Objective Morality: What It Means

Christian morality is not just about following commandments or following practical principles like “do no harm.” Christian morality is based on what philosophers call ‘virtue ethics’. In Matthew 5:48, Jesus says, “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” In Leviticus 19:2, God says to Moses, “Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: ‘Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy.’” God’s people are called upon to be the best examples of what it means to be human.

So what makes virtue ethics objective?

Something is objective if it exists and could be known independently of who knows about it or even if no one learns anything about it at all. People can know about physical things because they are objects. For example, when different people see various apples, those apples serve as the basis for what anyone could learn about apples: rounded, nutritious, grows on trees, etc. That’s real knowledge about a type of actual objects, in this case apples.

The meaning of objective is obvious when talking about physical things. The objectivity of other types of things is less clear, but philosophically justifiable; things like forms are objects of knowledge.

People also know about mathematical objects. Just like apples, everyone can agree that triangular form share common features. It does not matter that the triangular form never exists apart from something shaped like a triangle. If it has a triangular form, it has three sides, encloses an area, and the sum of its angles is 180 degrees.

Some things are better examples of the triangular form than others.  Those examples are objectively better or worse to the extent that they conform to the triangular form, despite what other accidental features they may have. For example a glass prism is a better triangle than a yield sign, but being made of clear glass versus painted metal, has no bearing on the fact that both, objectively speaking, are triangular.

The principle here is that most everything is also a kind of thing something. Every particular apple is still a kind of apple. Every expression of the triangular form is a kind of triangle. The human form is also an object of knowledge. Just as particular triangles and apples are all a kind of triangle or apple, every living person is a kind of human.

Ever since Aristotle, the essence of human nature has been identified as that of a ‘rational animal’. A human has all the features common to other animal forms but is distinguished by the ability to reason. Admittedly the idea of Man as a ‘rational animal’ is not held in as high regard as it once was. Modern science reveals a more tentative picture of what it means to be human, but that does not undermine the fact that there is a human form capable of being known, however imperfectly understood.

Christian morality is objective because it is based on an object of knowledge: the human form. The human form, God’s image, serves as the basis for making moral value judgments. A man is virtuous to the extent that he manifests what it means to be human. A rational and courageous person is more virtuous than an irrational and cowardly one, etc. Because God is creative, just, wise, and patient, so also should we be.

It should be remembered that objective does not mean moral reasoning is easy or that it leads to obvious and certain conclusions. People must still apply reason and use discernment when making value judgments. The degree to which a particular thing exemplifies the essential form of its kind remains a subjective assessment based on objective facts.

In summary, Christian morality is based on objective facts about what it means to be human.

The "ARGUMENT from CONSCIENCE" and ATHEIST HYPOCRISY

Most atheists claim that there are no moral absolutes. At the same time, many of these same atheists accuse Christians of hypocrisy. This reveals an inconsistency on their part. If being hypocritical is not a moral absolute then those atheists cannot justify the accusation. On the other hand, if they stand by their accusation then they tacitly admit to at least one moral absolute. Now if hypocrisy is defined as doing what you profess to be unjust, unethical and blameworthy, then  it follows that in order to not be hypocritical people are obliged to follow their consciences. This is a problem for atheists. What is the source of the conscience’s moral authority?

Let us suppose that people have, as part of their being, something that serves as an internal guide to what is just, ethical, and praiseworthy. This something is commonly called conscience. It would seem that neither the variable nature of conscience between individuals nor the lack of its development would negate anyone’s moral obligation. Anyone can see that people vary with respect to many other traits like physical stature, dexterity, and intelligence. There is no reason to suppose otherwise for conscience. Yet this in no way affects someone’s obligation to do what he believes he should do as best as he understands it. Thus the question is not what conscience is or what it tell us; but rather, why it is authoritative. Stated in other words, to whom are people obliged.

So with that understanding, let’s look at an apologetic called the “Argument from Conscience.”

Premise 1: The obligation to obey the conscience must come from either Nature, the Individual, the Collective (family, tribe, or state), or something external to the first three.

Premise 2: Nature does not oblige anyone to follow their conscience, since the conscience often prompts us to overcome the reflexive innate behaviors Nature provides.

