I have had many arguments about moral objectivity on this and other threads. I will join in, if you don't mind, by summarizing some points:
Aristotle identifies the aim of human life broadly as happiness, or eudaimonia, which more accurately means "well- being". Although it may be objected that happiness varies for individuals, there are common traits among men, chief among them the need to fulfill their nature in society, which provide a general basis for discussing the human character and behavior normatively, much as we employ the concept of health with respect to the body. As regards character, it is better to be brave than cowardly, moderate than intemperate, generous rather than miserly, and the like. As regards justice, we seek to give each his due, using elementary notions of fairness, that is, taking into account social roles, private contract, proportionality, and other matters through which we can identifying "due", and satisfy most with their lot.
Kant looks at morality primarily through the lens of duty, since it is especially when we consider ourselves under obligation that we see ourselves as conforming to the moral order. He considers the source of conformity to be reverence for the law, that is, the motivation of rational beings to impose order on their behavior. We come up with moral laws by regarding various possible admonitions from the standpoint of universality. That behavior which makes the most sense when framed as universal laws, and which we can therefore respect as rational beings, constitutes the moral order. The Categorical Imperative, the foundation of the moral order, is "never treat another rational being merely as a means, but also as an end", that is, do not merely exploit others to one's purposes, but respect their autonomy. This is, of course, a version of the Golden Rule.
Nietzsche identifies the will to power as the primary motivation of human striving, and, later, of a vitalist conception of the universe itself. Making the distinction between the morality of the patrician class, and the morality of the servile class, he considers that the former embodies the healthy instincts of the strong and creative, and helps to support them, while the latter codifies weakness and decadence. Now, he appreciates that there is some good in the "slave morality", insofar as it turns the will to power on the individual, and leads to a greater self- discipline and ascetic sublimation. However, he promotes the classical notion of virtue as being superior to Christian morality, which he considers to underlie democracy and socialism, and to be especially decadent once untethered from its ascetic side. He prefers the concepts "base and noble" to the concepts "good and evil", for example.
Laying aside the precise construct that Nietzsche articulates, there is something to the idea that the instinct to compete or distinguish oneself is the motor driving morality. First, we seek to distinguish ourselves from the other animals, and thus dignify humanity as such. Then we seek to promote achievement within society, by rewarding those who make contributions, to a greater or lesser degree, and punishing or despising those who are useless or destructive. This push to achieve leads to greater levels of civilization, as we raise the general level of the populace and refine our manners, build nobler domiciles and learn to eat with knives and forks, write poems celebrating great deeds and develop customs to honor the dead, and, in general, pursue the ennoblement of human life.
These are the three main approaches that I see to the question of rational morality. They are not incompatible, either. Aristotle identifies our stake in society, Kant identifies the primary implication of being set apart by our rationality, but Nietzsche contributes a naturalistic understanding of what drives us as rational and social beings........ |
