Meditations on Moral Theory

Meditations on Moral Theory

For the past few days I have been reflecting on the nature of the foundations of different moral theories, for some reason I couldn't put my finger on the arbitrariness of each theory, it seemed as each one had sound arguments and could work within a given society. After some discussions and further reflection I believe I was able to finally grasp what my issue was with the foundations of all moral theory: the foundation of every moral theory requires faith.

Faith is required for either:

1. to believe that the presupposition is true within itself, without further demonstration
2. or if with further demonstration, that the method of arriving to the conclusion is the correct way to arrive at the moral maxim

warning: my knowledge regarding moral theory isn't very extensive so it is most likely I will commit some mistake. 

This foundation I will call the presupposition of faith, from this presupposition every moral theorist can build from inductive and deductive arguments the conclusions of the moral theory. Moral theorists have also attempted to explain how these presuppositions are not faith but rather can be discovered through methods such as logic or sentiments, but that would require faith in the method of discovering the presupposition. 

Examples of presuppositions of faith: 

• Libertarian (classical liberal): we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
• Self-evident aka faith. 
• Utilitarianism: The greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.
• Logical proof: 
• 1) Humans are governed by pleasure and pain;
• 2) Humans want to maximize pleasure and minimize pain;
• Morality is thus, maximizing utility.
• This requires faith in that pleasure and pain are the methods as to arrive to a moral conclusion.
• Categorical Imperative: from Kant's pov we must act freely in order for something to have moral worth which requires two conditions:
• Acting autonomously: acting from reason (freely) rather than from pleasure/pain (determined) and from reason obtaining a moral law that is unconditional.
• Acting out of duty: acting from motive rather than from effect, the moral claim lies within the motive not the end. 
• So the moral law is unconditional and motive focused, it is a compelling theory but still requires faith that rationality is the method to a moral law and that the moral worth is within the motive.
• Theological Morality: God is the entity which gives moral worth to certain actions.
• It is obvious that we a-priori require faith in the existence of God or the methods as to prove the existence of God. 

1) All moral system are based on at least one moral presupposition that validates itself
2) All moral presuppositions that validates themselves are statements that can not be tested
3) All statements that can not be tested must be taken at face value are based on faith
C) All moral systems are based on faith

So basically what do moral theorists do, they assume a moral presupposition or they assume the validity of the method as to arrive to the moral presupposition. The foundations of a moral theory are always taken for granted or given a whitewashy explanation but ultimately requires faith that the one evaluating the theory agrees with the presupposition within itself or the method arrived to the presupposition. A person that says they know the moral principle that governs human nature is either God or a lunatic. 

Morality can generally be studied from two points of views: the moral worth of an action within itself and the moral worth of the effect of an action. Both views fall to the same trap of faith as I have mentioned previously, if an action has moral worth within itself it implies faith in the assumption or in the reasoning, the assumption being for example: all men are created equal and in the reasoning: god creates all men equal. If we analyze morality within the effects we have to assume the moral maxim which says that one effect or the other is moral or not, it seems rather arbitrary to say that pleasure and pain are what governs human nature and that the action which maximizes the pleasure within a given society is moral seems based on an element of faith. 

It seems to me that moral philosophers attempt to treat morality as mathematics, once a mathematical principle is established mathematicians can build an entire system revolving around that principle. Once a moral philosopher established a moral presupposition it is relatively easy to build a moral theory from it from logical arguments 

Libertarian: 

Moral presupposition: people have a right to self-ownership

Self-ownership includes labor

Self-ownership includes things that were produced by one's labor and unowned land

People who own other people is slavery

People who own other people's things is  thus slavery

Taxation is taking other people's self-ownership

Taxation is slavery

Utilitarian:

Moral presupposition: the moral action is what leads to the maximization of utility

If by taxing one person we can give it to other people and that leads to a greater increase in the overall utility of society it is then a moral action to tax the person.

Different moral presuppositions whence assumed, logically lead to different conclusions and different actions having different moral worth. Since I believe we cannot as humans reach a common moral principle in which to base our entire moral system it seems that unless a moral debate starts from a common moral presupposition statement the conclusions derived will always conflict and an agreement will never be reached. 

Since a moral presupposition is impossible to reach (without an appeal to faith) I propose a hypothesis to test whether a  moral system is compatible with human nature, the argument is based on the following:

1) Society based on a valid moral presuppositions, survive

2) Society based on an invalid moral presuppositions, die

C) A moral presupposition is valid, ergo moral, insofar as it allows a society to survive

C) A moral presupposition is invalid, ergo immoral, insofar as it doesn't allow a society to survive

I do think human societies have to be predicated upon moral maxims that allow the flourishing of human societies, invalid moral systems will inevitably lead to the collapse of the society whose morality is predicated upon that system. If something is moral I believe it will let a society that is predicated upon it, function, and if something is not moral it will not let society function. Thus the test is simple, any given moral presupposition, allow a society to be predicated upon it and see whether or not it lives or dies, my hypothesis is that societies based on moral presuppositions that do not go in accordance to human nature (that are not moral) will inevitably collapse while societies predicated upon moral presuppositions that do allow human societies to function (that are moral) will prosper. 

<< The only problem with this method is again, it requires faith to believe that societies based on valid moral presuppositions succeed, but rather than the constricting view of other moral theories this hypothesis allows for the whole spectrum of moral ideas to become moral insofar as a it accomplished what has been mentioned previously, it seems slightly less arbitrary than the theories mentioned beforehand >>