Overmanian Ethics
An absurd philosophical argument to point out the absurdity of attempting non-subjective moral systems.
I'm a firm believer in what Neitzsche called The Overman.
The overman...Who has organized the chaos of his passions, given style to his character, and become creative. Aware of life's terrors, he affirms life without resentment.
A necessary but not sufficient component of that is what I call "Owning your Values." As I've explained elsewhere, that doesn't mean merely owning up to them or recognizing them. It also means embracing them unapologetically. Others may still create situations where you are forced to choose - so choose. What you don't get to do while claiming the mantle of The Overman is to say that God or Nature or Logic wants or, even more disgustingly, demands that you do something.
I'm not unsympathetic to people who still believe in natural rights or some duty from the social contract, or the god-awful argumentation ethics. I believed in natural rights at one point too. I spent a lot of time researching things and introspecting to come to where I am now. I'm not decrying others their lack of effort in ethical investigation so long as they valued other things more. Perhaps they weren't privy to certain experiences and information I ran into. I haven't walked in their shoes.
At the same time, I don't have to like dealing with such people nor am I obligated to spend time doing so. I'm trying to become The Overman and, honestly, hanging around with such people makes it just that much harder. Rather than bitch and moan, I'm going to mirror the anti-subjective, value-free, moral system argument back to those who espouse it. Except I'm going to use "Overmanness" as the unit of measure.
The first question I will ask is whether God, or Nature, or Logic needs enforcers. If you believe in an omnipotent God, you are required to answer that it does not. Nature has been enforcing it's "dictates" long before humans came on the scene. Unless you consider social operations as part of nature (and most moral realists I've interacted with draw a dividing line between those two things) then you are also forced to say nature can enforce her own dictates.
Logic doesn't enforce its own dictates, but if logic is true, then it must map to something which enforces its own dictates - aka it must effectively map to reality or other parts of a mental map in an unbreakable way. If all X are Y implies that no X's are not Y, then that actually has to be the case and it doesn't require the police to enforce a "No Zebras are Cows" rule. So logic is a proxy for something which enforces its own "dictates."
I'm not unsympathetic to people who still believe in natural rights or some duty from the social contract, or the god-awful argumentation ethics. I believed in natural rights at one point too. I spent a lot of time researching things and introspecting to come to where I am now. I'm not decrying others their lack of effort in ethical investigation so long as they valued other things more. Perhaps they weren't privy to certain experiences and information I ran into. I haven't walked in their shoes.
At the same time, I don't have to like dealing with such people nor am I obligated to spend time doing so. I'm trying to become The Overman and, honestly, hanging around with such people makes it just that much harder. Rather than bitch and moan, I'm going to mirror the anti-subjective, value-free, moral system argument back to those who espouse it. Except I'm going to use "Overmanness" as the unit of measure.
The first question I will ask is whether God, or Nature, or Logic needs enforcers. If you believe in an omnipotent God, you are required to answer that it does not. Nature has been enforcing it's "dictates" long before humans came on the scene. Unless you consider social operations as part of nature (and most moral realists I've interacted with draw a dividing line between those two things) then you are also forced to say nature can enforce her own dictates.
Logic doesn't enforce its own dictates, but if logic is true, then it must map to something which enforces its own dictates - aka it must effectively map to reality or other parts of a mental map in an unbreakable way. If all X are Y implies that no X's are not Y, then that actually has to be the case and it doesn't require the police to enforce a "No Zebras are Cows" rule. So logic is a proxy for something which enforces its own "dictates."
The second question I will ask is whether or not you know exactly what God, Nature, or Logic want. If you believe in a traditional conception of God, then you probably also believe that you don't know the (complete) mind of god - even fundamentalists who claim to be doing God's will are not likely to be hubristic enough to presuppose an understanding of all God's desires. Nature is actually observable, but it's a dynamic system. If it "wants" anything, it's hard to determine what it actually wants at any given time without constant observation. Logic doesn't want anything because it's a tool. But, as I said before, it's a tool which must reference ... something. Nature, God, the universe or parts of it. And if those things have desires, then statements about what those things want will only be logically true if the the referenced wanter actually wants those things.
The final question is are there things which God, Nature, and Logic don't want? There are three possibilities regarding desires, wanting something, wanting NOT something, and not caring. For moral non-subjectivists to have a coherent conception of wrong based on the "wants" of something, it must be based a "wanting NOT something." So the answer to this question for them is YES.
If the answer to the first question (does nature/god/logic need enforcers?) is NO and the answer to the second question (do you have knowledge of all nature's/god's desires (directly or by logical proxy)?) is NO but there are things that God/Nature/Logic don't "want," then, as a rationalist, you shouldn't intervene because you might do something those things don't want and get punished for it. Furthermore, your intervention is unnecessary because God can send homosexuals to hell, Nature can punish thieves, and Logic can wipe fraudsters off the face of the Earth.
Now, here's the fun part. I hit you in the face. You say I shouldn't do that. I ask why. What do you say?
If you say "God/Nature/Logic" then I can say I'll take it up with those things later. Since you didn't say YOU didn't want to get punched, I can assume that YOU have no complaint against me. GOD/NATURE/LOGIC have complaints against me. You DON'T get to be a vigilante for those things as a rationalist because you could be wrong (and be punished by those things). Besides I'll get my just desserts anyways.
If you're a vigilante for those things then you're not a rationalist OR YOU actually care about getting hit in the face. If YOU care, then WHY NOT JUST FUCKING SAY THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE?!
Oh, right, because you're trying to trick me with an appeal to authority. Well, enjoy that while you SIT THE FUCK DOWN AND SHUT THE FUCK UP holding your bloody nose.
If the answer to the first question (does nature/god/logic need enforcers?) is NO and the answer to the second question (do you have knowledge of all nature's/god's desires (directly or by logical proxy)?) is NO but there are things that God/Nature/Logic don't "want," then, as a rationalist, you shouldn't intervene because you might do something those things don't want and get punished for it. Furthermore, your intervention is unnecessary because God can send homosexuals to hell, Nature can punish thieves, and Logic can wipe fraudsters off the face of the Earth.
Now, here's the fun part. I hit you in the face. You say I shouldn't do that. I ask why. What do you say?
If you say "God/Nature/Logic" then I can say I'll take it up with those things later. Since you didn't say YOU didn't want to get punched, I can assume that YOU have no complaint against me. GOD/NATURE/LOGIC have complaints against me. You DON'T get to be a vigilante for those things as a rationalist because you could be wrong (and be punished by those things). Besides I'll get my just desserts anyways.
If you're a vigilante for those things then you're not a rationalist OR YOU actually care about getting hit in the face. If YOU care, then WHY NOT JUST FUCKING SAY THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE?!
Oh, right, because you're trying to trick me with an appeal to authority. Well, enjoy that while you SIT THE FUCK DOWN AND SHUT THE FUCK UP holding your bloody nose.
QED. Seaview out.