FredAnyman

CriticalThinker2000, I have read The Objectivist Ethics and I know that Ayn Rand wrote that man does not have an automatic course of action and constantly faces the alternatives of life and death. I agree with this statement. I can even understand why Objectivists state “Life is the standard of value”. And, once one accepts the premise that “life is the standard value” then, if you choose to define morality, like DonAthos and others have done, as a guide to action for living a good life, then one can determine the morality of an action based on whether or not an action leads to achieving or not achieving living a good life. I agree with this as well. But, as I have written before, it is the starting premise, “living a good life”, that is a matter of opinion. However, if you state that “life is the standard of value” as the starting point for morality and morality is an evaluation of actions that simply keep you alive, then I will agree that morality is not a matter of opinion but based on the facts of reality related to the nature of human beings. But, based on what you have previously written, it appears that this is not you mean and that “life is the standard of value” means more than simply staying alive. If this is the case, anything other than simply staying alive becomes a matter of opinion.

CriticalThinker2000, Yes, one can choose not to have values. I believe (although I could be wrong) that Ayn Rand wrote something to that affect stating that man can choose not to have values and will therefore die. According to the Ayn Rand Lexicon (of course, this may not be the best source), “The process of observing the facts of reality and of integrating them into concepts is, in essence, a process of induction.” So it appears that if I observe the facts of reality and integrate them into concepts, and “morality” is a concept, then I should be able to get from facts to knowledge of morality. But you claim that “you can never get from facts to knowledge of morality.” What am I missing?

StrictlyLogical, Again, I agree with you. You stated, “If I want my plant to grow do I a. water it or i. soak it in gasoline and light it?” The correct action to take between the choice of “a” or “i” is clear based on the nature of the plant. Whether or not you want your plant to grow is your opinion. You stated, “If I want to become an engineer do I a. study hard and try to pass my exams or b. burn my books and flip off my professor.” Again, the correct action to take between “a” and “b” is clear based on what it takes to become an engineer. Whether or not you want to become an engineer is your opinion. If I want to flourish in this world, given the nature of reality, the whole context, and my nature, then the actions that I should do and the actions that I should avoid are independent of opinion. However, like I stated earlier, the determination of what constitutes “flourish in this world” is completely a matter of opinion, unless, of course, you define “flourish” as “do not die” or something similar.

CriticalThinker2000, In answer to your questions, the concept of morality comes from your opinions and man has values because he chooses to have values. However, what those values are a matter of opinion. You will need to explain the “is-ought dichotomy” more. Outside of things like: do not drown yourself if you want to live, what “is” does not necessarily tell you what you “ought” to do.

tadmjones, From Merriam-Webster Dictionary – Opinion: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter.

StrictlyLogical, I am not exactly sure what you mean when you state, “Once you see that there exists something you can call "morality" which is objective (albeit contextual) you will know it is not a matter of opinion but a matter of reality.” I agree that once you call something “morality” you can objectively determine morality. Take the example above from DonAthos who states that morality is a guide to action for living a good life. He has defined morality and can objectively determine the morality of X by determining if X contributes to or diminishes “living a good life”. I have no problem with this. However, both the decision to define “morality” as a guide for living a good life and the determination of what constitutes “living a good life” is completely his opinion. Hence my answer that morality is simply one’s opinion.

Jaskn, I will assume your last post was meant to ask what my contribution to the final summary is. If I am incorrect, please let me know. As for my answer to the question asked in the original post, it would be: How can we say that anything is moral or immoral? Morality is simply one’s opinion so if your opinion is that something is moral then, to you, it is moral and if it is your opinion that something is immoral then, to you, it is immoral.