Premise 3: The individual does not have to authority to oblige himself to follow his conscience since the individual could then countermand his obligation by his own authority. As such, self-obligation is meaningless.

Premise 4: No collective of individuals has the authority to oblige someone to follow a collective conscience unless the individual consents to that authority and as per Premise 3 the individual has no such authority. Comment on Premise 4 - The collective (family, tribe, state, etc.) may have the power to impose duties on individuals, but that is not the same as having the right to do so.

ONLY 1 of 2 MUTUALLY CONCLUSIONS FOLLOW:

Conclusion 1: Conscience comes from a Source that transcends Nature, the individual, or the collective. Thus people are morally obligated to follow their consciences and apply their moral reasoning to better understand that Source.

-or-

Conclusion 2: No one’s conscience has no moral authority. Thus people have no obligation to follow their own instincts, personal conscience or that of another person or collective. As such, no one can justifiably accuse another of hypocrisy.

I say that people can accept either conclusion but that doing so is an existential choice, not a rational one. However, these choices lead to very different logical conclusions. Anyone can see that unless a culture accepts and appeals to a transcendent moral authority, however imperfectly understood, then raw power, “might makes right”, is alone that culture’s moral compass.  

The EXISTENTIAL CHOICES of MAN

Confronted with his distinctive existence, Man must tacitly or explicitly choose to adopt one of these approaches to the otherness around him. This choice determines the intellectual commitments informed by it while at the same time those commitments appear to influence initial choice. None can escape the circular relationship of choice and commitment; nevertheless, the freedom of the personal existent rests on this circularity. For the sake of clarity, I propose a 4-square diagram of existential stances:

“Principled” – The person who adopts this stance believes that 1) reality is essentially ordered such that things necessarily happen as they do because things happen for a reason and 2) the essential order is rational in such a way that the human intellect can gain knowledge of it. With proper application, reason can bring the human intellect to understand the actual and active agencies working to proscribe the nature and behavior of sensible bodies. The pretense of this stance is that it can speak authoritatively about any philosophical concern. Apparent paradoxes serve as signs to reconsider premises that result in incoherent or mutually exclusive conclusions.

“Pragmatic” – The person that adopts this stance believes that 1) reality is essentially ordered; however, 2) neither the evidence of the senses nor the artifices of reason can be relied upon to explain how things actually are rather than just how they appear to be. By severing the relationship between phenomena and an assumed nomena, this stance produces intractable paradoxes which its advocates generally embrace.

“Magical” – By adopting this stance a person professes that 1) reality is accidentally ordered such that things happen as they do for no reason; and yet, 2) this order can still be rationally discerned by identifying symbolic relationships between phenomena. As such, no necessary constraints exist on the power of some things to exert influence on other things; nevertheless such efficacies of affect are taken as brute facts.

“Serendipitous” – People who take this stance believe 1) that reality is accidentally ordered and 2) reason can only construct passive interpretations of subjective experience that may or may not coincide with reality as it actually is. This stance produces many of the same dilemmas of the “Pragmatic” stance; however, its advocates generally ignore them.

Based on their existential choices people get led to different theological doctrines and conclusions about the findings of natural science. I see this all the time. Two people may each have perfectly logical positions and yet vehemently disagree based on their existential pre-commitments. I believe that recognizing these pre-commitments is necessary to foster healthy and productive discussions about the ‘big picture’ questions about human life.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN, a METAPHYSICAL PERSPECTIVE

Recently someone asked me the following question:

“What practical observation allows you to tell the difference between a universe that is ordered due to purposive design of an intelligent agent and one that is ordered through the workings of brute, undesigned necessity and chance?  What allows you to make that metaphysical distinction?”

It simply will not do for someone to ask “Why is it necessary for effects to regularly follow causes?” and answer by saying, “Because they do so by necessity” unless of course that someone has a don’t know/don’t care attitude. I do not mean to disparage anyone for stopping their inquiry at this point. I only wish to point out the following. Deciding not to pursue the fundamentals of the human condition that run deeper than naturalist assumptions comes at great cost. One must forego the hope of reaching satisfactory answers to those questions that matter most. People are left doubting the veracity of rational though, questioning the accuracy of sense data, and denying the defensibly of value judgments.

