Is Morality Objective? Dr. Richard Yetter Chappell Lecturer in Philosophy University of York

Opening Poll Do you lean towards thinking: morality is not objective? morality is objective?

Getting clear on the question - 1 ●Normative vs descriptive “morality” ○“Their morals differ from ours.”

Getting clear on the question - 1 ●Normative vs descriptive “morality” ○“Their morals differ from ours.” Relevant question: not what norms do we accept, but what norms ought we to accept?

Getting clear on the question - 2 ●Circumstance-sensitivity ○How different cultures show respect for the dead ○Lying to the murderer at the door

Getting clear on the question - 2 ●Circumstance-sensitivity ○How different cultures show respect for the dead ○Lying to the murderer at the door Crucial question: What fundamental norms ought we to accept?

Getting clear on the question - 3 ●Cultural Relativism vs. Cultural Command Theory ○My doing X, and ○Your doing X might differ in moral status if the circumstances are relevantly different.

Getting clear on the question - 3 ●Cultural Relativism vs. Cultural Command Theory Crucial question: Does each particular token action have some objective moral status (as, e.g., permissible or impermissible)?

Assessing Relativism When assessing the morality of S’s action, why would the perspective of anyone other than S be at all relevant? ⇒ Suggests the real challenge to objectivism is not relativism but subjectivism: each person may do as they personally please.

Assessing Subjectivism ●We don’t generally take ourselves to be morally infallible. ●Hard for subjectivists to make sense of moral deliberation and inquiry (what are we trying to work out?) ●Only objectivism can make sense of open minded discussion (in contrast to rhetorical bludgeoning) with the shared aim of discovering the truth.

Are you a moral objectivist? If you: approach ethics philosophically consider yourself fallible think you can learn from others think it really matters how we treat each other, and what we do Then probably, yes!

The Moral Case for Moral Objectivity It seems morally important to recognize that: Respect for others is non-optional Real moral progress has been made (e.g. abolition of slavery) There is further room for improvement

An example: Migration Moral objectivity requires us to overcome self- interested biases. E.g. Universalizability: could you endorse closed borders if you were on the other side? The Veil of Ignorance: What policy would you rationally choose if you didn’t know who you were?

The Value of Tolerance ●Is tolerance objectively valuable? ○(If not, then are illiberal violators of human rights doing nothing wrong after all?)

The Limits of Tolerance “This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.” -- Sir Charles Napier

Closing Poll Do you lean towards thinking: morality is not objective? morality is objective?