So far, the answers to the question asked in the original post are: DonAthos: Morality is a guide to action for living a good life, and one can determine the morality of an action because one can find evidence that certain actions or kinds of actions lead to either achieving or not achieving living a good life. Reference: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=27428&page=4#entry325572 Harrison Danneskjold: "Morality" refers to the evaluative standard of the logical pursuit of your own happiness and this pursuit must be logical (non-contradictory) and exclude nothing relevant, if it is to succeed and since your emotional states are part of you and you are part of reality, your own happiness and prosperity (the good life) is not a matter of arbitrary interpretation; it can be studied and understood scientifically. Reference: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=27428&page=5#entry325627 425: Morality is a guide to action for living a good life, and one can determine the morality of an action because one can find evidence that certain actions or kinds of actions lead to either achieving or not achieving living a good life; and an educated guess; and go read Ayn Rand. Reference: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=27428&page=5#entry325639 CriticalThinker2000: Your essential question is, how do we prove knowledge obtained through induction (knowledge that is dependent upon an 'interpretation' of reality); and the answer is, Peikoff provides a theory of induction in The Logical Leap which you should read if you're concerned. I do not have a full grasp of it but some necessary elements include, identifying the induction using objective concepts, identifying the causal connections, and integrating your conclusion with the total sum of your knowledge. As your senses are your consciousness's connection to reality, all knowledge is ultimately based on induction and therefore no 'proof' that induction is valid is necessary. Even the concept of 'proof' means to reduce back to sensory data. Reference: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=27428&page=5#entry325710 Does anyone else wish to contribute to the summary?

CriticalThinker2000, You stated “Bro, I don't know how many ways I can say this.” I did not realize that you and I are on such familiar terms. That being the case, I will ask: Bro, what do you your answer to be for the final summary? For CriticalThinker2000, the answer to the question in the original post would be: [Please fill in the blank]

tadmjones, So your answer to the question asked in the original post is: ‘Just state it, and then defend your statement in the intellectual sense, within an O'ist frame which would mean being cognizant of the hierarchical nature of knowledge and the way O'ism defines concepts in general and certain concepts specifically e.g. true, moral, and force.’ Do you agree?

tadmjones, Your answer seems straightforward. Do you mean that I can state something is moral, such as the initiation of force, and for my statement to be true all I have to do is defend it, by using force for example?

So far, the answers to the question asked in the original post are: DonAthos: Morality is a guide to action for living a good life, and one can determine the morality of an action because one can find evidence that certain actions or kinds of actions lead to either achieving or not achieving living a good life. Reference: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=27428&page=4#entry325572 Harrison Danneskjold: "Morality" refers to the evaluative standard of the logical pursuit of your own happiness and this pursuit must be logical (non-contradictory) and exclude nothing relevant, if it is to succeed and since your emotional states are part of you and you are part of reality, your own happiness and prosperity (the good life) is not a matter of arbitrary interpretation; it can be studied and understood scientifically. Reference: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=27428&page=5#entry325627 425: Morality is a guide to action for living a good life, and one can determine the morality of an action because one can find evidence that certain actions or kinds of actions lead to either achieving or not achieving living a good life; and an educated guess; and go read Ayn Rand. Reference: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=27428&page=5#entry325639 Does anyone else wish to contribute to the summary?

425, I have enjoyed reading your posts and I find them very interesting. And I am sure that you and I could continue to discuss things for a long time to come. For example, with regard to your last post I could make many more comments and raise many more questions such as: You stated, “The main reason I raised the question of whether you had read ITOE was because you were making a few errors in your arguments that I would probably not have made after reading ITOE and Rand's other work on epistemology.” I would suggest that this statement should be reworded to read: ‘The main reason I raised the question of whether you had read ITOE was because you were making a few errors in your arguments that you would probably not have made after reading ITOE and Rand's other work on epistemology and agreeing with everything that was written in them.’ You stated, “Once a word has been assigned to a concept like "emergency," that word has an objective meaning for all those who speak the same language, and it is an improper mode of thought if one person arbitrarily assigns the word a different meaning.” I would ask: who assigned the word to the concept? Was it one person or several? Why did this person or group of people get to assign the word to the concept as opposed to some other person or group of people? How many people need to assign a word to a concept before it becomes a non-arbitrary assignment? However, none of this gets us any closer to a clear answer to the question from the original post than we are already. So I will ask what, if anything, you would like as your answer to be to the question in the original post? For 425, the answer would look like: [Please fill in the blank]

DonAthos, I understand that the question I asked in the original post could be viewed in different ways and in the future I will try to make my questions more clear. And, I never thought that you were not providing your own arguments and conclusions. I have very much enjoyed reading your answers and I appreciate your willingness to discuss. Thank you.

