What does 'ontological grounding' mean, and how does it apply to morality?

[Fanghur]

Can someone please explain exactly what, if anything, this term means? I've been having a debate on Sodahead with a theist (and a troll as well) who keeps on making the claim that if there was no god, there could be no 'ontological grounding' for objective morality. I do not really know how to respond to that because it doesn't even make sense to me. I do believe in objective morality, but whether or not a god exists has nothing whatsoever to do with that so far as I can tell.

 

Is he simply misusing the word 'ontology' to try and throw me off, or am I missing something here?

[ydoaPs]

Ontology is basically the study of what things are. So, when someone says something has no "ontological ground", they're just saying that something has no basis in reality, but saying so in a way as to try to sound sophisticated. In the context of online debate, though, they guy probably doesn't know what it means himself, but is rather parroting talking points from disingenuous blowhards like William Lane Craig.

[Fanghur]

So basically ontology is just the philosophical study of the nature of reality? I guess what my 'opponent' is really looking for is a 'transcendental' basis of objective reality, not a ontological basis? And while I am thinking of it, I have another question regarding this same debate that I want an opinion on. Would it be accurate to say that in order for something to be objectively true, it must be based on at least some underlying premises?

 

For example, I am an atheist, and yet I still believe in objectively moral systems, and these systems are objective based on certain premises such as 'life is generally preferable to death', 'violating someone's free will needlessly is wrong', etc. Am I looking at this the right way?

Edited February 26, 2013 by Fanghur

[ydoaPs]

So basically ontology is just the philosophical study of the nature of reality? I guess what my 'opponent' is really looking for is a 'transcendental' basis of objective reality, not a ontological basis?

What he's saying is that there is nothing in reality from which moral facts come if there are no gods. Now, this isn't exactly true.

 

Here's a story of moral ontology. When we look across human civilization throughout time, there is very little in the way of morality that is universal. What is, though, is not only pancultural, but also trans-species. These bits of universal morality have clear selective advantages for social species. Morality, then, may just *be* the behavioural product of group selection. What is "right" simply *is* what makes for a happy, healthy, functioning society. Now, this isn't to say evolution explains *away* morality, but rather that it explains morality. If this story of moral ontology is true, then objective moral facts are indeed firmly grounded in group selection and no gods are required.

 

It does seem, the more we learn through human and chimp sociology, that this story is very likely true.

 

Now, this was about what moral facts *are*, but how can we know them? That is, what of moral epistemology? Humans are remarkably bad when it comes to just about everything involving intuition. When we make judgments about effects and future events, we don't do calculations. We use fast and frugal heuristics which let us think that since this type of behaviour has had this effect before, it will have this effect now. Our heuristics, however, don't do probability correctly.

 

Luckily for humans (and, on this story of moral ontology, moral epistemology), we have gotten much of the right way to figure things out. We've finally figured out most of logic and probability theory despite our handicap (due to evolution being lazy). We can, then, replace our flawed emotional/intuitive heuristics with the correct way to figure out the likely outcomes and then create a rational extension of natural morality that is just as objective. It's doing the same thing (using the same moral ontology), just letting us know what these objective moral facts are in a more reliable manner (our moral epistemology is improved).

 

But let us frame the question another way. Let's assume a god exists and that moral facts exist. Is morality intrinsic to it, or is it extrinsic? That is, does morality come from the god, or does it come from outside of the god? The person you're talking with wants to deny that moral facts are extrinsic to god, so he wants to say that they are intrinsic. The problem here (and this problem has been known since Plato wrote it down in the Euthyphro dialogue 500 years before Jesus was even said to be born) is that this means that morality is arbitrary and it is meaningless to say things like "God is morally perfect".

And while I am thinking of it, I have another question regarding this same debate that I want an opinion on. Would it be accurate to say that in order for something to be objectively true, it must be based on at least some underlying premises?

I'm not sure what you're asking here, but "objective" just means "inter-subjectively verifiable". Your mention of premises, however, makes me think that you're talking about logic. Logic doesn't tell you anything about the truth of a proposition, but rather merely how it structurally relates to other propositions. To get at what you're justified in believing via a logical argument, you'll need probability theory.

[Fanghur]

Logic doesn't tell you anything about the truth of a proposition, but rather merely how it structurally relates to other propositions. To get at what you're justified in believing via a logical argument, you'll need probability theory.

 

There may not be an effective way to put it into words, since I was not even able to effectively explain my position regarding the logical tautologies. MY point is this, if we set the premise that life is generally preferable to death, based on that premise, would it be true to conclude then that murder is generally an objectively immoral thing to do based on that moral premise?

Edited February 26, 2013 by Fanghur

[ydoaPs]

There may not be an effective way to put it into words, since I was not even able to effectively explain my position regarding the logical tautologies. MY point is this, if we set the premise that life is generally preferable to death, based on that premise, would it be true to conclude then that murder is generally an immoral thing to do based on that moral premise?

That depends on what ethical theory you think is correct. If some form of Preference Utilitarianism is correct, then yes.

[Fanghur]

That depends on what ethical theory you think is correct. If some form of Preference Utilitarianism is correct, then yes.

So would it be more accurate then to say that no transcendent / transcendental morality exists, rather than no objective morality?

[StringJunky]

So would it be more accurate then to say that no transcendent / transcendental morality exists, rather than no objective morality?

 

Morality is a construct and property of human cognition so it's not objective ie in the absence of human cognition it does not exist. If a deity existed then it would be an objective property.because it would then exist independently of human cognition. I can't see it makes any difference in the quote above because 'objective' and 'transcendental' morality are both dependent on the existence of a deity or some such.

