Aggregate Value

Alonzo is doing a series which kills the objection:

There's no way to aggregate well-being over different individuals.

Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Subjective Morality: Fact or Fiction?

In a comment to this post, a commenter stated something that is commonplace amongst moral subjectivists and relativists.

Who said happiness, desire fulfillment are good and suffering is bad is an objective truth? They may exists as being objective in some sense, but applying labels to them is not grounded in anything objective.

We can apply the same reasoning to the statement "Pluto is a planet." In one sense of the word, a sense adopted for a long time, the statement was true. However, after scientists decided to change the definition, it became false. So, is the statement objectively true or false? It depends on the definition of "planet" being used.

None of this affects the objectively true statements in astronomy. Scientists can define existing terms in new ways or make up entirely new words to describe an object. As long as we are saying something that is objectively true about the object, we are fine.

There is no magical reason why we should define the term "planet" in one way or another. So why should we expect the same thing of any other label?

So, if by "Rape is bad" one means that it thwarts desires, then it is equivalent to the objectively true statement "Rape thwarts desires." Labels are made up and the definitions thereof do not matter. They do not change the facts about rape.

If the statement "Rape is bad" is a statement that has no basis in fact, then it must be fiction. We would not look at the statement "There are invisible teacups flying around Saturn" and say, "Oh well since you can't prove or disprove it, it is a subjective claim." No, we would say it is false.

To bring to light the absurdity even more, moral subjectivists are saying there is no evidence that can prove an act to be wrong, yet we are justified in taking a position one way or another. However, shouldn't one withhold judgment when faced with a lack of evidence? Why would we choose one way or the other?

But then moral subjectivists usually argue that we have strong moral feelings and that is enough to justify our moral beliefs. However, "My feelings say you should be sent to jail" is not any justification for sending someone to jail or determining who lives and who dies.

So, in summary, moral statements are either fact or fiction. There is no third option. Moral statements are not statements that have no basis in fact but are somehow still relevant to the real world. We cannot use our feelings to justify sending people to jail. Admitting the truth of moral statements depends on our feelings does away with morality altogether. It relegates it to the world of fiction.

See this post for a similar sentiment from Alonzo.

So why should we label desire fulfillment as "good" and desire thwarting as "bad?" Stay tuned for the answer in a later post.

Good Physicist Gone Bad

Steven Weinberg, a physicist who won the Nobel prize, wrote a mantra of New Atheism which is indicative of the brilliance Dawkins and Hitchens come up with:

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.

Now this statement is false and bigoted and one should condemn whoever says it. One can note the vagueness of certain words and that the statement is only true in an irrelevant sense. One can easily switch a few things:

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for bad people to do good—that takes religion.

or

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do bad—that takes atheism.

Surely, atheists would take these claims to court, and rightly so. But those same reasons would take Weinberg's claim to court as well. And the prosecution rests its case.

See this post for the standard objections I have to blaming evils on religion.

Business Ethics

Milton Friedman is a famous economist of the 20th century. In this paper, he argues against a business being concerned about social issues, except that which the law forbids. Here is a quote from the article:

There is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.

He also states elsewhere that a business needs to follow the law as well. So we can define his principle as follows:

MF: A business does no wrong in maximizing its profits when it is not breaking the law and engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.

Why believe this is true? Friedman states that a manager's sole obligation is to its stakeholders. If the manager decides to use money from selling hamburgers to help save the rain forest, he is not maximizing profits for the shareholders which presumably is what they want. If they wanted money going to the rain forest, that would be fine too but if they want him to maximize profit, then he must do it as long as he does not break the law and engages in open and free competition.

In advanced societies, one may be tempted to think the law is good enough to keep businesses out of trouble. However, imagine a society where a "Hitman" company would not be illegal. A business could accept payment in return for killing someone. In such a society, a business could follow the Milton Friedman principle yet still be unethical.

Everyone would agree such a society should make a law against corporations being allowed to kill people. However, if a corporation has no social obligations outside of those mandated by law and free trade, then how could one say this? In this society, the act is not illegal, deceptive or fraudulent. The foundation on which this principle is built falls apart when considering this.

The only justification for laws limiting what a business can and cannot do comes from the ethical obligations of a business. Making a law stating businesses cannot kill people is only justified if businesses already have an ethical obligation to not kill people.

Since there are societies where the law can be seriously inadequate, one cannot simply follow the law to avoid any wrong. One must act ethically. If the Milton Friedman principle is to be justified, it must be done by appealing to the social responsibility of businesses. As has been shown, there are more responsibilities than following the law and avoiding deception (like not killing people). Therefore, the Milton Friedman principle fails.

See this paper for another negative assessment of Friedman's paper. See this post for a similar argument against the claim "One should not legislate morality."