Jaskn, If not the answer provided in the post you wrote, how would you like your answer to read. I will put anything in there you want, For Jaskn, the answer would look like: [Please fill in the blank]

DonAthos, At this point in our discussion, I am trying to get the answer to the question in the original post, which you have provided. At some point, I will attempt to put everyone’s answers together in a final post. For you, the answer would look like: Morality is a guide to action for living a good life, and one can determine the morality of an action because one can find evidence that certain actions or kinds of actions lead to either achieving or not achieving living a good life. Reference: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=27428&page=4#entry325572 For Harrison Danneskjold, the answer would look like: The same way we say anything else; an educated guess. Reference: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=27428#entry325261 For Jaskn, the answer would look like: Go read Ayn Rand. Reference: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=27428&page=3#entry325390 I will work on the others and make requested revisions as I go along. You stated, “At the same time, I honestly don't find your questions and discussion in this thread to reflect an understanding (or sometimes even awareness) of Rand's specific arguments. It almost seems to me as though you've perhaps read some summary of some of her conclusions, but not thoughtfully examined her arguments and reasoning for yourself.” To be clear, I never asked you or anyone else for Rand’s arguments. If I wanted Rand’s arguments and conclusions I would have asked: ‘What does Rand argue and conclude about how one can say something is moral or immoral?’ I wanted your answer; you arguments and conclusions.

Spiral Architect, You start with the statement that the moral is what furthers your life and the immoral is what hinders your life. If this is your answer to the question asked in the original post then I would agree with you that the question has been answered. All that we need to do in order to say X is moral or immoral is to determine if X furthers your life or hinders your life. However, I will point out we need to answer the question of what ‘furthers’ and ‘hinders’ mean if we are going to determine if something is moral or immoral. If I say ‘furthers’ means “A” and you say ‘furthers’ means “B”, then you and I can each determine if X is moral or immoral but we will have different conclusions and we are right back where we started.

425, Yes, I have read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. As I stated to DonAthos, I have read Ayn Rand but I still have questions and since I cannot ask Ms. Rand I ask other people. If you think that I do not have a strong grasp of Objectivist epistemology and that I need read and re-read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology then so be it. However, I am curious about your statement, “And I think most of your problems in this conversation are in dealing with topics that are epistemological, not ethical.” Can you elaborate on what ‘problems’ I have in this conversation so that I may grasp them?

CriticalThinker2000, Can you please further explain how “Your critique of moral knowledge applies to all knowledge”? As for Galileo, I agree with you that he didn’t just suddenly come to understand the basic laws of physics after dropping objects. Galileo’s discoveries, along with Newton’s, and Einstein’s and everyone else’s, was based on much simpler discoveries, each of which was perceived and interpreted, tested, revised, and retested and found to be correct despite anyone’s contradictory perception, interpretation, thoughts or theories, by many others who then made more discoveries over the years. I agree with you that, “…experimentation is not the only way to figure out causal relationships.” I contend, however, that experimentation is the only way to determine if the causal relationships are the result of something, like the laws of physics, that exist separate from and independent of human thoughts, hopes, wishes, or dreams, or if the relationships are the result of something that people think, or hope or wish or dream, should exist. You stated, “We can observe thousands of instances of people stealing- does it appear to be a tactic for success and happiness?” You made this statement in what appears to be an attempt to show that experimentation is not the only way to figure out causal relationships. I agree with the statement portion of your quote that we can observe thousands of instances of people stealing. However, the answer portion of your quote does not and cannot allow us to determine morality. What is “success”? What is “happiness”? Is success and happiness the same for you and me and anyone else as are the effects of gravity? Is success and happiness the same for me in the year 2014 as it was for someone living in the year 1514, or living in the year 414? You answered your question with, “No. Rand identified the cause: you're contradicting your own capacity to value. You did not demonstrate scenarios where theft was moral. You described scenarios where you left out any downside and did not address the fact that you're contradicting the nature of human beings and the way we create values.” But this does not demonstrate that you are correct. All I need to do is provide my own interpretation of the nature of human beings and how human beings create values and your answer no longer answers the question. I will simply rewrite your statement as: ‘Yes. FredAnyman identified the cause: you’re not contradicting your own capacity to value. You did not demonstrate scenarios where theft was immoral. You described scenarios where you left out any upside and did not address the fact that you're not contradicting the nature of human beings and the way we create values’. So it appears that we are no closer to answering the question. I can define happiness and success anyway that I want, and so can you or anyone else. Unlike the laws of gravity, we cannot experiment or conduct tests to determine if there is a definition of happiness and success that is separate from and independent of human thoughts, hopes, wishes, or dreams, so whichever definition you choose to advocate is simply the definition you choose to advocate for whatever reasons you choose.

