Which Is It--normative, Contractual Or Relative?

[nimble]

My friend writes for academic magazines as a summer job and he was tasked to write an essay about normative ethics, so he came to me to discuss some ideas and it lead into a larger debate about ethics in general. Basically he has a problem with normative ethics because there is no natural law (like gravity) that imposes them on you, like with the case of gravity you literally cannot break the law, physics always wins. But with something like a moral law, there is no such physical evidence to support that it exists. So how are ethics normative?

When we moved to the second scenario that ethics are created and are somewhat mutually a contractual thing among humans, he asked how would you pick a standard to create the ethics by and by picking a standard aren't you somewhat implying that the standard is somehow normative and must be a standard? How can you do that?

Then there is a theory of relative morals, where it is basically 'do what you want and its right.' In that case there are rights and wrongs but not a cohesive one, and basically we agreed that it was a crap concept.

Lastly, we thought that maybe morals simply don't exist but for some reason we create them anyway, just to suit our aggregated wants (safety in society, etc) and that there is no reason why you ought follow them, just that we do in general. We didn't like this one, but we didn't rule it out.

After that we talked more about objectively created ethics and he said that even if you choose a standard of life to base the ethics on, why ought you value your life? And then I rephrased the question and asked if he was asking 'why ought i live?' and he said that was a fine way to rephrase it. Then I said I am not sure of the meaning of life yet, if you find that out let me know. And that's where we left off.

If anyone has any thing they could add to help clear up our dilemma, I would be glad to hear it.

[DavidOdden]

But with something like a moral law, there is no such physical evidence to support that it exists. So how are ethics normative?

I think this confuses the issue. Part of the problem is failing to distinguish between ethics and metaethics. Before you can arive at a normative metaethics, you have to have a metaethical foundation, i.e. you have to care, and you have to have a reason to care. Tara Smith's Viable Values does that, but she does not argue that you should not steal or kill. (I'm waiting for the new book to arrive, to see if that's contained in her latest). You cannot have standards to regulate right and wrong unless you have a framework of evaluation (such as life, god, or death; and you have to have arrived at the conclusion that there is right and wrong).

When we moved to the second scenario that ethics are created and are somewhat mutually a contractual thing among humans, he asked how would you pick a standard to create the ethics by and by picking a standard aren't you somewhat implying that the standard is somehow normative and must be a standard?

Smith has a section on the contractarian view, and all of the other bad-guy views.

And then I rephrased the question and asked if he was asking 'why ought i live?' and he said that was a fine way to rephrase it.

Smith has a section on that. I'd say, get the book, but it's obvious that that what you should do. Galt's speech is instructive in this respect: "My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these." Smith develops this point nicely, showing that it makes no sense to "reason" to this principle, since doing so would presuppose some other principle as fundamental -- e.g. the dictate of god.

[JMeganSnow]

Geez what a mess.

1. Ethics are not primarily about in how you should deal with other people; dealing with other people is an application of ethics. All ethics start with yourself. They are not a contract you make with anyone else, they are what is required for you to live.

2. The question isn't "why ought I to live?" but "do I choose to live?" Life is the standard of value because the concept "value" is meaningless without life. If you choose not to live, values and ethics are of no meaning to you. Poof. You don't exist any more. End of discussion. If you do choose to live, however, you will discover that your life requires certain things to support it (because A is A): these are your values, and they become the backbone of your ethics; they tell you what virtues you must exercise in order to obtain those values: what actions are right and which are wrong.

3. "Other people" get piggybacked onto your personal ethics; basically applying your principles to everyone. If you require food to live, so must other people: if it's right that you should produce food and keep it to support yourself, it is right that other people should do the same. If it is right that you should seek to live in the best manner open to you, it is right that others should do the same. If it is right that you should choose to live and the manner in which you do so, it is right that others should do the same.

[nimble]

Thanks for the replies.