ScoutingForAdventure t1_j96ahok wrote on February 19, 2023 at 4:10 PM

Reply to comment by contractualist in The Ontology and Epistemology of Morality by contractualist

I would say that the human's ontology is not free as it is biologically constricted and so one would need an ontological system in which a person can become free of this constraint to be able to then have a moral system in which freedom is a predicate. Otherwise, there is no morality at all, only force.

Most importantly, your concept of public reason is a form of ontology by role or relationship, given by association with a certain public body, which completely obliterates the concept of freedom.

contractualist OP t1_j96brg6 wrote on February 19, 2023 at 4:19 PM

I discuss what I mean by freedom here Freedom is being able to act in accordance with higher level principles, not being free from all biological and social forces. To the extent that these higher level principles includes reason and morality, the concept of freedom is coherent.

ScoutingForAdventure t1_j96hm7x wrote on February 19, 2023 at 5:00 PM

So a person who is lacking in the ability to reason, such as youth and those with neurological and functional limitations at the highest cognitive level, would be unable to be free persons in your framework? The social force of public reason would constrain and bind them to a group morality based on its implementation of geniocracy?

Such a freedom has zero coherence. As others have mentioned, the disconnect between 1) what is socially prioritized as human needs, and 2) the disconnection individuals can have to those human needs and values would make such freedom conditional and therefore non-binding.

contractualist OP t1_j96iv85 wrote on February 19, 2023 at 5:08 PM

Being a part to the moral community doesn’t rely on reasoning ability, but the laws of the moral community would be reason-based. They would have to be justifiable to others. Membership in the community relies on consciousness and free will.

If you read the article I sent, I argue that ascent to the social contract would be based on agreement to principles that are in accordance with higher-order values. Morality asks what principles of conduct would free reasonable people accept. It doesn’t say morality is reserved for the reasonable.

I’m not sure what freedom you’re talking about but if you have a specific question I’m happy to address it.