DonAthos, It appears that you continue to insist that we can come to an answer to the question asked in the original post by changing the premise of the question. You stated, “If the goal is to live a good life, and morality is a guide to action to doing so…” I agree with what you are doing in so far as it allows one to determine if something is moral or not. We can do this with anything. For example: I can say, ‘If the goal is to accumulate widgets, and morality is a guide to action to doing so, then I can find evidence of certain actions or kinds of actions leading to desirable outcomes (i.e. accumulating widgets) or actions or kinds of action leading to undesirable outcomes.’ I can say, ‘If the goal is to enslave people that meet a certain criteria, and morality is a guide to action to doing so, then I can find evidence of certain actions or kinds of actions leading to desirable outcomes (i.e. enslaving people) or actions or kinds of action leading to undesirable outcomes.’ Both of my statements, and your statement using ‘live a good life’, give us a means of determining morality. But by doing this, all we have done is to kick the can down the road so that we now have to answer the question of how we know that the ‘goal’ we are pursuing is the correct goal or not. While I initially thought that these question were related, this may be, as you and others suggest, a different question and I should just accept the answers that I have been given as the final answer to question asked in the original post. In that vein, I will attempt restate and summarize your answer to the question in the original post as: ‘Morality is a guide to action for achieving a certain goal, and one can determine the morality of an action because one can find evidence that certain actions or kinds of actions lead to either achieving or not achieving the goal.’ Do you agree? You asked if I have read Ayn Rand’s original writings. I have read Ayn Rand but I still have questions and since I cannot ask Ms. Rand I ask other people. I do find it interesting that there are those who seem to think that if I would only read Ayn Rand’s work, I would somehow understand everything and I would not have any questions to ask. Have you experienced anything similar?

CriticalThinker2000, I do not think that my premise is nonsensical. You seem to be under the impression that when I state that that morality is just an interpretation of what one perceives and that one then uses to form an opinion about whether something is moral or immoral that I am somehow applying this statement to all other areas of knowledge or stating that one cannot obtain knowledge of reality. This is not the case. We can say that the law of gravity is true because we can test it against reality. I will restate the example I used earlier. If I believe that when two objects of different weight are dropped from the same height at the same time, that, once eliminating wind resistance, the heavier object will hit the ground first and you believe that they will hit the ground at the same time, we (and anyone) can perform the experiment of dropping objects of different weight from the same height at the same time while eliminating wind resistance, observe the results and form a conclusion that one position is correct is and the other is incorrect. I could, of course, still claim that my belief is correct in spite of the evidence, but it would be difficult or perhaps impossible to rationally argue about my belief. The point here is that we can test and the results of the test are going to be the same regardless of how I feel about it, or what I think about it, or what I wish it would be. It will also be the same regardless of how you or anyone feels about it. Now consider morality. You stated, “Stealing is wrong in principle…” How do we test this? You may say that we test it against reality. But how can we do this? Is there a law of morality, similar to the law of gravity, which states that stealing is wrong? Can we test this law? There is nothing to test against when it comes to morality. Any test that we devise for determining whether stealing is moral or immoral would provide different results depending on how you or I feel about it, or what you and I think about it, or what you and I wish it would be. Case in point: I already demonstrated that I can come up with scenarios where theft would be moral, and you demonstrated that you can come up with scenarios where theft would be immoral. So all we are left with is trying to convince each other that the other is in error. Again, this does not apply to everything. There are many examples of how we can know things are true. I do not understand how we can know that morality is true.

