Moral Truth vs. Moral Meaning

(Picture from http://www.normanrschultz.org/Courses/Ethics/Kantian_hero.jpg)

In ethical debate, much attention is given to the establishment of moral truth. It has raged on for centuries and fostered many different camps. However, they all attempt to establish their case by appeal to some sort of fact or goal, but this is misguided because facts and goals are arbitrary human conventions - a social fact of Durkheim's definition - and any appeal to factual foundations ultimately rings hollow.

There are no moral facts, nor can there be any. This is because ethics deal with normative issues or what should-be-the-case, while facts are confined to positivist issues or what-is-the-case. An example is a gun: in-itself a gun is morally neutral but serves a moral agenda when used by a thief or soldier. Many philosophical theories often appeal to certain phenomena to justify moral value but this is commits G.E. Moore's naturalistic fallacy where normative values cannot be logically derived from positive fact. Theories like utilitarianism merely takes a fact - in this case happiness, a mental state - and assign it a moral value afterward. It is a fact used in moral calculation rather than a fact to base morality on. We thus see that it is impossible a priori to claim the existence of moral fact.

Also, moral justifications cannot occur independently of some aim or goal. Instead, moral practices are confined to a certain socio-cultural contexts and the same things can have different meanings in different cultures. This doesn't mean that they're meaningless, but simply mean different things to different peoples. Cross-cultural moral disagreements occur because people needlessly attempt to universalize their moral judgments.

The crux of the matter is the mistaken belief that there is moral truth when moral meaning is all there is. Moral meaning is located in the principles of an ethical system. It is an artificial normative standard that bears no correspondence with moral facts: it is a human invention. Attempts at cross-cultural universality of context-specific moral judgments implicitly assume that there is moral knowledge - moral Truth - to be discovered and, what's more, that disputants possess or approximate it better than others.

One possible argument for moral truth is the similarities in the ethical systems of different cultures. Thou shalt not steal, rape, needlessly kill and so on. Similarities in such these inductive, cross-comparative studies suggest there is some underlying cause for this, but cause is not to be confused with reason. Cause implies a natural mechanism operating independently of human intent, while reason suggests that it is created or invented by humans. Given the absence of moral facts, or at least our inability to ascertain them, we really have no grounds to claim that a moral causes or truths exist 'out there'. One may of course disagree, perhaps citing utilitarianism and the categorical imperative as examples of how we elicit moral facts, but this is mistaken. Utility and intention are psychological phenomena. They are in-themselves amoral facts from which moral truth cannot be derived. It is we who give them a normative value, a moral meaning. Claiming moral truth is a mistake: there is only invented moral meaning.

In the absence of moral Truth, we must consider why moral systems are still persist. In any given society, ethics are overtly or tacitly instituted and practiced. Although there are no moral facts, hence the correspondence theory of truth is out, life still follows the moral clauses of a given society.

One explanation for this seemingly irrational phenomenon is the social Panopticon. Members of a given society may not all converge on a single ethical paradigm but it is followed simply because deviance results in punishment and obedience is thus the most rational choice. This punishment need not be codified into a formal system of crime and punishment. Instead, punishment can simply be a frown, glare, ostracism, expulsion or similar expressions of moral disapproval. Given the human instinct for social recognition and approval, the awareness that certain acts will be frowned upon provide ample reason to abstain from it - even if one doesn't completely agree with the moral paradigm - and the ethical system continues to be practiced.

The other sociological explanation is institutional: the codification and transmission of ethical standards by power structures, with an accompanying system of enforcement. The school, for example, inculcates some degree of morality by prohibiting certain acts, such as theft, while encouraging others, such as respect for authority. The formal would possibly merit detention while the latter earns praise. Other similar institutions include religion and the judicial system where a formal structure is present and recognized as an authority on normative issues, resulting in the perpetuation of an ethical paradigm that no single lay individual is able to alter and the moral status quo is thus preserved, at least in the short-run.

The Panopticon and Institutional explanations also account for the system's resistance to change: few are willing to risk their standing by desecrating social customs. Of course, some degree of questioning may be permitted depending on the group's zeitgeist and the rights accorded to them, but certain issues will remain out-of-bounds. These OB markers may protect the group’s most fundamental beliefs or social structures and maintain the socio-political status quo for upheaval will disrupt the process of economic production. Put it simply, social ethics and its rule-based interactions is analogous to Thomas Hobbe’s ‘Leviathan’ government: it prevents anarchy and protects man from preying upon his neighbor.

In conclusion, it has been argued that absolute moral Truth is a chimeral claim. There is no logical method of deriving moral value from amoral facts. Instead, there is only moral meaning. Ethics is ultimately an invented human construction that serves to solidify and stabilize the existing social order by providing rules or guidelines to govern social interactions and transactions. This rule-based perspective may not have the ‘legitimacy’ of ethical theories based on purported fact but its position has better logic and potential empirical foundations.

Updated on December 23rd 2009