Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

XiphosAletheria t1_j9fo6gm wrote

I mean, this is just silly. "Morality is what 'reasonable people' would agree to" might work if you want to say morality is subjective, because of course reasonable people across different times and places have had very different views of what is moral. But to define morality as that while claiming it is objective falls flat.

1

contractualist OP t1_j9g9et8 wrote

Yes this is meta ethical constructivism. I will argue later on that was is objective is just shared subjectivity, so my argument fits into our normal notion of objective. People might actually disagree based on private reasons but I ask what they would agree to based on public reasons. There will be agreement on morals claims the same way there is agreement on objective reality.

1

XiphosAletheria t1_j9gqepu wrote

> There will be agreement on morals claims the same way there is agreement on objective reality.

Except there won't be. Just off-hand you can find reasonable people who disagree about the morality of, say, the death penalty, abortion, eating meat, etc. And that's within one culture. If you look at other cultures, you'll see reasonable people disagreeing about things we agree on here - such as slavery, human sacrifice, marital rape, etc.

And anyway, "objective" is not the same as "subjective, but a bunch of people agree with me".

1

contractualist OP t1_j9i1cym wrote

It’s not about actual consent but what would reasonable people agree to. No way would anyone reasonably agree to be enslaved, sacrificed, or raped. Abortion and eating meat relate to the boundaries of our moral community (not necessarily the agreement, but who is a party) whereas the death penalty (given certain evidence) may be morally excused.

1

XiphosAletheria t1_j9id7c3 wrote

> No way would anyone reasonably agree to be enslaved, sacrificed, or raped...whereas the death penalty (given certain evidence) may be morally excused.

You see the contradiction there, right? No way would anyone reasonably agree to be executed. For that matter, if we hadn't been raised in a society where involuntary taxation was the norm, I doubt many reasonable people would agree to it. That is, just because I wouldn't reasonably agree to have X happen to me doesn't mean society might not morally do X to me anyway under certain circumstances.

And I don't see the point of your argument anyway. Let's say there is some set of moral norms that we all agree to be true. That doesn't help us. What we need is a guide for when we have moral disagreements between reasonable people. At best, you'll end up stating something glaringly obvious (since we all apparently agree with it anyway). At worst, and this seems far more likely, you'll have people using your idea as way to simply dismiss anyone who disagrees with them as both unreasonable and immoral, which is the opposite of the mindset any thoughtful person, and especially a philosopher, ought to have.

1

contractualist OP t1_j9j91rn wrote

  1. People may agree to execute criminals and will very likely agree to involuntary taxation, given the coordination problem and benefits of collective action.

  2. The article’s goal is only to say what morality is and isn’t. To the extent that issue is in dispute, as it is in meta-ethics, then having at the very least a defined term is useful for settling disagreement. I’ll get into more specifics in later pieces on what “reasonably rejectable” really means.

1