rejectednocomments t1_j9d2l98 wrote on February 21, 2023 at 1:02 AM

As I said regarding one of your previous pieces, I am very sympathetic to the idea that morality is closely connected with what we could all reasonably agree to in principle. But, I have some issues with what you say here.

You say that morality only concerns issues of right and wrong, and does not concern good and bad, or value. You also say that good/bad/value is subjective. I think there is a substantive debate as to whether good/bad/value is subjective or objective. Maybe more importantly, it seems like good, bad, and value are a part of morality, just as much as right and wrong.

I see that you want to use the distinction between right and wrong, on the one hand, and good and bad on the other, to try to show that relativists and non-relativists are talking past one another. To the extent that they are, I think there’s probably a better way of capturing this than removing good and bad from the sphere of moral consideration.

I also worry about how limited the moral sphere seems to be on your view. It seems like if there’s any sort or controversy about an issue, it turns out to be a personal issue and not a moral one. But, surely part of the point of moral philosophy is to try to find answers where there is controversy. A moral theory that only applies in cases of universal agreement is impotent.

contractualist OP t1_j9db1ki wrote on February 21, 2023 at 2:07 AM

Thanks for the review!

I'll probably write more about my thoughts on value, but I do come in with the assumption that value isn't intrinsic but a creation by free, conscious beings. And if value isn't intrinsic but subjective, it can't be publicly examined and judged. There's no point of reference to say that one value is right due to X property and the other is wrong
due to Y property. These values might give our lives meaning, but are not reason based the way that morality is (which is a product of certain values).

If you think there is a better way to capture the dispute between realists and relativists, I'd appreciate any insight. My writing is only my perspective and the reason I share it is so I can get feedback like this.

I wouldn't say any controversy makes an issue personal, but only ones where there are reasonable enough arguments on both sides that choosing one or the other would be acceptable. I do think this is the case for the Trolley Problem so that its not a duty to pull the lever.

rejectednocomments t1_j9dh9nz wrote on February 21, 2023 at 2:55 AM

I don’t think you should be so quick to reject the possibility that value could be objective. But if you want to go with the assumption that value is subjective, you might want to look at how subjectivists about value have tried to incorporate values into their moral theories.

Some of the disagreement between relativists and non-relativists might be due to a failure to adequately distinguish morals from mores; that is, genuine moral principles from social custom and expectation.

I think it would be helpful if you clarified what falls within the moral sphere and what doesn’t. I worry that you’re position excludes things that should be part of morality, but it’s hard to say for sure at this point.

contractualist OP t1_j9er0xy wrote on February 21, 2023 at 11:41 AM

Thank you! I’ll look into those matters and will be more explicit with the principles I believe would arise from a reasonable agreement.