical consistency
c) Action guidance
d) Explanatory power

Answers:
1-d, 2-c, 3-a, 4-c, 5-b, 6-d, 7-a, 8-b, 9-d, 10-a

Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.

How does the principle of universalizability impact our understanding of fairness and justice in everyday moral decisions?
In what ways does Platonism challenge or support contemporary views on the existence of objective moral facts?
Discuss how a moral system’s normative strength can influence individual behavior and societal norms.
How does logical consistency within a moral system contribute to its reliability and effectiveness in moral reasoning?
Explore the significance of explanatory power in a moral system. How does it enhance the system’s applicability to real-life ethical dilemmas?
Compare and contrast Natural Law Theory with modern ethical theories like Utilitarianism and Deontology.
Discuss the role of clarity and comprehensibility in ensuring that a moral system is accessible to a broad audience.
Evaluate the importance of epistemological accessibility in a moral system. Can a moral system be considered valid if it is not universally accessible?
How does moral emergentism provide a bridge between subjective experiences and objective moral truths?
Examine the action-guiding requirement of a moral system. How does this requirement affect the practical application of ethical principles?
Discuss the challenges of maintaining universalizability in a diverse world with varying cultural and individual moral perspectives.
Analyze the relationship between moral intuitions and rational moral reasoning in the development of a coherent moral system.
How can a moral system address and reconcile differences between individual autonomy and collective well-being?
In what ways can a moral system’s normative strength be undermined by societal changes or technological advancements?
Explore the implications of moral progress for the concept of objective moral truths. Can moral truths change over time, and if so, how does this affect the notion of objectivity in ethics?

Here are 15 discussion questions relevant to the requirements for a coherent moral system claiming objective moral facts:

What are some potential objective foundations or sources that could ground moral facts? Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different proposals like divine command theory, Platonistic non-naturalism, or naturalistic realism.
How can a moral system ensure true universality that applies to all possible rational agents, not just humans? What are the challenges in formulating principles that are genuinely non-contingent and impartial?
Provide some examples of moral statements that would violate the requirement of logical consistency and explain why they are incoherent as purported objective truths. How might competing principles be consistently integrated?
In what types of situations would the action-guidance requirement be most difficult to satisfy? How specific and granular must a moral theory’s decision procedures be to adequately guide real-world ethical decision making?
If objective moral truths are not directly observable, what are some potential reliable epistemic pathways for gaining knowledge or justified belief about them? Assess the pros and cons of different approaches like moral intuition, reason, divine revelation, etc.
How can a moral realist system provide an underlying account of robust normativity and motivational force that obliges rational agents to comply with the objective moral facts? Evaluate different attempts to ground this from pure reason, the nature of value, divine authority, etc.
Are there any ethical truths or principles that seem so firmly grasped that any moral theory contradicting them would count heavily against it in terms of explanatory power? Discuss potential examples.
In terms of explanatory power, how well do moral frameworks like utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, virtue ethics, or others accommodate and make sense of our confident particular moral judgments across different domains?
How might a moral realist system acknowledge and accommodate some degree of moral uncertainty, rather than claiming excessive confidence? Is a systematic residue of ethical perplexity inevitable?
Contrast moral realism’s requirement to fit with ethical data against the opposing deflationary strategies of moral anti-realists and revolutionary moral theories. Must common-sense be mostly vindicated?
Could an epistemically modest and circumscribed form of objective moral truth be more plausible than an immodest systematic account of all moral facts? Evaluate the prospects of both ambitious and limited moral realism.
How might the universality and objectivity requirements for moral facts interact with compelling exceptions and ethical particularism? Can moral principles avoid being overly crude?
In grounding normativity, how can a moral theory avoid clashing with plausible constraints from moral psychology, human motivation, and decision theory about how reasons for action actually operate?
How might a moral realist respond to challenges of queerness or strangeness detectors – the sense that objective moral properties or facts would be metaphysically outré?
To what extent can the standards for moral realism be met simply through a coherence theory of truth, rather than requiring a correspondence theory linked to objective moral reality? Discuss the advantages and disadvantages.