COMMENSAL ISSUE 93

Malcolm Burn (C92/35) makes, I believe, four errors :-

1. He says ought statements presuppose that "there are at least two possibilities" to choose between. He then says "there has to be a hard core of ought statements that are incontrovertible". If an ought statement is incontrovertible it cannot give rise to two possibilities.
2. he says moral ‘ought’ statements arise in the discovery by trial and error of the means best suited to satisfy the aspirations which bring people together to form societies. A discovery by trial and error must be the discovery of what is the case. This is what I contend but he began by saying that every ought statement is derived from a prior ought statement. By showing that moral ought statements have derived from a discovery of a fact he has contradicted himself.
3. He says that moral choice depends on free will. He also observes "arbitrariness is there even in the moral code". An arbitrary selection or decision is not compatible with a choice that is the result of the deliberations of free will.
4. He attempts to counter the fatal infinite regress in his propositions that each ought statement derives from a prior ought statement which itself derives from an ought statement by reference to a hard core of ought statements taken as incontrovertible, ie. primary principles from which secondary principles of ethical action are derived. Primary principles were once held to be absolute, divinely ordained, universally obvious or common-sense or a whole rag-bag of derivations that avoid reasoned justification. Malcolm has added ‘arbitrariness’ to this list. So, if the primary principle statement "killing is evil" is arbitrary then surely his ethics must be trivial.

I would be interested to hear how other members derive their moral imperatives as it is the central ethical question, isn’t it ?

Roger Farnworth

Roger : don’t beat about the bush, Roger ! You seem to be a lone voice on this one - given the support Malcolm received earlier in this issue from Kevin Arbuthnot & Michael Nisbet ! Also, as I said last time that I "agreed entirely" with him, I can’t resist responding to what you have to say. Shouldn’t do it, I know, and maybe Malcolm will have to put us both right ! Referring to your points above in turn :-

1. We’re talking about two different things here - we might agree that the prohibition of murder is incontrovertible, but a citizen still has the option to commit the crime or not.
2. The discovery is of means to ends not of obligations.
3. Isn’t this what free will is all about ? If it was bound by deliberations, it wouldn’t be free. It’s the "what the heck I’ll do it anyway" factor that (seems to) give the freedom.
4. Hard luck ! All ethical systems are ultimately trivial (I contend) unless we can ground them in facts in some way, which I allege we can’t. A society (and the individuals who make it up) has to decide what it wants & be willing and able to fight for its view of what is valuable if others don’t share the vision in all its pellucid beauty. Otherwise, the barbarians take over.

Expanding on point 2 somewhat, a society could have one of two guiding principles :-

1. you, citizen, ought to want mutual prosperity
2. you, citizen, ought to earn points of honour by out-doing your neighbour

Following on from this, we might by trial and error find two means to ends :-

1. co-operation & peaceful co-existence leads to mutual prosperity
2. indulging in a vendetta establishes & maintains points of honour

From these we might deduce one of two further "oughts" :-

1. you, citizen, ought to co-operate with your neighbour
2. you, citizen, ought to subvert your neighbour at every turn & take a pop at him when opportunity permits.

The "ought" statements arise from matters of fact only because there were prior "ought" statements.

Theo