But the difference is we need to make the assumption that the universe can be reasonably modeled and is relatively constant ("absolute truth"). I don't see why this assumption is necessary for morality. While I don't think I'll make the assertion that absolute morality DOES NOT exist (I'll be agnostic here) I don't think there is good justification for believing it does. With science, you simply HAVE to assume that the universe is governed by physical laws in order to understand it. I don't know how else to phrase it without repeating myself so probably we will not find agreement on this point.
This is a valid point, and one that certainly supports SunsetVista 's statements above.
I do, however, think I have a response. Your assertion that we
have to make these assumptions for science to be carried out isn’t exactly true. If science were conceived of in the terms people conceive of morality, then it would be possible. Let’s just substitute the word “science” for “morality” in some of the clichéd conversations of morality that are quite common these days.
Well, you may have your own view of science, and that’s fine. What one believes about science is one’s own business. We can’t have science affecting the way we make laws, however. And you can’t make your scientific claims about anyone else’s life, since all you know is completely subjective and colored by your own view of reality. Personal science is fine as long as you keep it to yourself.
Well, you’d say, that’s not really science. Sure you could approach it that way, but it’s not practical. That’s a lot of people casually positing beliefs about the universe, but you couldn’t get any momentum with that version of science. It would be pretty useless, and couldn't be practiced on anything more than an individual scale without huge problems.
Well, the same is true of discussion of morality, in my opinion. For me, a study of morality that ultimately rejects morality itself isn't really ethics or morality or a study at all. It is more just people casually stating personal opinions to themselves. It can't get much momentum as a collective endeavor. A reductive, relative approach that says, "Well, there isn't any morality at the end of it all," is great in theory, and it’s fun in philosophical conversations. But in the real world, society has to at least agree in some way. Think of the legal system. Think about if the ramifications of a relative system of ethics were stated explicitly at a sentencing as a judge put a man in prison for murder.
Judge: You murdered a child in cold blood. Murder is not wrong or evil. In some societies, we would not punish you at all for this. But as a society, we have arbitrarily agreed upon these rules. They cannot be justified by nature. Though humans are demonstrably merely animals, we do not punish animals when they murder other animals. We do not punish you for murdering other forms of life, or even eating them. You did not have any choice in the matter either. You were born into a time and society that arbitrarily condemns murder. So, because we have arbitrarily agreed on these rules as a society, you will spend the rest of your life locked in a cell. Just as Americans chose to enslave African Americans in past centuries, so too do we choose to imprison murderers. These are both arbitrarily constructed positions that have equal value.
For me, this isn’t a practical way to approach morality in any real situation. The idea of, "Well morality was socially constructed" works well in hypothetical situations, fancy dilemmas, classic ethical quandaries, because you can say, “Well, there isn’t any absolute morality; problem solved.”
As with science, ethics is more easily practiced as a community endeavor when it is agreed that there are moral truths to be pursued. That’s about as basic as an assumption could get, and I feel it is helpful to make at least that basic of an assumption in order to pursue morality and ethics as a study. So my reaction is similar to that we might have over the version of science I posted above. Sure, you could practice it that way, but it wouldn’t be of much use, and wouldn’t really help us in any real, practical situations that we faced every day. We’d still be essentially choosing what we liked, which seems terribly inadequate in questions of both science and ethics. And the ramifications of poor scientific method have consequences for sure. But the consequences of a poor approach to morality can be even more disastrous in my opinion.
I've taught for the last five years at a secular university, and when I've taught classes on normative ethics, we'll generally begin by my asking students if there is right and wrong. One student will inevitably say, "No, it's just personal opinion." I'll give a deadpan response of, "Then you get an F for class participation because you disagreed with me in class." They will be shocked, and I'll ask them if that seems wrong. Again, in practical considerations, we recognize moral truth in the day to day. We believe in justice, and we experience it. If the student responds, "Well, the university system is socially constructed, so you have to abide by that," then I'll respond, "So you believe we should be bound by societal norms and systems? What if we don't like them?" In reference to SunsetVista's discussion above, there is a big difference in socially constructing a value through like and dislike, and making a claim that something is right or wrong, just or unjust. I don't ask that my students accept the idea of absolute moral truth, but we find that when discussing ethics, we have to make
some basic assumptions. If we don't, then our discussions can't really be of much value. One of the most basic assumptions is that good and evil do exist and are not socially constructed, just as we agree that the constants in the material world (for example, gravity) aren't socially constructed, but actually do exist.
These are practical considerations. The other considerations are those we can’t agree on so much. For example, for you and SunsetVista, you don’t think,
a priori, in your gut that there is absolute morality. For me, I do see this evidenced in the material world quite vividly, every day, for all of my life, just as I have felt the material universe to function according to constant principles throughout my life. I suppose this is ultimately the root of our difference.
Google