That is where reason leads most atheists. They defend determinism, conclude that consciousness as an illusion, and most recently shuck fundamental laws of thought like the Principle of Non-Contradiction and the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

Such stances bleak. That does not mean these stances are wrong, only that I think no inquiry into the role of intentionality will ever satisfy an eliminative materialist, for example. To me, these stances are self-refuting. When someone sees all subjective experiences, including rational reflection, personal identity, and as untrustworthy, he can only conclude that no answers can be derived. Personally, I think even atheists know deep down that their stances are fatalistic and nihilistic. Atheists make the personal existential choice in that direction by taking naturalistic assumptions about causality and concept formation as being beyond the extreme limits of human knowledge.

At a minimum, I have tried to show that the Schoolmen tackled these same problems hundreds of years prior to Descartes’s radical skepticism discounting the carefully crafted distinctions and conceptual nuances of Scholastic thought. I find great value in that tradition and see clearly how many intractable paradoxes of modern philosophy become irrelevant. That does not mean I am right, only that I believe the Principle of Sufficient Reason applies.

Two notions cover chance: 1) the notion that any given event can happen completely without rhyme or reason or 2) the infeasibility of fully knowing the conditions on which outcomes depend making the outcome uncertain, i.e. indeterminate.

Some people hold the notion that the rules applying to all known physical objects need not apply to one particular object, the entire physical universe which is the biggest of them all. Perhaps. However, many assure me that at the most fundamental level of reality subatomic particles pop in and out of existence randomly without cause. If this is truly the case, then the logic of the Thomas Aquinas’s Third Way applies. If it is possible that any given particle could cease to exist, then any object made of such particles would cease to exist if all the particles of which it is made ceased to exist all at once. If the object under consideration is the entire physical universe and if the physical universe is the sum total of all being, then...it would be possible at any given point in the history of reality it might not have existed. In that case it would not exist now since “from nothing, nothing comes.” Likewise it could at any time cease existing for no rhyme or reason. Since the physical universe continues to exist, a rational person can reasonably suppose that something sustains the physical universe, something whose existence is not subject to chance.

That leaves option 2, the existence of the physical universe depends on something necessary, but that whatever it is cannot be fully known. I reject this position by applying the Principle of Sufficient Reason. In an intelligible reality open to sound rational inquiry, we do know something about it: a necessary being must exist and it is absolutely requires to sustain all of existence every second of every day, regardless of how the whole ball of wax started in the first place.

Now as it relates to the Fifth Way of Aquinas either intentionality exists in nature or it does not. As stated earlier, I am not aware of any argument that an eliminative materialist would even consider. They have already ruled intentionality, including their own, as an illusion.

In short, while adopting theism is not neccesarily a rational, neither is atheism. Both rest on existential choices that cannot be rationally justified. The difference is that what logical follows from theism is a world of meaning and purpose in which scientific and moral knowledge can be gained. Meanwhile what follows from atheism is the exact opposite: a world in which people are slaves to blind impersonal forces in an absurd world, doubting of their own perceptions, and left bereft of purpose.

Google Merchant Account

If it were not for amazon and google, I would not be in a position to make or sell much of anything - certainly not with the ease that I do now or in my spare time. But I must say, they still do not make it easy. In order to show-up in Google shopping results a seller must create a "Product Feed", a delimited text document that send data about your product to Google. That would not be so bad, except that they make sellers use a byzantine code and categories and their dashboard is very difficult to navigate. That is especially true when you're just trying to figure out their system.

Oh, and my Dymo label printer. First it jammed. And when you go through Paypal to make a USPS label it doesn't give you the option to print a 4" x 6" mailing label. I had to clip an image of the label from a 8.5 x 11 PDF. That was an extra step that I did not anticipate. Previously, I avoided selling on Ebay because printing out mailing labels, taping them to boxes, and going to the Post Office was a time-consuming pain. The 40% amazon takes seemed worth it. If they took care of the logistics, I could focus on developing the business. But still, I could really use the 40% occationally. I had hoped to create an easy click-and-ship method at home using the Dymo label printer. I don't like the extra step, but I guess its good enough for now, at least until I can figure out how to get USPS to make 4 x 6 labels. Change the default printer?

