Does different knowledge justify different morality

[Kjetil]

He (a friend of mine) says:

"What I'm trying to point out is that the choices each individual makes are based on the information available and the ability to predict. When the choices of two individuals are not necessarily the same, then moralily cannot be absolute, by definition."

[Zip]

Two different opinions do not make two correct choices.

[Kjetil]

But since individuals hpossess different levels of knowledge, and it is rational to base our choices on knowledge, is it right to say that a choice which is moral for one individual is not necassarilly moral for another person in the same situation?

[Zip]

So you are saying that if I truly believe that it is moral to butcher babies and eat them, then that action is just as moral as your refusal to do so?

[whYNOT]

But since individuals hpossess different levels of knowledge, and it is rational to base our choices on knowledge, is it right to say that a choice which is moral for one individual is not necassarilly moral for another person in the same situation?

That's an excellent question I've been thinking about too.

Essentially, yes.

You can only know, what you know.

But once known - and it is our responsibility to never stop learning - the new knowledge must not be evaded.

One can have little justification in the modern Age for not knowing most existing and competing ethical concepts and principles, and selecting those that are the most rational.

The application in some unfamiliar scenario (as with slavery for instance) then becomes a 'given'.

Thus, Aristotle or the Founding Fathers can be condoned, I believe.

[Kjetil]

So you are saying that if I truly believe that it is moral to butcher babies and eat them, then that action is just as moral as your refusal to do so?

I'm not talking about belief/faith, but decisions based on the full use of your rational capacity.

For example: I wouldn't say the people who worked in the WTC were irrational when they went to work on September 11. Yes, the consequences were fatal, but they had no reason to expect such a disaster. Would it have been rational if they stayed at home because a voice in their head said "Hi, God here! Don't go to work today!"?

Edited July 8, 2011 by Kjetil

[Nigel]

I'm not talking about belief/faith, but decisions based on the full use of your rational capacity.

For example: I wouldn't say the people who worked in the WTC were irrational when they went to work on September 11. Yes, the consequences were fatal, but they had no reason to expect such a disaster. Would it have been rational if they stayed at home because a voice in their head said "Hi, God here! Don't go to work today!"?

A thought in ones head, a feeling based on faith, is not based on rational objective fact.

Also, to chime in on the first part of your question, the difference between objectivist morality and Kantian morality (or most mainstream morality) is that it is concrete and based on the individual. Kantian morality is ambiguous, and purposefully so. You are trying to apply Kantian principles. Reading Rand's ethics in comparison to someone like Kant demonstrates the difference. Rand has short clear view on ethics, while it would take excessive reading to get a clear picture of what Kant views as ethical (the specifics). Because Rand's ethics are concise and based on the needs of each individual, there is very little ambiguity. Off hand, I am having difficulty thinking of situation in which two individuals could reach different ethical conclusions.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Nigel

[2046]

He (a friend of mine) says:

"What I'm trying to point out is that the choices each individual makes are based on the information available and the ability to predict. When the choices of two individuals are not necessarily the same, then moralily cannot be absolute, by definition."

What he's saying is essentially correct, though it does not yield him the conclusion he thinks it does because he is stuck in a false dichotomy between intrinsic and subjective. Which is understandable, given the approach of traditional morality, but a rational ethics must take a different approach to values and the human good. That is, it must take into account that all knowledge is contextual, and all values are agent-relative. What does this mean?

The first is fairly easy to understand: we don't get knowledge from some lightning bolt from beyond, as Peikoff would say, or out of a vacuum, we get it out of the surroundings and particular situation of our lives. One person's knowledge will not match another person's knowledge, and decisions will (and must) vary accordingly.

The second is basically the difference between intrinsic values, and objective values. Usually, we have the option of intrinsic or subjective, and that's what your friend would have us choose between. Either it is good to do one particular thing because it is good in itself ("good" as an absolute attribute of some thing or action or choice), or else there is no absolute good, everything is just subjective. But there is a third option: the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man. In that way, what is good for man is plural (can differ from person to person, situation to situation), objective (absolute and mind-independent), and agent-relative (dependent upon its effects on you). In other words, each of the abstract, substantive goods and virtues will apply differently and contextually to each specific individual person.

An example would be (just thinking off the top of my head) let us say I am offered cocaine from a drug dealer. It would not really serve my life and well-being to be doing cocaine, so I should probably reject this. Now let us say there is a different person in a different situation. He has some kind of illness, cancer or whatever, and the only way to cure it is for him to have a treatment that involves him taking cocaine. If he wants to stay alive and cure the cancer, then he should take cocaine. There is no absolute commandment "don't do cocaine" here, it depends on the particular circumstances of each person's flouring relative to the facts of reality.

So what does it all mean? Basically, the specific application of the generalized goods and virtues is unique to each person, and thus it's up to each individual to make decisions based on the unique context of knowledge he has in the varied particular circumstances and situations oh his life. Each person must, to paraphrase Nietzsche, find their own mountain to climb. In other words, the moral purpose of your life is to develop the individual capacities and faculties unique to your life.

[ttime]

But since individuals hpossess different levels of knowledge, and it is rational to base our choices on knowledge, is it right to say that a choice which is moral for one individual is not necassarilly moral for another person in the same situation?

It's also important to remember that different people have different goals in their lives (and these could themselves all be equally moral), which is an important factor in determining how to act. Basically, the question (in very broad terms) that each person must ask themselves before making a choice is "Is this a sacrifice, or a profit?". It doesn't make sense to draw from this, as your friend did, that morality is not absolute. Morality is merely contextual, and to divorce it from context is to divorce it from reality.

[Nigel]

An example would be (just thinking off the top of my head) let us say I am offered cocaine from a drug dealer. It would not really serve my life and well-being to be doing cocaine, so I should probably reject this. Now let us say there is a different person in a different situation. He has some kind of illness, cancer or whatever, and the only way to cure it is for him to have a treatment that involves him taking cocaine. If he wants to stay alive and cure the cancer, then he should take cocaine. There is no absolute commandment "don't do cocaine" here, it depends on the particular circumstances of each person's flouring relative to the facts of reality.

This is an example of two different situations. This is not an example of two differing moral perspectives on the same situation. Taking a drug for recreation and taking a drug because you are ill are in no way similar.

The better example would be two me are confronted with the prospect of using cocaine. Both have cancer, but one does not know that he has cancer. The man who has cancer takes the cocaine for medical purposes, while the man who does not know he has cancer chooses not to take the drug. Both men act on ethical principles and both act correctly based on their knowledge. In this case, the man who is ignorant to his illness reaches a different conclusion.

The ethical principals are not variable, they are the same. Both men chose to embrace their lives using their knowledge about themselves. Both embrace the basic premises of objectivist ethics. The first man chooses to live. The second man, thinking his survival is not in question, chooses to reject cocaine to preserve the health of his mind and his productive capability. Objectivist ethics are not whimsical. Both men reach different conclusions, but the same principal guides them in reaching these conclusions. In this case, morality is absolute.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Nigel