So, I put together a fairly explicit criticism of Stefan Molyneux’s essay On Objective Morality (Proving Libertarian Morality, Reclaiming the High Ground). Please take the time to read both Stefan and my thoughts on the subject.
The point of logic being normative is that one cannot draw “objective” inferences in varied (and subjective) circumstances. Morality comes way down the road from epistemology and logic. It is impossible to empirically verify logic’s inference rules.
I don’t disagree with the goals of Molyneux in demystifying the state. However, his claims that morality is objective lie here, “We must start from the beginning, build logically and reject any irrational or non-empirical substitutes for the truth” and can be proven to be fallacious.
“Non-empirical” means a priori. He needs us to think that logic is objective, which it is not. Logical proofs cannot justify themselves as it requires the inference rule being used to also be simultaneously a premise in the proof. This is circular and therefore a fallacy. But, this is what SM is doing (among other things).
SM: “Physical laws describe the behaviour of matter, but do not contain a single prescription.”
Duh…but it is not to be expected that physical laws will provide any prescriptions…
Right here, SM does himself in, “Thus it cannot be said that moral rules exist in material reality…”
Then how can they be objective? Objective reality can be proven through observations (astronomy, math, chemistry, etc.) If something does exist, but dones’t exist in material reality, it can only exist in the mind.
“Subjecting moral theories to the scientific method will provide the same benefits that subjecting physical theories to the scientific method did.”
FA Hayek destroys this concept in “The counter revolution of Science.” It is called “scientism”; the idea that one can apply the scientific method to anything outside of the natural sciences in itself is an incorrect pattern of thought and as SM says, ‘morals don’t exist in material reality’…so, where do they exist? In an individuals mind. For, if they do exist but not in material reality, the only other place they can exists is in our thoughts.
SM goes on to say that “preferred behaviour” exists in an axiomatic form. This may be true, but it in no way implies that everyone sees circumstances the same way (especially moral circumstances). As I pointed out, Logic is normative (a priori), i.e., it is subjective and circumstantial.
“to argue otherwise would require proof that consciousness is not composed of matter, and is not organic – an impossibility, since it has mass, energy, and life.”
But, he provides no proof that consciousness has mass, energy, or life. He simply states it as if it is a fact. Where is my consciousness? If it has mass, then should be able to locate its position in time/space. But, if it is in my brain…then the simple fact that my circumstances for judgment are different than anyone and everyone else’s means that is cannot be objective. (Or, rather, it means that SM is using “preferable behaviour” in a sense of eating, sex (procreation for existence), and sleep. None of which are directly related to objective judgmental circumstance in terms of MORALITY. Look at Israel and Palestine, if you don’t think people can view “preferable behavior” in different terms…)
“if he is alive to argue, he has followed preferred behaviours such as breathing, eating and drinking.”
See? Those aren’t “moral” circumstances. They are, in Kant’s terminology, “necessary” circumstances.
“All living organisms require preferred behaviour to live.”
This premise is under scrutiny in my book as he has, so far in his essay, mentioned morality only indirectly.
“First of all, we must remember that morality is optional.”
Well, wait a second. Everything to this point has argued for the objectivity of morality. But, if it is a choice, then it cannot be objective…The validity of 2+2=4 is not a choice, it is objective. Objective reality is proven through empirical evidence, math, physics, etc.; the scientific method.
“The fact that compliance with moral rules is optional has confused many thinkers into believing that because morality is optional, it is subjective.”
Ha, he preempts any criticism by calling us “confused”; this is ad hominem and a red herring.
“Applying moral theories is optional, but that does not mean that moral theories are subjective.”
haha. By admitting that they are “theories” he admits that there are more than one system of belief in them. How many scientific methods are there?; Note they are methods not theories.
“The scientific method is optional, but it is not subjective. Applying biological classifications is optional, but biology is not subjective.”
I’m going to point back to FA Hayek’s criticism of “scientism” for this one. He is mistakenly using scientism to justify his analogy of morals to the scientific method; a peculiar abstraction to twist as he does.
“I can choose not to eat, but I cannot choose to live without eating.”
I’d like to point out that EVERY one of his examples so far have been biological comparisons to something that is not biological. His use of “preferred behaviour,” literally, is limited to this
“To be valid, any moral theory must also pass the criteria of logical consistency. Since the behaviour of matter is logical, consistent and predictable, all theories involving matter – either organic or inorganic – must be also be logical, consistent and predictable. The theory of relativity cannot argue that the speed of light is both constant and not constant at the same time, or that it is 186,000 miles per second, five fathoms in depth and also green in colour!”
Again, here he uses the assumption that consciousness is material…Logical proofs can use assumption, but they must use particulars (Universal Instantiation followed by Existential Generalization along with whatever inference rules are required). And again he uses a scientistic analogy…
“Biology includes three forms of ‘randomness,’ which are environment, genetic mutation and free will.”
He writes as if “free will” is definitely a thing. There is a lot of question put into this in philosophical circles.
“If I say that gravity affects matter, it must affect all matter.”
Mind is not matter. He must have hidden premises (or tacit premises) if this is the case.
“Furthermore, any moral theory based on non-universal or self-contradictory principles is demonstrably false.”
For instance, using scientistic arguments and some kind of objective logic (which is demonstrated to be normative due to circumstances.)
My point is that there aren’t any objective standards that can be universally accepted due to people’s ability to reason (rationication is done through logic) is based on a priori inference rules and subjective circumstances.
I agree with his morality, but not the notion that it is objective. He says people need to eat, right? Eating is “preferable behaviour” so let’s say that in Uganda a child is starving and the only way to acquire food is to kill the person who has stolen it all from his village. How can we say that someone violating property rights and preventing “necessary” behavior cannot be killed if the objective consequence is the death of the innocent child? His "objectivity” raises marauders to the level of Mother Teresa.
I’d also urge you to read Sartre’s “Existentialism and Human Emotion” for an exposition of moral relativism.
Kant, Critique of Pure Reason.
F.A. Hayek, The Counter Revolution of Science
Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy
Thompson, “What Achilles Should have said to the Toroise”
Gilbert Ryle, “Knowing How and Knowing That”
Papers on the a priori nature of logic:
http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/rules/papers/RailtonAPriori.pdf
You can also read J. F. Thompson’s “What Achilles Should Have Said to the Tortoise” (May require a two page story by Lewis Carroll for clarification, “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles” They deal with infinte regress, but also the difficulty (if not paradox) in proving an inference rule using that same inference rule.