Handwriting for Heros

As part of my research I came across a group of occupational therapists that specialize in helping veterans. They teach the veterans how to use their non-dominant hand when they, the veterans, have lost the use of their dominant hand. I found it inspiring, so I modified my rewards on Kickstarter. Unfortunately, Kickstarter doesn't have a 'free' option. I set the veterans' benefit at $1. I hope some cheaters that are not veterans use that option to get a free pen. I must think of a way to verify who's a vet and who isn't.

Total User Experience

Bryce G. Rutter of Metaphase Design Group gave a lecture today at the Chicago Housewares Show. His lecture was about the importance of design for Boomers. Specifically, making products easy to use for seniors that have reduced strength, less flexibility and weaker eyesight, etc. BUT at the same time making them not look like medical devices or nursing home furniture. Exactly! Someone gets it.

But something of which he reminded me was the "total user experience", not just with the product itself, but starting with how the customer finds and purchases the product, how it gets delivered and the packaging in which it arrives. It made me think of how the commodity pens that I sell arrive from amazon in a plastic bag with with a bar code slapped on front. That may be fine for an inexpensive ballpoint, but that will not do for the one I'm designing now. I guess I need to start working on the attractive packaging for an attractive pen, because feeling good about what you bought begins with seeing it for the first time. You open the amazon box and there it is! Like they say, you only get one chance to make a good first impression.

Nothing Succeeds Like Failure

What I'm doing now, may or may not work, but I won't know until it hits the market. I can design and redesign until I think it's good enough and I can test prototypes endlessly. But I'll never really know until there is a picture of it on the web with a click to buy button next to it.

Making a Pen with Fewer Parts

A retired engineer from International Harvester once told me a joke. He said if John Deere could make something with 9 parts, then International could make it with 11.  Currently, my pen design requires 6 pieces - two stock items and four custom machined parts. While I cannot do anything about the stock items, the refill cartridge and twist mechanism, I'm almost certain that I could design it with only 3 custom parts, and maybe even 2. Achieving simplicity not only saves money, but for me, is desirable for its own sake. That is so long as it doesn't compromise the functionality of the final product! I doubt the end user really cares about how it was made. He or she only cares about whether it works or not. And the customer's opinion is the only one that matters, because I making this pen for the customer, not for me.

Finding Beta Testers?

One expert occupational therapy expert has already agreed to test and evaluate my prototype (once it becomes available.) Hopefully, I can get more. I'm thinking of taking out a Google Ad just to find more expert testers. Quality feedback is vital at this stage.

My Patent Came

Yesterday in the mail, I got the official hard copy of my patent for MiniBlindRx. It was printed on thick cotton stock and had a pretty gold foil stamp on it. Of course I will frame it. And yet it felt a little anti-climatic. The whole process took 4 years and close to $5000. I wonder if it was really worth the cost. If I can sell to a large company for more than the development cost then maybe...just maybe it will have been worth it financially.

Even still, taking MiniBlindRx from idea to marketable product has been an invaluable experience for me. Were it not for that experience, I do not know if I would have gained the confidence to do other projects like the inport/export of commodity pens and not developing this premium pen for arthritic writers. I've learned what things are important (like product positioning and finding failure fast) and what part are easy and counterproductive (mailing lists and upfront capital costs).

Dividing Up the Work

While I do not mind leaving some details up to the experts, I know I still must rely on myself. Before production, each part of the pen must be modeled in 3D. While I can make 2 dimensional CAD drawings, I don’t have the skills to make 3D computer models. This fact leaves me with three options: 1) rely on the machine shop to make the models, 2) pay someone to make the models or 3) learn 3D CAD and make the models myself. 

My budget doesn’t allow me to pay someone, so either the machine shop does it or I do. If the machine shop does it, then I anticipate much back and forth and frustration trying to get it right.  But if I do it myself and I get it wrong then it could get expensive. Then again, if I get it right then the final design will be exactly as I want.

Being an extrovert, I cannot seem to think without talking. Another option just occurred to me. I think what I might do is make the 2d model in CAD myself. It should be relatively easy for the machine shop to translate that into SolidWorks. All they have to do is rotate around a single axis and add the threading, which they would have to do anyway.