DonAthos, You stated, “But you do not seem to think that this process is a satisfactory solution. May I ask why not? Do you also dislike it for resolving conflicts in science, history, medicine, and every other area of human knowledge? Or do you only think it faulty for questions of morality? And if that's the case, why?” My answer is similar to my last post to CriticalThinker2000. When it comes to subjects like science, history, medicine, etc., I agree that different people can come to different conclusions. To continue your global warming example: If I say that the actions of human beings change the climate by appealing to the evidence I have and logic and so forth, and if you say that the actions of human beings do not change the climate by appealing to the evidence you have and logic and so forth, then we can attempt to settle this difference by performing experiments to test our respective evidence. If the experiments are designed and performed in such a way that you or me or anyone else who performed the exact same experiments gets the same conclusion, we can use the results of the experiments to conclude that one position is correct and the other is incorrect (I am grossly simplifying the process for brevity and I recognize that the process does not always work smoothly and there are many areas of debate and disagreement that can arise throughout the entire process, etc.). For a simpler example: If I believe that when two objects of different weight are dropped from the same height at the same time, that, once eliminating wind resistance, the heavier object will hit the ground first and you believe that they will hit the ground at the same time, we (and anyone) can perform the experiment of dropping objects of different weight from the same height at the same time while eliminating wind resistance, observe the results and form a conclusion that one position is correct is and the other is incorrect. I could, of course, still claim that my belief is correct in spite of the evidence, but it would be difficult or perhaps impossible to rationally argue about my belief. Now let’s consider a moral question (I will use the theft example). If you say that theft is immoral by appealing to the evidence you have and logic and so forth and I say that theft is moral by appealing to the evidence I have and logic and so forth, how do we test our evidence to see which one of us is correct? If there was some standard that we could use for comparison or someway to design and perform experiments in such a way that you or me or anyone else who performed the exact same experiments gets the same conclusion? You stated in an earlier post that morality is a guide to action for the purpose of living a good life. Is “living a good life” something like the laws of gravity that we can test? You seem to indicate that we can. I contend that your definition of “living a good life” and the morals that you decide upon to guide your actions for the purpose of “living a good life” are nothing but your opinions based on what you perceive, and my definition of “living a good life” and the morals that I decide upon to guide my actions for the purpose of “living a good life” are nothing but my opinions based on what I perceive. Barring some standard that we can use to test against or something like that, “living a good life” is just an interpretation of what one perceives and that one then uses to form an opinion about whether something is moral or immoral. We can discuss/debate the issue and I can try to convince you that my interpretations and opinions are somehow better than your interpretations and opinions and you try to convince me that your interpretations and opinions are somehow better than my interpretations and opinions but, at the end of the day, whether we agree or not, we are just left with our interpretations and opinions.

StrictlyLogical, The original post asks the question, ‘How can we say that anything is moral or immoral?’ I do not know the answer to this question. It would not be possible for me to accept that morality is objective, or question whether objective reality exists at all, because I do not know how we can say something is moral or immoral. If you answer the question with something like ‘Morality is objective (objective morality exists) and once you discover what the objective morality of something is then you can say that something is moral or immoral’, then I may question whether objective morality exists or I may not or I may accept that morality is objective or may not. As for you question of what do I believe is the standard of morality; if I knew, or believed, that there was a standard of morality and I knew what that standard of morality was, I would not have to ask the question in the original post. Since I do not know if there is a standard of morality, I cannot answer the other question in you post.

Harrison Danneskjold, In your post talking about slavery you asked, “If everyone else on the planet would objectively benefit from enslaving you, would you accept it as moral?” I would answer, ‘no it is immoral’. But this takes us back to the question in the original post. If you, or everyone else on the planet, say something is moral and I say the same thing is immoral, how can we say something is moral or immoral? Since, as you say, the most important person is always me, then if I say X is immoral and you say X is moral, then X is immoral because the most important person is always me. But to you, I am not the most important person, you are always the most important person. So, if I say the X is immoral and you say that X is moral, then X is moral because you are always the most important person. So we are back to asking ‘How can we say something is moral or immoral?”. You also stated: “I think that your primary moral concern, before any material or financial situation whatsoever, should be the health and well-being of your own mind. And while theft and slavery may be financially profitable (although usually not), I think that they are mentally destructive- to the perpetrators.” But this does not help me understand the answer to the question in the original post that I think you are trying to provide. Similar to my post to CriticalThinker2000, the answer you provide is your interpretations of what you perceive and your opinions based on those interpretations. I, and anyone else, can do the same thing. We can discuss/debate and try to convince each other that the other is in error or that one set of interpretations and opinions are somehow better than the other, but at the end of the day, whether we agree or not, we are just left with our interpretations and opinions. Is this how we say that something is moral or immoral?