Edited February 26, 2013 by StringJunky

[Fanghur]

Morality is a construct and property of human cognition so it's not objective ie in the absence of human cognition it does not exist. If a deity existed then it would be an objective property.because it would then exist independently of human cognition. I can't see it makes any difference in the quote above because 'objective' and 'transcendental' morality are both dependent on the existence of a deity or some such.

No, because if it was contingent on the mind of a deity then it would by definition be subjective rather than objective. Objective means 'irrespective of any minds'.

[StringJunky]

No, because if it was contingent on the mind of a deity then it would by definition be subjective rather than objective. Objective means 'irrespective of any minds'.

If you want to define it that way then objective morality doesn't exist.

[Fanghur]

If you want to define it that way then objective morality doesn't exist.

 

I'm not defining it that way, that is the definition of objective.

[ydoaPs]

Objective means 'irrespective of any minds'.

If it means that, then there is no such thing as objective truth. "Objective", however, is usually taken by philosophers to mean "inter-subjectively verifiable".

[Fanghur]

Let's not get into solipsism again, it is an intellectually vapid exercise of futility. And 'absolute certainty' is a great big red herring fallacy.

Edited February 26, 2013 by Fanghur

[ydoaPs]

Let's not get into solipsism again, it is an intellectually vapid exercise of futility. And 'absolute certainty' is a great big red herring fallacy.

Who said anything about solipsism?

 

If "'Objective' means 'irrespective of any minds'", then there can be no objective truth. Truth is about how propositions relate to reality. There are no propositions "irrespective of minds", and therefore, no truth "irrespective of minds". Hence, on your definition, no objective truth.

[StringJunky]

I'm not defining it that way, that is the definition of objective.

 

God being omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent therefore, logically, defines reality so in the light of that would be an "objective" reference.

 

 

 

If it means that, then there is no such thing as objective truth. "Objective", however, is usually taken by philosophers to mean "inter-subjectively verifiable".

 

I'll go along with that...it's closer to the real state of understanding.

[Fanghur]

Who said anything about solipsism?If "'Objective' means 'irrespective of any minds'", then there can be no objective truth. Truth is about how propositions relate to reality. There are no propositions "irrespective of minds", and therefore, no truth "irrespective of minds". Hence, on your definition, no objective truth.

Solipsism is the philosophical view that everything except your own mind is necessarily subjective; therefore if you say there is no objective reality, you are essentially arguing solipsism. And I did not say that I order to be objective, minds must be unable to perceive and conceptualize it. It is objectively true, at least as far as we have been able to tell, that in our universe nothing can exceed the speed of light. That is an objective truth about the nature of our universe, and it would be true whether or not there were any minds there to assess the truth of it.

[ydoaPs]

Solipsism is the philosophical view that everything except your own mind is necessarily subjective;

I know what solipsism is, and you didn't really explain it correctly. Its about whether there are any ontic enties other than your own mind and whether or not that can be known.

therefore if you say there is no objective reality, you are essentially arguing solipsism.

I didn't say anything about objective reality. I said your definition of "objective" by definition means there is no objective truth.

[Fanghur]

Fine, thank you for correcting me on the solipsism issue. And if you are going to define 'truth' as something that is necessarily subjective and/or conceptual, then fine, there is no objective truth. But I don't view truth like that. I have always defined 'truth' and 'reality' in synonymous ways and as being not contingent on whether or not anyone is there to assess it.

[ydoaPs]

I have always defined 'truth' and 'reality' in synonymous ways and as being not contingent on whether or not anyone is there to assess it.

It's not a good idea to conflate the conceptual and reality. Truth is, by all definitions, conceptual-it's about propositions. It isn't meaningful to say that a rock is true.

[Fanghur]

It's not a good idea to conflate the conceptual and reality. Truth is, by all definitions, conceptual-it's about propositions. It isn't meaningful to say that a rock is true.

But it is meaningful to say that a rock is a rock, it is not NOT a rock, and it is not neither or both at the same time in the same sense. Am I right?

[PeterJ]

Let's not get into solipsism again, it is an intellectually vapid exercise of futility. And 'absolute certainty' is a great big red herring fallacy.

Shame. The study of solipsim is important for an understanding of morality, and clearly you do not know whether 'absolute certainty' is possible or impossible. .

 

Schopenhauer explains the objective ground of morality.

 

In the Foundation of Morality, Schopenhauer asks the question: How is it that a human being can so participate in the pain and danger of another that, forgetting his own self-protection, he moves spontaneously to the other’s rescue? How is it that what we think of as the first law of nature - self-protection - is suddenly dissolved and another law asserts itself spontaneously? Schopenhauer answers: this is the breakthrough of a metaphysical truth - that you and other are one, and that separateness is a secondary effect of the way our minds experience the world in the frame of time and space. At the metaphysical level, we are all manifestations of that consciousness and energy which is the consciousness and energy of life. This is Schopenhauer:

 

"The experience that dissolves the distinction between the I and the Not I … underlies the mystery of compassion, and stands, in fact, for the reality of which compassion is the prime expression. That experience, therefore, must be the metaphysical ground of ethics and consist simply in this: that one individual should recognise in another, himself in his own true being … Which is the recognition for which the basic formula is the standard Sanskrit expression, ‘Thou art that’, tat tvam asi."

 

Joseph Campbell and the Grail Myth

in At the Table of the Grail,

Ed. John Mathews

 

Aristotle explains absolute certainty when he says 'true knoweldge is identical with its object'.

 

The issues of knowledge and morality are intimately connected with the unfalsifiability of solipsism.

Edited March 4, 2013 by PeterJ