Possible Worlds

I am looking at this haunting picture that I keep coming back to on this thoughtdock (and that Olive discussed earlier). I tried about four times to post something, but it never takes. It just says “Comment Cannot Be Blank.” This is a little interesting, since it suggests I am not here making the comment, or the comment will not be perceived as a comment if it doesn’t say the correct thing, but maybe the thoughtddoc software is not that intelligent or controlling.

HOWEVER, what about Locke, Hume, Berkeley and Kant and these doors. (Remember, I wrote this a long time ago.) What is the relation of seeing these doors in the photo, seeing doors in my life, and recognizing doorness? Locke would want to distinquish between the primary and secondary properties of these doors? Kant would say that I can’t know the door, only read doorness in based on my sensorial intuitions and conceptual categorization? Hume would say I see doors and this photo and that sensorial info makes me have the idea of three doors, and possibly the metaphor of three doors, and further the idea that someone may walk out of one of them (because of experience in the observation and use of doors, and constant conjuction)? Berkeley would say that the doors don’t exist without me seeing them?

What I wanted to say in my comment is that this photo reminds me of Dennett’s where am I: which door leads to me. One might represent the body, the flesh and fluids, hair color, specifics. One might be the connections in the brain, the mind/ cpu. One might be “me-ness” as a child of an immortal soul or set of genetic material that is reproducing and participating in the chain of being regardless of my personality.

For ethics, which is the one I am in when deciding something’s right or wrong? It seems like if you take this question, the answer of where am I becomes either door 2 or door 3, not 1.

One final thing: these doors are faked. If you look, it is a totally fake image with shadows going the wrong way. So what does that make the thought I had of doorness or the “me” that was imagined in association with each door? Or what does it make of the narrative that I envisioned – people exiting a door and a story beginning?

HiLo

Problems with Moral Objectivism

Theo offers the following reflections on moral objectivism:

Certainly, moral objectivism avoids some of the major shortcomings of the two opposing views: subjectivism and cultural relativism. In particular, these latter views essentially do not allow for meaningful criticism of another’s moral beliefs, given that any such belief is simply recognized as a matter of opinion; and objectivism inherently accounts for this issue by proposing that questions of morality can be resolved by appeal to reason on an absolute scale. However, when applied to reality, the objective conception of morality does not seem to capture the nuances of worldly moral issues.

When presented with the choices of burgling others’ properties and sharing one’s possessions with those in need, it seems highly probable that the vast majority of individuals, regardless of cultural boundaries, would identify the second as the morally just course of action. This may be attributed to either natural human intuition or education in society. However, when presented with two more controversial options, in which application of the most universal moral values does not produce a clear answer, opinions can expectably be rather evenly divided. Should two rational individuals representing opposing positions attempt to defend their position with appeals to logic, it would not be unsurprising if they departed utterly unmoved by the opponent’s argument, convinced in the moral superiority of their own position. Each position has its benefits and drawbacks, and the importance one attributes to these ultimately determines one’s evaluation of the overall moral strength of the position. And, this phenomenon of attributing varying importance to different features of a moral position is highly subjective. 

For example, one may seek to harm an enemy in response to an evil that this enemy committed. One moral “truth” is that we should not harm another in almost any circumstances. Another such “truth” may be that justice should be attribute appropriate consequences to one’s actions. The moral position described in the example thus violates one moral truth while upholding another, and so, in judging the moral integrity of the position, one must call upon one’s own, subjective views regarding the degree of importance of these facets of the position. The controversial topics of abortion, assisted suicide, and others, constitute other examples of moral questions that are very much dividing: one’s perspective on these matters depends predominantly on the relative importance one attributes to different moral “truths”.  One can reasonably recognize that no absolute hierarchy exists that resolves this uncertainty and to which rational beings would commonly agree. 

While an “objective” analysis of a seemingly straightforward scenario, such as the question of stealing or sharing, yields a clear answer by virtue of the effectively universal consensus on the topic, more divisive questions are answered by one’s personal, or cultural, inclinations, and not by a global system that could possibly attempt to resolve such issues. A comparison can be made between morality and beauty – while almost everyone would agree that a luxurious mansion is more beautiful than a run-down shack, based on values that almost everyone shares, it becomes significantly less clear when comparing two houses of “similar” stature. In order to choose the more beautiful between the two, one must draw upon one’s own opinions and priorities – and thus beauty, like morality, cannot be considered entirely objective.