CriticalThinker2000, I am using the example of theft because you used the example of theft in an attempt to explain your position. You stated: “The determinant of who is right is reality – the facts – the way things are” and you stated: “I explained the following chain of reasoning to you: there exist facts by which we can judge whether an action is moral or not. You wanted to know what these facts were, I stated that they pertain to the nature of man's consciousness and means of survival.” It appears that you think the “chain of reasoning” you provided would answer my question from the original post. But I still do not understand hence the continued use of the example of theft in order to gain a better understanding. However, if you believe that the answer to the question from the original post of “How can we say that anything is moral or immoral?” is: ‘There exist facts that pertain to the nature of man's consciousness and means of survival, by which we can judge whether an action is moral or not’, and you do not want to continue the discussion then, while I do not understand your answer, we will leave it at that. However, if you want to continue the discussion (and since you continued with your theft example, I will assume that you do) then I will explain, using the theft example as a reference, why I do not understand your answer. With regard to theft you state: “Yes, you get the money in your hand this instance but there are many negative consequences of your actions. Here are a few off the top of my head: you've undercut your self-esteem by implicity [sic] accepting the premise that you can't take care of your own life, you've denied yourself the chance of feeling the pride that comes along with earning something, you've provided all of the people in your life with a reason to not trust you, your business career will be destroyed, it's going to be difficult to find a job etc. Stealing is simply not a method for success any more than lying is a good tactic for dealing with your spouse.” Going by your posts, I assume that you have attempted to provide “facts by which we can judge whether an action is moral or not”. And that based on these “facts” (while there may be others that you did not list) you have come to the conclusion that theft is immoral. But I disagree; not with your logic, which appears sound, but with your premise. The “facts” you provided are not facts but rather your interpretations of what you perceive and subsequent opinions you formed based on those interpretations. To illustrate (with the theft example): I am an agent of the government charged with collecting taxes. I take money away from you, by force if necessary, i.e. I steal for you. I have not undercut my self-esteem by implicitly accepting the premise that I can’t take care of my own life. On the contrary, my self-esteem is boosted because the more successful I am at stealing from you, the more successful I am at taking care of my own life (earning a living, providing for me and my family, etc.). I have not denied myself the chance of feeling the pride that comes along with earning something. On the contrary, the more successful I am at stealing from you, the longer I get to keep my job, the more increases in salary or bonuses I receive, the more opportunities for advancement I earn, etc, and the more pride I feel. I have not provided all of the people in my life with a reason to not trust me. On the contrary, the more successful I am at stealing from you, the more the people in my life can trust me to provide for them. My business career will not be destroyed and it is not going to be difficult to find a job. On the contrary, the more successful I am at stealing from you, as mention before, the more successful my career. Stealing from you has no negative consequences and is a method for success. Given my perception of these “facts” I have come to the conclusion that stealing, at least in some cases, is not immoral. Of course, I could just as easily come up with some other interpretations and subsequent opinions based on the same information. So I hope you can understand why I am having trouble grasping your answer to the question from the original post. If it was a fact that the human heart stops beating resulting in death after a human commits an act of theft, it would be difficult or perhaps impossible to rationally argue that theft is a good course of action because, regardless of the perception of the fact, death is the result. But barring something like that, everything else is just an interpretation of what one perceives that one then uses to form an opinion about whether something is moral or immoral. Your opinion can be that theft is immoral based on your interpretation of what you perceive, and my opinion can be the theft is moral based on my interpretation of what I perceive. We can each then form the complete opposite opinion based on a different interpretation of what we perceive. We can discuss/debate the issue and I can try to convince you that my interpretations and opinions are somehow better than your interpretations and opinions and you try to convince me that your interpretations and opinions are somehow better than my interpretations and opinions but I do not think that we are any closer to answering the question of ‘How can we say that anything is moral or immoral?’.