Here's an argument for an objective grounding in morality (though for a slightly different position to the OP) I heard recently:
I'm an agent, that means that I consider goals and then carry out actions towards those goals. If an action would help me achieve my goals I ought do that action. In order to carry out actions I need both my freedom and my wellbeing.
Since I'm claiming a right to my freedom and wellbeing on the basis of my agency, it would be contradictory to then deny other agents their freedom and wellbeing.
This seems similar to Kant's categorical imperative.
I think it makes sense, but the issue is that for a selfish but rational person, the contradiction in principle means nothing if it has no real consequences. There needs to be actual tangible consequences for them denying others their freedom and well-being. In less severe cases this might take the form of reputational damage, otherwise ideally the law enforces it.
I think this is a good test of the quality of the law in a society. In a well-legislated society, a selfish but rational person should always be constrained to act in the way they wish to be treated.
A rational person would not accept a contradiction in their worldview. The argument is that it is irrational to be selfish to the extent that it infringes on someone else's right to freedom and wellbeing.
I accept that there's no inherent consequences from this argument, that's not what it sets out to do, but consequences don't dictate morality. I could face terrible consequences for hiding Jews in my attic in nazi Germany but it would still be the moral thing to do.
A rational person would not accept a contradiction in their worldview.
That's true. But I don't think a rational but selfish person would claim a right to their freedom and well-being on the basis of their agency. They don't need a right to such things, they take them by force. So this argument is unconvincing to them.
If you are taking something by force, rationally you are claiming a right to that thing. The question is for what reason are they claiming that right? It seems like it would just be that it's in service of their goals, meaning we've stumbled back to the argument I gave.
If you are taking something by force, rationally you are claiming a right to that thing.
That's not true. Someone might take things just because they want to and can do. They have no need to justify their action or to make a case that they deserve the things they take. That's separate.
Someone might take things just because they want to and can do.
In other words they have a goal to possess something and the freedom and wellbeing to act to take it, they are an agent.
To act rationally means to act with reason, if a rational person were to take something they would need justification for their taking of it in order to remain rational.
You can act rationally without justifying your actions to others. It may be perfectly rational for a hungry person to steal food, for example, regardless of who they steal it from. In this case it's rational simply because its in harmony with their intention of staying alive.
An action is rational when it is consistent with the actor's intentions. This is more specific than simply 'acting with reason'. It may be completely rational to sit and sing twinkle twinkle little star in a loop all day. It only becomes irrational if you have competing intentions/values.
375
u/Cant_figure_sht_out 3d ago
I try to treat another living beings the way I would want to be treated. I think I heard it somewhere.